MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 9/7/02 2:30 AM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> jbor:
>> So it's pretty likely that the "Even as Clearings ... " speech is from one
>> of these "more and more" who have interrupted George and Chas's
>> "Tranquillity", as you do note. If this is the case, then it isn't GW, and
>> it isn't Mason. I don't think it can be Wicks, as the speaker uses the
>> pronouns "we" and "them" to include himself amongst the Americans who are
>> being "driven" by the British. So, having narrowed it down in this way,
>> let's call this speaker "anonymous colonial revolutionary no. 1", shall we.
> 
> 
> OK.  It's good to see you backing away from an argument you seemed to be
> offering the other day

No, this is exactly the same contention I've been making for the past week.

http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0207&msg=67880&sort=date

> as final and definitive, re who among the crowd of
> people coming into this room speaks these lines of indeterminate
> attribution.
> 
> jbor:
>> And, just what is it that does disrupt Washington's and Mason's
>> "Tranquillity"? Is it only the conversation of these other gents, or, as is
>> far more likely in my opinion, is it the use of the racist term "Nigger",
>> and George's swift and stern rebuke which follows?
> 
> 
> Obviously the racist term is part of the disturbance, but it's far from
> obvious that Washington delivers the rebuke that your argument so
> desperately needs to support the characterization you're trying to create.
> The fact that somebody , anybody, objects to the racist term is also enough
> to let Pynchon highlight the fact that not everybody liked the way that
> some whites talked about African-Americans, his exposure of the gap between
> what the Founding Fathers' claimed and what they accomplished stands. But,
> if Washington isn't the speaker of the "Civility, Sir!" line as you -- but
> not Pynchon -- insist, then where is your textual evidence to support the
> absurd contention that W's not racist, that he considers slaves his equals?
 
Chapter 28, of course, where Gershom is shown to hold equal rank with both
George and Martha in the Washington household, where the jokes and
conversations between them demonstrate mutual affection, respect and
loyalty, and where George refers to himself as Gershom's "nominal Master"
only. The evidence is abundant that Pynchon's George treats Gershom as an
equal. There are no other interactions between GW and slaves in the novel on
which to base *your* argument that Pynchon's GW *doesn't* treat or consider
Africans as his equals.

GW's attitude towards Gershom bears no resemblance to the way the older
Vrooms treat Austra (even though the three Vroom sisters are shown to treat
Austra as an sister in that early scene on pp. 90-93, and the way Austra is
treated at Lord Lepton's, at 427.31, for example, is different again). In
fact, George is deliberately portrayed as having allowed and allowing
Gershom total liberty to go wherever he likes, and to do and say whatever he
pleases.

It's Ch. 28 which characterises GW, and which makes attribution of the line
at 572.26 quite straightforward, in my opinion.

> It's your interpretation that falls apart, not Pynchon's text.
>
> jbor:
>> Well, no, this is inaccurate. Pynchon's text does indicate that Gershom is
>> present.
>> 
>> Others, having caught Gershom's act before, recognize him right away.
>> (573.4)
> 
> 
> Not definitively, however.  Pynchon also calls this person "the invisible
> Youth" (573).  

No, this is inaccurate. The phrase here obviously refers to "Baby-Phiz Nathe
McClean", who Mason has identified (573.15) half-way through the joke, which
Nathe then "continues" (573.17).

Those who've "caught Gershom's act before" (573.4) know he's there. Those
who haven't, don't.

> As one unidentified speaker says, there may be "even more 'n
> one" "real Negroe" in here (573). After calling the speaker "the invisible
> Youth", and apparently in response to one of the invisible Youth's  jokes,
> Mason appears to recognize the voice, saying "Baby-Phiz Nathe McClean, or
> I'm a Sailor" and again on p 574 "Nathe once more is subsum'd into Nicotick
> Vapors opaque as Futurity."   Pynchon appears to have undercut any
> certainty that Gershom is in the smoke-filled room, but it does seem
> certain that Nathe is there -- or is it? Murky stuff.
> 
> 
>> And one of these other patrons actually calls out to Gersh at 573.6.
> 
> 
> And Pynchon leaves open the possibility that this patron might be mistaken,
> in atmospheric conditions so hazy that even proud white Virginians might be
> taken for African-Americans (" 'twould seem, so are we all" 572).

Are you now arguing that Gershom *doesn't* speak this line at 572.28?! It
seems to me that you have to rewrite and distort Pynchon's text to make your
case fit. In fact, it's your argument which falls apart unless, against
substantial circumstantial and textual evidence to the contrary, you are
able to insist that George *doesn't* speak the line at 572.26, and that
Gershom *doesn't* speak the line at 572.28. Further, your case relies on
ignoring or discounting Gershom's point of view altogether, which is why you
don't want to accept that he is present in Raleigh's Billiard-Room, as is
indicated in the text (573.4). If nothing else, one consistent thread
through all of Pynchon's texts is that Africans and African-Americans have a
voice, and opinions and attitudes of their own. You seem constantly to want
to deny the validity of these characters' insights, to deny them the right
to this voice.

> he can afford to let Gershom fool around and mock power relationships, as
> long, it seems, as he sticks to the king-fool jokes and doesn't tackle
> more sharply defined master-slave subject matter

The King-Fool jokes Gershom tells do correlate with slave-master jokes.
Gershom makes this point very clear in Ch. 28. He says:

    "Actually they're Slave-and-Master Joaks, retailor'd for these
    Audiences." (284.24)

Pynchon's text makes the correlation clear, Gershom makes the correlation
clear and, as he says this out aloud, the other characters in the scene (GW,
Martha, M, & D) are likewise made aware of the correlation.

One of the very first things George says in the text (276.15) is that "[u]p
in Pennsylvania they tell me I talk like an African", and he elaborates on
the sort of stereotyping the Northerners resort to in order to belittle
Southerners such as himself. Note that he doesn't use the word "Nigger", nor
even the word "slave". But the greater irony here is that it's actually the
Pennsylvanians whose racist attitudes are betrayed by the gratuitous insult.
What George then shows the boys ("Come. Observe ... ") is the "excellent
Punch" which is the "invention" of his "Man Gershom", and the scene which
ensues further demonstrates that far from "insensibly sliding into their
speech, and so, it is implied, into their Ways as well", as the
sanctimonious Pennsylvanians mock, there is in fact a healthy and
untrammeled process of cross-cultural enrichment going on here at Mt Vernon,
and that the "speech" and "Ways" (i.e. culture) of different ethnic groups
are not such narrowly-defined fixtures at all.

In Ch. 28 *both* George and Gershom parody the stereotypical slave-master
relationship and style of discourse (278.19-22, 279.15-17) which the
Pennsylvanians so self-righteously and disdainfully attribute to Virginians
and Africans. Again, it is equal, and deliberately contrived to be so by
Pynchon.

I can understand that these positive elements in the portrayal of GW in
_M&D_ might have come as a shock to some, but it's actually very consistent
with both the historical record and with the stance Pynchon takes on
black-white relations throughout his work.

best