re Re: MDDM Washington & Gershom

[Doug Millison]

jbor:
>No, "nominal Master" means that George perceives that he has no actual
>control over what Gershom thinks, says, eats, smokes or does, or over where
>he goes. Which is what Pynchon's novel illustrates.

Rob,

That's your opinion, and a very fine opinion it is.

The novel  shows Washington commanding  Gershom to cook for them, serve
punch, step 'n' fetch the pipe and herb -- Washington exhibits the ability
to control quite a few things that Gershom does.  Washington does it
politely of course, but G moves quickly enough to obey, illustrating the
remarkable level of control that Washington exercises over his slave,
certainly more than I enjoy with a 15-year-old son who routinely ignores
such requests despite being asked very politely.

The novel doesn't say anything about Washington considering Gershom an
equal, although Washington does tell us that he is  Gershom's "master" and
that Gershom is his "tithable"; I believe we can reasonably conclude from
his use of this technical term that Washington perceives the legal and
fiduciary rights and responsibilities that slave ownership entails. M&D
doesn't spell out the extent of Gershom's "liberties" either,  showing only
the narrowest slice of G's life, making it difficult to say with any
certainty what Gershom is or isn't allowed to do. In fact,  the novel
doesn't use the word "liberty" with regard to Gershom at all, that's a term
that you've introduced in your leap to another conclusion about Washington
and Gershom.

None of this is terribly important, of course.  But, for somebody who
insists that others stick only to what's in the text, it's interesting to
observe the way you routinely base your opinions on extratextual elements;
applying one rule for others and a different rule for yourself could be
said to illustrate hypocrisy in action.

Flame-free,
Doug