MDDM Washington & Gershom

[Doug Millison]

jbor:
> I'd say it's reasonable to conclude from
>this that George doesn't expect Gersh to "obey".


Only if you ignore the  instances in the novel where Washington makes
requests that Gershom promptly obeys. Everything you point to in the text
can also be explained without adding what the text doesn't show (that
Washington grants Gershom "total liberty", I think that's the term you
used, or was it "perfect liberty"?):  Gershom is such a well-trained
servant that he knows his master's will without always being told what to
do, so trustworthy that he is permitted to travel about on his own, master
and slave exhibit a polite and friendly attitude between that makes this
inherently unequal relationship more palatable for both. It  doesn't
require the assumption -- unsupported by the text -- that Washington
considers Gershom an equal, or that they ignore the basic legal and
financial realities of the master-slave relationship that Washington
clearly acknowledges with his use of "tithables" to describe his slaves.  I
expect that Pynchon has done his homework here, starting with the knowledge
that Washngton was concerned about his slaves' welfare, perhaps Pynchon
researched any number of historical instances of masters putting particular
trust in slaves, or letting them handle complex tasks, or develop a
particular talent for singing, dancing, or other entertainment speciality.
Gershom may be the perfect slave and Washington may be an extraordinarily
generous master, but master and slave they remain, unequal due to the
nature of that relationship.


>The sort of humorous and
>self-effacing response from George, and the way he addresses Gershom by a
>diminutive of his given name, after Gershom interjects with a wry remark
>about the French ("Thankee, Gersh" 282.31), for me exemplifies the
>relationship between the two men, which I find to be one of mutual affection
>and loyalty.


Affection and loyalty don't require or necessarily imply equality.  You can
find see the same sort of thing in many kinds of unequal relationships --
between pets and their owners,  among employers and employees:  lots of
joking, nicknames, casual behavior, even intimacies on the job, but nobody
thinks that the employee is equal to the boss in the office hierarchy.  You
don't need to assume "equality" to explain the behavior that Pynchon
describes Washington and Gershom engaging in.


>If you're not trying to start up a flame war


A bit of friendly back and forth, probing to see where the arguments are
weak or strong on either side, surely that's what we're here for on
Pynchon-L?  I do find it strange that you make assumptions and leap to
conclusions based on things not specifically in the text, then challenge
others when they do the same -- but perhaps hypocrisy is too strong a word
for that; if the word offends, I withdraw it.  I'm making an effort to keep
the tone civil and moderate, and I assume you will do the same.