MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 10/7/02 5:03 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Only if you ignore the  instances in the novel where Washington makes
> requests that Gershom promptly obeys.

Er, that would be *one* instance. Gershom doesn't "obey", promptly or
otherwise, on any number of occasions, as I detailed in an earlier post.

I don't think there's any textual evidence to validate the contention that
Gershom's "such a well-trained servant that he knows his master's will
without always being told what to do". This is a prime example of "adding
what the text doesn't show", which certainly seems to be your preferred
modus operandi. And it's quite different from inferring the (relatively
obvious) "he said" from a piece of dialogue.

> the master-slave relationship that Washington
> clearly acknowledges with his use of "tithables" to describe his slaves

The word "tithable" is not a synonym for "slave". It refers to something (or
someone) for which the holder is required to pay a tithe, or tax.

I'd say that the fact that Gershom earns a private income and comes and goes
from Mt Vernon as he pleases flouts "the basic legal and financial realities
of the master-slave relationship". It's very surprising to me to see you
trying to claim otherwise. It's also very evident that George actually
accepts and permits these and a range of other liberties on Gershom's part.

Similarly, the nexus you make between employer & employee and slave & master
is exactly the point Capt. Zhang makes (615-6). This comparison actually
deflates your case rather than bolstering it, and I have no problem agreeing
with it at all. I certainly agree that GW is depicted as "extraordinarily
generous" - I think liberal would have been a better term to use, of course,
but shan't quibble about that - and that there is little to no difference
between employer and slaveholder in the situation Pynchon has presented.

> 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.

No-one has claimed that Gershom is "the perfect slave" - in fact, he doesn't
speak or act like a (stereo)typical slave at all, which is pretty much the
point of the characterisation. Master and slave they are, even though in
action and word GW does treat and regard Gersh as his equal, and extends
towards him absolute liberty.

best