MDDM Washington & Gershom

Wed Jul 10 02:48:08 CDT 2002

>Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated or shown that >GW is
"acting on deep-seated racist attitudes and beliefs"?

Given the setting of the book, and knowing all that we do about Thomas
Pynchon, can't we assume issues of "deep-seated racists attitudes and
beliefs" come up in the book?  Isn't Mason & Dixon just one huge magnificent
statement on just how deep-seated (and multilayered!) those racist attitudes
and beliefs are?  I haven't read the book, but that's what I'd suspect
looking at the cover.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: MDDM Washington & Gershom

> on 9/7/02 1:10 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:
>
> > jbor:
> >> Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated that George and
Gersh
> >> "remain fixed in their roles as master and slave"? [snip the rest of
that
> >> series]
> >
> >
> > I've quoted P's text on most if not all of these  questions.
>
> No, you haven't. Not that I've noticed, anyway.
>
> >
> > jbor:
> >> Chapter 28, of course, where Gershom is shown to hold equal rank with
both
> >> George and Martha
> >
> >
> > P shows no such thing,
>
> Yes, he does.
>
> > Gershom can't possibly hold equal rank with George
> > and Martha because he's their slave,
>
> Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is this point made?
>
> > their propertym the relationship is
> > unequal by definition.
>
> In the context of GW and Gershom, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, this
remains
> your "definition" and not the text's.
>
> > W's "nominal Master"
> > comment takes for granted the inherently unequal master-slave
relationship
> > that in fact exists between the two men.
>
> No, it doesn't. You might take this "for granted", but neither Pynchon's
GW
> nor the text do.
>
> > "Master in name only" is still
> > Master.
>
> Actually, it denotes almost the exact opposite of this. A "nominal Master"
> isn't a *real* master at all, which is what George is joking about.
>
> > Bottom-line (the way the historical W reported the value of his slaves
in
> > his business records),
>
> Again, this is your "bottom-line", not the text's. Where, in the novel
> _Mason and Dixon_, does Pynchon's GW "report on the value of his slaves in
> his business records"?
>
> > The only one saying "slavery is liberty" is you.
>
> No, the only person who has said "slavery is liberty" is you. It's a straw
> man argument.
>
> > So I remain
> > happy to hover in a delicious Pynchonian cloud of unknowing.
>
> Indeed. I wonder if another way to put this might be to call it
> "head-in-the-sand denial as interpretive strategy ... brain dead ...
> insubstantial and muddled" and then liken it to the pathetic squirming of
> some Arizona County Fair contortionist? Mm? Perhaps there's an apt Frank
> Zappa lyric ... ?
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > I can't prove that negative,
>
> No, of course you can't.
>
> > and you certainly can't prove that W and G
> > speak those lines as you insist.
>
> No, but I'm certainly justified in assuming that, on the basis of
> substantial circumstantial and textual evidence which I've provided, they
> (very probably) do.
>
> > Hogwash. Maybe he's in the room, maybe not; Pynchon leaves it something
of
> > a mystery.
>
>     Others, having caught Gershom's act before, recognize him right away.
>                                                         (573.4)
>
> This is definitive textual verification of Gershom's presence in the room.
>
> >
> > That's all very well, but the bits and pieces of text larded with your
> > fine opinions don't add up to "evidence"
>
> No, this is inaccurate. Quotations from the novel _Mason & Dixon_
certainly
> do comprise "evidence" in this context. At least, they should.
>
> > that W considers G  an equal or
> > that what Pynchon shows at Mt. Vernon is "enrichment" -- Pynchon uses
> > another word, in fact:  decadent.
>
> Er, that'd be Wicks, not "Pynchon".
>
> >>
> >> 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 agree they appear to be having fun. But there's no evidence that
> > Washington realizes what a fool Gershom makes of him,
>
> Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated or shown that Gershom
> is intentionally trying to make "a fool" of GW, or that George isn't in on
> one of Gershom's jokes?
>
> > or that W understands
> > the degree to which he's acting on deep-seated racist attitudes and
> > beliefs, or that W considers G an equal.
>
> Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated or shown that GW is
> "acting on deep-seated racist attitudes and beliefs"?
>
> > Pynchon frames Ch. 28 with a
> > quote that makes it absolutely clear that this is a master-slave
> > relationship, as P describes what W and G do as a decadent Folly that
dates
> > to the Dark Ages,
>
> Er, again, that'd be Wicks rather than "Pynchon", wouldn't it?
>
> > and equates slave-holding in America and Africa (bringing
> > in to play that material in V., as well), as well as to the feudal Lord
and
> > Serf relationship. Pynchon further undercuts his Washington by pointing
to
> > a historical situation -- Washington's consigning  his own slaves to
years
> > of back-breaking labor for Great Dismal Swamp Land Company --  that he
> > (Pynchon) mocks by having his fictional Washington offering to sell
shares
> > in that venture to his fictional slave Gershom, an action inconceiveable
> > for the "benevolent." and "humane" Massah Washington of Virginia.
>
> That's your interpretation, and you're welcome to it. I think it's
> stretching Gershom's quip at 279.32 beyond credible bounds. More likely is
> the possibility that Gershom has spilt the beans about a real estate
> investment opportunity which GW was going to bring to the attention of his
> two guests. And, speaking of "indeterminacy", it's just as likely that the
> name Gershom coupled with this reference to the Great Dismal Swamp Company
> alludes to Gershom Nimmo, the appointed surveyor for GW's holdings in the
> Great Dismal.
>
> http://www.norfolkhistorical.org/highlights/14.html
>
> best
>
> >
>