MDDM Ch. 62 Stig

[jbor]

on 12/7/02 9:51 AM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Just curious, but why the need to go outside of M&D to guide this
> interpretation?

No, this isn't accurate. The novel _Mason & Dixon_ refers to the manuscript
which Bishop Brynjolf presented to the King of Denmark, and that manuscript
is (almost certainly) the Elder Edda. I suggested that I'd like someone who
has read this particular text to confirm whether it does indeed detail
"murder" and "slavery" practised by Native Americans, as Stig indicates,
before I commit to the opinion I offered. In fact, one of the songs might
well indicate that the Vikings *were* the perpetrators of slavery and murder
in North America, as you suggested, but that seems very unlikely.

> In Stig's tale, his use of the phrase "own Ancient days" is ambiguous

No, this isn't accurate. The determiner "own" refers to the Continent (i.e.
"*its* own Ancient days"; my emphasis).

> -- it
> can be read as a time before visitation by the first Northmen when murder
> and slavery already existed and magic was already broken, or as a time long
> ago when the first Northmen came and brought murder and slavery and broke
> the old Magic.   

Perhaps it can, but I think the second interpretation is less likely, as it
ignores the fact that North America's "Ancient days" go back much further
than the time of European contact, whether that be 1492 or c. 900-1000.

> Likewise, "that the 'new' Continent Europeans found" is
> ambiguous -- are those Europeans the Europeans who came to America in the
> 15th century, or those who came to America in centuries earlier, in the
> 11th century?
> 
> If you need to go to the historical record to decide which reading to
> choose, then you seem to be doing what you said wasn't kosher in the
> discussion about Washington.

Again, Doug, this isn't accurate at all. Pynchon's text does refer to
aspects of the historical record, and historical opinion and judgement, and
I welcome references to relevant historical details and personages and have
been doing so myself all through the MDDM. I also welcome corrections to
what I post - when these are legitimate and not just flamebait - and any
notes or comments that I do post are not intended to be final, and are
certainly open to correction, addition or discussion. I've never claimed to
offer "definitive" interpretations at all, and I am very happy to alter my
opinion when someone offers a better reading of the text. Of course, before
I do alter my opinion the corrections, alternative interpretations and/or
historical references provided do need to be backed up with evidence from
the novel, and not just produced arbitrarily. Others might be more easily
convinced, of course.

I really couldn't care less what you think of me or my approach to reading.
I don't think much of you or yours either, but that's by the way. I've been
responding to the novel _Mason & Dixon_, by Thomas Pynchon, with notes,
comments and thoughts. Anyone is welcome to take or leave whatever they want
to from what I post. Please feel free to ignore my posts if they upset you.
I'm more than happy to ignore yours, if that's what you'd prefer.

best



> Not that there's anything particularly wrong
> with such inconsistency, but it is interesting to watch you apply different
> interpretative criteria for yourself and others.