MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 15/7/02 12:17 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Gershom's a slave but enjoys absolute liberty?

Actually, this is pretty much what the novel does portray, even though not
once in Pynchon's text is Gershom actually labelled as "a slave". If Pynchon
has intended to castigate GW as hypocritical and racist in the novel, as
Doug insists, then he seems to have gone about it in a very strange way, by
actually showing the degree of leniency and latitude within the master-slave
relationship, and the unusual degree of friendship, loyalty, trust and
respect which exists between the two characters.

For example:

    [...] Washington meanwhile trying to wave Gershom back into the house.
    Gershom, however, has just taken the Pipe from Mr. Dixon. (279-280)

And this description of Gershom's liberty is echoed and amplified in the way
that Gershom does exactly what he wants, without any reference to George's
expectations and often in total opposition to these, elsewhere in the text,
explicitly at 280.18-21, 282.5, 282.29-30 and 572.28-32, and implicitly at
278.12-3, 279.5-6, 281.33, and 286.36-287.2.

I note again that Doug has flatly refused to engage with these eight
excerpts from the novel _Mason & Dixon_, which exemplify the kinds of
liberties which Gershom enjoys in GW's house and under his "nominal"
mastership. 

It's very difficult to discuss _Mason & Dixon_ sensibly with someone who is
so blatant and boastful in attempting to "erase and make invisible parts of
Pynchon", as he pretends to "hover in a delicious Pynchonian cloud of
unknowing" whenever he doesn't like what he reads in the text.

(But I do wonder about that knack of launching an argument about the novel
just by looking at its cover ... Quite a talent.)

> Thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

Meanwhile, perhaps Doug might clear up how he sees the analogies between
Gershom and both "Stepin Fetchit" and Sammy Davis's conversion to Judaism
actually operating in the text. It's quite possible that the analogies are
apt, but I'm not sure I understand how he sees these as contributing to the
"unflattering" portrait of GW he continues to insist Pynchon intended.

best