MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 15/7/02 2:58 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> If you don't think Stepin Fetchit and Sammy Davis Jr. help understand
> Pynchon's characterization of Gershom

But I think they indeed might. That's what I said: "[i]t's quite possible
that the analogies are apt."

Re. "Stepin Fetchit": It's extremely interesting that within this colonial
Virginian setting (c. 1766), in the novel _Mason & Dixon, Pynchon's GW has
allowed his manservant, Gershom, performative and satiric liberties (indeed,
George actually participates in, even instigates, "the act" at 278.19 and
279.15), and the opportunity to profit therefrom, which weren't afforded to
African-American people within American society at large for another 150
years or more.

Re. Sammy Davis Jr: It's likewise very interesting that within this colonial
Virginian setting (c. 1766), in the novel _Mason & Dixon, Pynchon's GW has
allowed his manservant, Gershom, performative and religious liberties which
weren't afforded to African-American people within American society at large
for another 200 years or more.

As you say, Gershom can only do what he does because George lets him. It's a
master-slave relationship after all. But I don't recall anywhere in the text
where GW attempts to or does "take away" either of these or any other of
Gershom's privileges (i.e. his *liberties*).

> please don't worry about it.  I'm
> not establishing rules for the way Pyncnon's texts must be interpreted,
> read them as you like.

I see.

best

p.s. And, though we've been over this about a million times already:

> How does Gershom "intervene on George's behalf"?

At 572.28, to stop George's cover from being blown. Or are you definitively
ruling out that possibility and insisting on how the text must be
interpreted?