re Re: MDDM Washington & Gershom

[Doug Millison]

There's never a hint of danger for Washington, no sign that Washington
tries to conceal his presence or that anybody addresses any sort of threat
(spoken or physical) towards him.  And Pynchon leaves it far from clear
that it really is Gershom in Raleigh's Billiard-Room, as we see in this
passage that you haven't accountedf for yet in your "intervention" theory:

"For the rest of the evening, ev'ryone suspects ev'ryone else of being
Gershom. Now and then someone, tho' he Bellows are never quite fast enough
to reveal who, tells another King-Joak." (M&D 573)

If it is Gershom, somebody else, or a series of somebody elses, is/are
covering for him -- or do you now want to shift gears and argue that
Washington's doing the Gershom impersonation and telling King-Joaks? Why
not?  *That* would be some intervention.

And -- again, if it is Gershom in that smoke, Pynchon's narrator casts
doubts in that atmospheric condition that  Young Nathe, who seems to be the
one who told the last King-Joak, calls "Room-Brume"  -- Gershom would seem
welcome enough for those who have "caught Gershom's act before,"  he's in
no danger from his fans:

"Her Gersh, do the one about the Crocodile that can talk."
"The Rabbit in the Moon!" (M&D 573)

Washington fades from the scene, Gershom, too -- perhaps using that
"Philtre that can transport himwhere'er he wishes"? Gershom can take care
of himself quite well, thank you --  and the "intervention" theory limps
lamely into the Nickotick Vapors as well.


>Doug does seem to be overlooking that quote from the Libertarian
>Guild website or wherever which he reposted a good 4 or 6 times and with
>which he tried to label anyone who disagreed with him an apologist for
>slavery.


Sorry, how could I know you were so sensitive? You seem to be able to dish
it out, but I guess you just can't take it.

I do think it's amusing, the way some people try to argue that slavery is
the ultimate sort of freedom.  But you assured us that you're not trying to
do that, so I assumed it was obvious to everyone that the quote doesn't
apply to you.

Too bad you can't stick to talking Pynchon...what was the phrase you used
awhile back, "damage control"?  I'm still wondering, if Gershom is
Washington's equal,  why isn't Washington serving the drinks and stepping
to fetch the pipe and herb? And, why isn't Gershom ordering Washington into
the kitchen to cook some snacks? (Martha is also onto Washington's
patriarchal ways, as she brings in the munchies for the men as they smoke
pot and talk politics, as many woman were before they got fed up with that
bs in the '60s.)  Beyond that, as Gershom's legal owner, it's impossible
for W to be Gershom's equal.

You left this one hanging, too:

jbor:
>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*).

"liberties" = privileges granted by the legal owner of an enslaved African
or African American, OK, if that's what  liberty means to you, the right of
property owners to treat their property as they wish.   Pynchon seems to
take a rather larger view of Liberty in M&D:

"Unfortunately, young people," recalls the Rev'd, "the word _Liberty_, so
unreflectively  sacred to us today, was taken in those Times to encompass
even the darkest of Men's rights [...] This being, indeed and alas, one of
the Liberties our late War was fought to secure." (M&D, 307)

Your argument remains absurd in the face of what Pynchon actually shows in
M&D, but if you can't defend it, please continue to wave your arms and make
noise instead.  Your entourage will surely take over when you run out of
gas.