Washington & slavery

[Paul Mackin]

jbor wrote:

> I'd say Pynchon has done his research on George and old Ben via the primary
> documentation. Essays and articles and other secondary sources are only
> other people's *opinions*, some more valid and even-handed than others, some
> interesting, some not, but all of them reflections and impressions and
> selections and "confabulations" just the same. Ultimately, Pynchon's
> characterisations of these and other historical figures in _M&D_ fall into
> the same category, of course - history as fiction, fiction as history - his
> text acknowledges and offers itself as nothing more nor less than this.
> Nonetheless, in the novel GW is cast in a complimentary light, BF far less
> so. Imo.
>

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is so,  my question would be, does it
MEAN ANYTHING that we find the fictional George more sympatico  than the fictional
Ben?   Is anything ethical or  political or socialogical implied? Are the portraits
of these two minor characters in the story, along with those of their support staff
of Gershom, Martha, and whoever Ben's were,  important other than as mildly amusing
backdrops for the back and fouth between the main characters?

I would probably guess not but don't really know.

P.