Washington & slavery

[Paul Mackin]

David Morris wrote:

> >From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> >>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.
>
> Chiming in for a minute.  First, I don?t think BF is portrayed as ?less
> favorable? than GW.  For me, BF is more interesting, more like a psychedelic
> magician than a sinister spy (or however ?less favorably? he?s been
> characterized here).    I think he?s been called a ?womanizer,? which makes
> no sense to me.  The provocative pair of females have their fun and ARE fun.
>   They are smart and sexy and, if dangerous, in an attractive way.  I?m not
> following along w/ this read, so I?m relying most on my impressions from
> having read the book three years ago.  But how, exactly is it that some see
> BF as portrayed unfavorably.

Yeah, I was trying to avoid making a decision on this.

>
>
> As for MEANING in the way they are portrayed, I would have to say the book
> fails if it doesn?t intend to portray some meaning there.  Amusement is
> fine, but these two are important to the history of the US, and shouldn?t be
> passed over as merely a couple of clowns.  Playing fast and loose w/ his
> portrayals of each, Pynchon should have an intention beyond amusement.

Yes, this would certainly be the expectation.  There IS  plenty of what might
be termed "local meaning."  George,  Gershom and Martha supply all sorts of
signification, that we immediately recognize. Land speculation, Sammy David
Jr.,  Martha Stewart, Martha of Watergate fame. Far too much "meaning" to
really mean anything. Does any of it go anywhere beyond the boundaries of the
scene would be my question.

P.

> As
> representatives of leaders of a future rebellion against the powers that
> have sent M&D to the colonies, they have attitudes not necessarily
> sympathetic to the tasks of M&D, and our boys know this to some degree,
> don?t they?  I can?t go into more detail because I?m relying on memory.  So
> am I mistaken?
>
> David Morris
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com