Washington & slavery

[David Morris]

>From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
>
>David Morris wrote:
> > Chiming in for a minute.  First, I don?t think BF is portrayed as ?less 
>favorable? than GW.  [...]
>
>Yeah, I was trying to avoid making a decision on this.

And I'm wondering why all apostrophe's in the above & below post from me 
have been replaced withe question marks...

> > 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. [...]
>
>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.

I'm arguing that it SHOULD, but I can't tell you if it does.  Pynchon is 
writing a history, much akin to the history "narrated" by Stencil in _V._.  
And as such he is "playing" with facts, weaving them into an interpretation, 
which implies an intended meaning.  The narrator supplies the values that 
shade his interpretation.  If BF and GW are just isolated jesters in this 
story that should carry a meaning all by itself in the larger scope of the 
book.  The implication would be that they are unimportant to the concerns of 
the larger narrator.

Remember, I said "SHOULD."

David Morris


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com