Vineland and MDDM Washington

[jbor]

on 30/6/02 5:16 AM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> the way Pynchon shows America yielding to fascist
> impulses

Yes. This is, of course, a different thing entirely to claiming that the
novel links "Reagan-Bush America to Nazi Germany". Apart from anything else
it's an insult to the victims of the Holocaust to try and make such an inapt
comparison. Pynchon, of course, isn't the one making it.

As I've already pointed out, in the novel that "fascist architecture" is
already there during the 60s. And, Bopp became a "useful American citizen"
sometime soon after the war.

    Brock Vond's genius was to have seen in the activities of the sixties
    left not threats to order but unacknowledged desires for it. (269.5)

    ... the notorious Karl Bopp, former Nazi *Luftwaffe* officer and
    subsequently useful American citizen" (221.23)

> Pynchon's portrait of Washington goes against the grain of the hagiographic
> treatment the Father of Our Country usually gets in the national myth,
> which, in case you didn't know, fails to present Washington as a
> pot-smoking, slave-owning, real estate scam artist.  A certain class of
> American will still express disapproval of the ivory tower academics who
> dared to tarnish Washington with factual assertions such as, he never
> chopped down that cherry tree.

I think you'll find that Pynchon's characterisation deliberately goes
against the grain of the revisionist histories you're referring to - which
aren't as recent nor as reputable as you're making out at all - while still
holding to the factual data present in the primary sources. As a slave-owner
he's benevolent, not "evil". As a pot-smoker (and grower) he's progressive,
not "evil". (I can't even really believe that you're trying to pass this off
as a negative attribute! It's Pynchon, for goodness' sake!) And, he isn't
depicted as a real estate scam artist, except in a very gentle and oblique
dig by Gershom which is humorous and articulated towards depicting character
relationships rather than to any sort of indictment of GW as a "huckster".

GW doesn't try and sell Mason and Dixon anything on 276-7, merely gives them
some sound advice about a "parcel of land" which he *doesn't* own (276.23),
and then he discusses with them the way that their Commission has affected
the general situation regarding "land jobbers", settlement trends, and the
various proclamations which are and aren't in force. As you'd expect.

Gershom's entrance, "wearing an ambiguous expression", at 278-9, highlights
the extent of his freedoms under GW's protection. His "duties" seem to
involve or include mulling up and making the drinks; the former is a
responsibility of great esteem usually accorded to the "host" of a session,
and the latter is equally an acknowledgement of skill and trust. What we
also find out here is that Gershom has absolute freedom of religious worship
and expression in this household, again, exemplifying GW's liberalism with
his "Tithables". And, Gershom is free to go off and perform (not for George,
mind you, but "'round a Circuit of Coaching-inns"), and he earns an annual
income "which creeps dangerously close" to George's own. He is not being
forced to perform - he *wants* to do it. The exchange at the bottom of 279
highlights further that Gershom is free to invest his money as he chooses.
There's also an indication here about who really wears the pants in the two
partnerships, Dixon speaking out of turn and being shushed by Mason, and
Gershom spilling the beans prematurely about George's real estate venture
and then sitting down when his "master" tries to wave him away. By the end
of the chapter the teamwork and strong friendship bond between Gersh and GW
(and Martha) has "found out" the weaknesses in Jere and Cha's relationship,
and it is the two Englishmen who are squabbling between themselves like
schoolboys (285-6).

And, there's no mention of a cherry tree.

best