MDDM Dixon's act of violence

[jbor]

on 9/3/02 2:35 AM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Instead of hitting or killing him,

Dixon grabs the whip, lands a punch in the slave-driver's face, and then
angrily threatens to assault the man with his own whip. The only ambiguity
is whether or not Dixon does in fact give the man a "thrashing" with the
whip. I guess it depends on one's definition of "thrashing" - Dixon
certainly gives the man a verbal thrashing and he has already punched him in
the face and drawn blood, and the slave-driver has been soundly humiliated -
as well as on the unreported actions which are accompanying the
slave-driver's pleas for mercy at 699.5-7. But, imo the encounter rings true
to the description in Robinson's biographical note, though Pynchon does
embellish Robinson's recount slightly in having Dixon threaten "to kill" the
slave-driver.

> Dixon takes the whip, which then passes
> down to his descendents, and frees the slaves.
> 
> It's interesting that Pynchon chooses to let Dixon remain faithful to his
> Quaker pacifism in this encounter,

Well, I'd say the point of the whole episode is that he doesn't remain
faithful to his Quaker principles, for once. As the narrator prefaces the
incident in the text:
 
      Say then, that Mason at last came to admire Dixon for his Bravery,--
    a different sort than they'd shown each other years before, on the
    *Seahorse* where they'd had no choice. Nor quite the same as they'd
    both exhibited by the Warrior Path. Here in Maryland they had a choice
    at last, and Dixon chose to act, and Mason not to,-- unless he had to,--
    what each of us wishes he might have the unthinking Grace to do, yet
    fails to do. To act for all those of us who have so fail'd. For the
    Sheep. ... (698.3)

So I guess we disagree. No big deal.

> instead of sticking with the historical
> record which would have Dixon yielding to his baser impulses.  Given the
> other material that Pynchon has worked into M&D regarding the suicidal
> nature of the project to kill the evil other, his reworking of Dixon's
> character would appear to be in keeping with the politics of nonviolence
> that serve as a subtext for the novel.
> 
> I don't like it, but I guess I can understand the need Terrance and jbor
> feel, to resort to character assassination when their attempts to rewrite
> Pynchon as a war monger fail.  As you so often like to say, please stick to
> text, girls.

Beg pardon? I have neither resorted to "character assassination" nor
attempted to "rewrite Pynchon as a war monger". And I've got no problem
discussing the "often pointed references to politics" in Pynchon's texts
either. In the episode with the slave-driver, for example, Pynchon
acknowledges through his portrayal of Dixon's "act" that the only way to
begin to achieve "justice" in certain extreme situations of injustice and
violence is to neutralise the adversary's potential to do violence through
an initial act of brute force. Just as with the international alliance
against terrorism and the military assault on al Qaeda and the Taliban.

best