a bit more re MDMD: Dixon's nonviolence

[Doug Millison]

keith:
"[...] attributing intention regarding the making of a fist and the
placement of said fist. [...]"

You're attributing intention which Pynchon doesn't explain, explain it as
you will but it's your explanation not Pynchon's.

keith:
"[...] it
violates your presupposition that Dixon would not commit a violent
act. [...]"

What "presupposition"?  I'm assuming that what Dixon says is true, he has a
strong urge to kill the man, and I commend him for refraining from that act
and living up to his Quaker roots.

keith:
"[...] He actively created a collision
between his fist and a face, [...]

You sound sure of that, but Pynchon leaves it ambiguous.  Seems pretty
obvious that Dixon doesn't "actively create a collision" -- again you're
attributing an intention that Pynchon avoids -- more accurate to say the
slave driver creates the collision by running into Dixon's stationary fist.
True, Dixon does insert himself in the scene in the first place, but each
moment carries new possibilities for the way the rest of the scene will
unfold, depending on the choices the participants make in each moment. The
scene ends without further tragedy because Dixon chooses not to fight or
kill and instead settles for protecting and setting free the slaves.