Pynchon's reconciliation of apparent opposites WAS Dixon's nonviolence

[Doug Millison]

The discussion between Scott, jbor, others, and myself regarding Dixon's
encounter with the slave driver might be seen as an illustration of a point
that Pynchon appears to be illustrating with this story. (This is not just
more of the same back and forth, keep reading if you haven't burned out
totally on this thread.)

jbor:
 "When Dixon begins assaulting him"

Pynchon:

"down the Steps,
and into the Street"

"That's enough."

 "He stands between the Whip
and the Slaves"

"I'll have that."


Pynchon has not described an "assault" --In fact, earlier, on p. 695,
Pynchon writes of the "moment when Dixon wll accost [not assault] the
Slave-Driver in the street", the story of "the Driver's Lash, that Uncle
Jeremiah took away from the Scoundrel" (695) and not the story of the time
that Uncle Jeremiah whipped the slave driver with his own Lash.   Pynchon
has written -- and apparently gives it to Cherrycoke to narrate  -- that
Dixon walks into the street, stands between the whip and the slaves, and
asks for the whip.  So far, as Pynchon has Cherrycoke tell it, a peaceful
confrontation with no apparent evidence of physical interaction or intent
by either party.

[ac·cost   Pronunciation Key  (-kôst, -kst)
tr.v. ac·cost·ed, ac·cost·ing, ac·costs
1.	To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand
or request.
2.	To solicit for sex.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French accoster, from Old French, from Medieval Latin accostre, to adjoin
 : Latin ad-, ad- + Latin costa, side; see kost- in Indo-European Roots.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=accost]


Pynchon:
"seizes the Whip,-- the owner comes after it,-- Dixon
places his Fist in the way of the oncoming Face,"

It's still a stretch to describe this as an "assault" by Dixon -- sticking
with Pynchon's text, Dixon has taken the whip,  then the slave driver
attacks him.  (If we go with meaning No. 2 of accost, of course "comes
after him" paints a very different picture of this encounter.)

jbor
" the almost incredible
fact that he is being assaulted in the street by a Quaker."

Incredible, indeed  -- Pynchon has Cherrycoke describe a peaceful
confrontation that escalates when Dixon takes the whip and the slave driver
charges at Dixon  then ebbs as Dixon chooses to shake the whip and lecture
instead of yielding to his urge to whip or kill the slave driver .

Just as LeSpark challenges Cherrycoke -- "Irresponsible Embellishment"
(696) with "no proof" (695) -- so  I  challenge the  alternate version of
Cherrycoke's yarn that  jbor has spun.

Pynchon encompasses this duality in a higher unity.

Pynchon -- if Dixon does in fact express Pynchon's own sentiments, and we
have no way to know that with certainty -- would appear to be endorsing
such embellishment as part of "the common Duty of Remembering" in which
"our Sentiments,-- how we dream'd of, and were mistaken in, each other,--
count for at least as much as our poor cold Chronologies."

jbor  seems to want a Dixon who illustrates the need to use violence to end
the violent practice and social injustice of slavery, so jbor embellishes
the few story elements that Pynchon gives in the text (elements which are
challenged as baseless by Cherrycoke's audience) in order to make the story
read that way. (If I misread jbor, I apologize in advance here, but I
believe that's what was asserted in a previous post, that only violence can
stop violence.)

I would seem to be more in LeSpark's camp in this instance, insisting that
the story be read in keeping with what Pynchon actually presents in the
text.

Pynchon might be seen to be saying --  if Dixon does speak for him, which
we don't know for sure -- that we're both right, that it's a wash.

But is it really just a wash, or does Pynchon treat this theme -- trying to
use violence to stop violence --  elsewhere in M&D?

He's already shown us Dixon declining a duel in Virginia and the happy
result -- they all go out and play a game together and have fun (p. 399)
instead of proceeding to an encounter that would leave one man dead on the
ground or injured at the hand of the other.   In the encounter with the
slave driver, he shows us a very human Dixon, moving from peaceful
confrontation to rage, to the verge of yielding to his urge to kill the
slave driver, then heeding his conscience and choosing not to do so.

So, sticking close to Pynchon's text, and choosing not to add what Pynchon
hasn't added, I produce this reading.

Choosing to emend and rewrite Pynchon's text, jbor's arrives at very
different conclusions -- conclusions that seem to me to be rather weak in
the light of Pynchon's treatment of this theme elsewhere in the novel.

Since Pynchon has left the text somewhat ambiguous in this instance and,
through Cherrycoke, seems to invite even the most farfetched embellishment,
jbor can turn Cherrycoke's story on its head, could claim that alien
visitors from outer space came down and shifted the course of events in
this episode (if you're going to rewrite Pynchon, might as well live
large).   Everybody wins.