MDDM Ch. 72 Dixon's act of violence

[jbor]

on 15/3/02 3:55 AM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> Pynchon chose not to write about it in the text
> before us

> Once you decide to start adding to the text, you can make Pynchon say
> whatever you want to say

Like the "Holocaust" opening of _GR_? Or Benny Profane being a flaneur? Or
_Lot49_ an encrypted meditation on the assassination of JFK?

The interpretation that a number of people have now offered is that Dixon
"accost[s]" (695.25), and *then* physically assaults the slave driver, as
per the "family record" which is referenced right there in Pynchon's text at
695.27. Your argument to the contrary remains unconvincing, despite the
volume and constancy with which you keep harping on about it and claiming
that you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not trying to convince
you, I'm just reading the text and interpreting what's in it. It's no big
deal that our readings differ and I've said several posts ago that I'm happy
to agree to disagree with you.

While I don't think it's inappropriate to compare one passage in the novel
to another, backwards or forwards, I'm beginning to wonder about Terrance's
misgivings regarding your purpose in raising this incident in Ch. 72 at this
particular juncture in the group read. It's only a modest group read, to be
sure, with only a handful of participants, and it was never intended to stop
you or anyone else from generating discussions on the list about whatever
else anyone's up for. But we're getting along fine with the MDDM, thanks
very much, and I'm sure we'll get to the different ideas about "proof" and
"Sentiments" and "Irresponsible Embellishment" and "the common Duty of
Remembering" and "cold Chronologies" when (and if) we come to that chapter
in the read. If you aren't merely attempting to flamebait people and disrupt
the read then I do apologise, but it's certainly sounding that way as you
attempt to elevate the pitch of this debate.

> 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.

Yep, that'd be another misreading.

> 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).

Perhaps when you show evidence of a little bit more consistency in your
interpretative protocols, and a little less condescension in your manner,
then people might start to take you seriously.

best