Hanging This Bloody Thread

[s~Z]

>>>Pynchon doesn't give us enough information to properly account
for the
broken tooth<<<

Dixon placed his Fist in the path of the slave-owner's Face. That
is sufficient information for me.

>>>We could, if we wished, and I think without violating Pynchon's
text nearly
as much as some other readers have done, speculate that the fist
is Dixon's
hand wrapped around the whip handle, that it's the whip handle
that breaks
the driver's tooth when the driver "comes after it".<<<

I just don't see why this is necessary. Why not just accept the
Fist is what Pynchon wrote, a Fist?

>>>hanging by a bloody thread<<<

Like this one.

>>>So, in this reading, the force of the driver's charge
connecting
with the whip handle in Dixon's stationary fist should account for
the
"broken" tooth.   Cut! It's a wrap...<<<

If that feels true to the text for you, what can I say? I'll leave
it at that
after I finish this response. I read it as Dixon wresting away the
whip, then
hitting the slave-owner and breaking his tooth when he comes after
the whip.

>>>But, if it did happen that way, would that mean that Dixon has
betrayed his
pacifist roots, that he is not an adherant to a nonviolent
approach?<<<

As I think Terrance will eventually demonstrate, if you string
together all of the text
regarding Dixon and the issue of pacifism, Dixon in M&D is no
believer in pacifism.

>>>Does "places" mean "punches"? Really?<<<

No. The way I read it "places his fist in the path of the oncoming
face" is a humorous
euphemism for punching someone . The*phrase* is a reference to a
punch, not the
word "places."

>>>Is taking the whip from the slave driver a violent act? (Not
what comes
after, just the taking of the whip.)<<<

No.

>>>If Dixon takes the whip, and the slave driver decides to come
after it, and
the force of his impact with Dixon hurts him, can you really say
Dixon is
responsible, even if it's the slave driver's choice to charge?<<<

Yes, if "placing the fist [...]" is a euphemism for punching.

>>>If Pynchon wanted to paint a picture of Dixon unambiguously
assaulting and
deliberately injuring the slave driver, why do you think he uses a
word
like "accost" instead of assault, or "places" instead of
punches,<<<

The argument cannot be reduced to these two words.

>>>and leave out an explicit and perfectly clear description of
Dixon executing said
assault?<<<

I don't think it was an 'assault,' and I think the description is
explicit and perfectly clear.
Poetic, and humorous, but clear as day. Your reading of the text
is way too awkward for me.
But, I understand your reading, and accept that that is how you
see it.

I'll stop now.




Maybe.