MDDM Ch. 77 Dogs and dogsbodies

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/17/02 5:51:11 PM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

 Bandwraith:

 Missing eachother

 by a hundred miles, would put one or the other of

 them in the sea.


>>This is amusing, but Ives snorts that it was "[m]ore likely ... they didn't

pass within a hundred miles of Mason" (744.4), which is a different

proposition entirely.<<

It might be different. It might not.

Bw:

 Boswell, as both

 character and referent, obliquely acknowledged as

 "any third Observer" in the next chapter


>>I don't think this accurate either. Boswell never meets Dixon, and the point

seems to be made fairly firmly by both Mason and Dr Johnson (747.23-36) that

Boswell (and Wicks) are not just *any* third observers at all.<<

And Boswell, as the epitome and eponym for the class, which
includes himself, is automatically invoked by exclusion. In this
context, he is the only member of the class which can be so
referred to, that is, by specifically not being referred to- a neat
rhetorical trick. I believe it is a special form of inverted synedoche, 
and seems to fit with Pynchon's late hour desire to let his 
narratological hair down- he being the narrator's Narrator. But 
I'm not out to prove anything here. If you feel your reading is 
more accurate, by all means...

I'm just hanging out in the backroom's Backroom, dancin'
with the efiggies...



>>And I don't think Johnson and Mason are alike in any way.<<

Mason, however, seems to see himself in Johnson. 

>>Mason seems to get on better with Boswell Dr. Johnson's arrogant
patrician attitude towards Mason (and Boswell) reminds me of Ben Franklin.
I think Mason is quite happy to remain a "Sorcerer's Apprentice" to Maskelyne 
(who certainly decks out as a wizard), as he was also apprenticed to Bradley, 
just as Boswell situates himself in relation to "the Great Cham of 
Literature".<<

Johnson is rude and arrogant, no doubt, but I don't see patrician.
Nor does he seem to patronize, imo. His aside to Boswell, "how 
even a Lunatick may be civil...," and more directly to Mason, "Or 
is it Your Holiness?" are hysterically funny. This is not the mannerly
if condescending Franklin. This is a critic with a capital C, a "thanks
I needed that" brisk slap in the face. There is no Lewis in the alley
here attempting some conspiratorial con-job. What you hear is what
you get. Johnson, if you'll pardon me, is always loaded for bear.

Perhaps if Mason had fallen under the influence of Johnson earlier
in life, before he began on his inwinding journey to melacholy, he
might have undergone a little tranference (if not transcendence)
and acquired the psychological tools to deal with the flaws in his
character that kept him from realizing his ambitions. Nothing
like an honest critic to dissuade one from being a fool.


>>I think this goes to the central characterisation: why Mason never became

the R.A., why he never received the glory or Medals or even proper financial

remuneration, why his name became historically intertwined with Dixon's. He

was never ambitious, ruthless or charismatic enough to be a true leader.

Always something else (Rebekah) on his mind.


>>Also, back a bit, why would the ghost of a 17th C. Jesuit mathematician be

wearing a Slouch Hat (704-5)?


best<<



Why not?

regards