M ampersand D Duck Read

[Mike]

For me, aesthetics. Pure and simple. Sometimes an ampersand is just an 
ampersand. Unsatisfying to you close readers, but there you have it.
Here, I will make something up.
When reading there is a certain tendency to translate the text into 
language. In a way,  our brains hear the words that we are reading. You 
see 'and' and /hear/ 'and'. Which might indicate a definite distinction 
between the linked terms. But with a symbol, you first have to translate 
the symbol into a word, then/hear/ it. I would suggest that the 
ampersand is /heard /more of an 'n' than a 'and'. This elision blurs the 
distinction between the two terms. Mark hinted at that by suggesting 
that Melanie and Jackson are two separate entities. The 'and' in the 
dedication. If, as I suggest, the ampersand is /heard/ as 'n', it 
connects the terms in a more intimate way, not so distinct.
To summarize, Mason and Dixon are two distinct individuals, while Mason 
& Dixon are much closer and linked in more permanent way. There is not 
one without the other.
Hey, there is a graduate thesis here. "The Ampersand and the Dissolution 
of Interpersonal Boundaries in the Writings of TRP". Or not.

Regards,

Mike

On 1/4/2015 6:30 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> Mike, any notions re 'What gives?'
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Mike <beider19 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Also it is not "For Melanie & For Jackson".
>> What gives?
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2015 4:44 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>>
>> What meaningful differences exist if not "Mason and Dixon"?
>>
>> Dedication: " For Melanie and for Jackson" ...not " for Melanie and
>> Jackson".....Pynchon's precision singles each out, the separate individuals
>> that they are.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
*********************************
            Just for fun
http://beider19.home.comcast.net
*********************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150104/93b10bed/attachment.html>