M ampersand D Duck Read

[Mark Kohut]

Yeahp. What you said. Therefore a little more than pure aesthetics?

See wikipedia article on Ampersand.
---the phrase goes back to Latin usage. 'Et cetera' can be abbrevietad
as &c, which sorta means 'and so forth',... an oft-used phrase in
Inherent Vice, at least, and used more than a bit in Mason & Dixon, I
am relearning.

 Here's our major Pynchon importance maybe?:

---''the symbol intrinsically is the word"...Word?" It can be used to
indicate that the 'and' in a listed item is a part of the item's name,
not a separator". As Mike sez.
---"in film credits for stories, screenplays, etc....& indicates a
closer collaboration than "and".

"THE SYMBOL INTRINSICALLY IS THE WORD". !!??!!......The WORD is the
symbol? ...very Pynchonian, yes?
Religiously "spiritual"? .....I am reminded of "a Face in ev''ry
mountainside; a Soul in ev'ry Stone" ....for oblique reasons that seem
related to me.

Anyway, for the novel's theme(s) Mason & Dixon together DO America
right before it was; Mason & Dixon embody vectors of characteristics
(and actions which are character sez Aristotle thru Ken Burke and
beyond) that are, will be, the coming US of A.? They are Huck Finn and
Jim, as insight into the USA, not just Tom Sawyer.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Mike <beider19 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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
> *********************************
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l