M ampersand D Duck Read

Sun Jan 4 13:54:50 CST 2015

Seriously? What a blow to the stomach! Haha, oh well. I thought that when I wrote the post it won’t be the first time I embarrass myself, so here we go. I always thought of him as a Scarborough-lad. 

Hope you don’t mind me. Definitely looking forwards to more learning!

> 4. jan. 2015 kl. 20.40 skrev M Thomas Stevenson <m.thomas.stevenson at gmail.com>:
> 
> Yes! All of that, very well put Elizabeth. One slight ellision: you would be forgiven for thinking Dixon is Northern but it's even more of a divider than that: he's Scottish! All those Yese and thahs are classic. Being a Northern-Englander, though, TRP's ear is impeccable.
> 
> On 4 January 2015, at 19:33, Elisabeth Romberg <eromberg at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Like you said Thomas, much is made of their differences! Like them being Northern and Southern (English). Very different cultures, and knowingly so. Jokingly so. Caricaturish? London like a country to itself (which The City of London actually is), and The North: mores and dales, fairs and faries, old magic…! Only because I once lived in North Yorkshire near Scarborough (where Dixon is from?), was I able to grasp Dixons Northern accent and character when I read the book in 99(?) So, because being Norwegian (my English sadly deteriorating), I always wondered: TP must have stayed in England over a longer period of time doing research to have got under the skin/language/culture/dress/history whatever, but most importantly the sense of humor a language or an accent contains? …of the two very different cultures the two characters embodies? 
> Uhm, …like Yin&Yang? 
> I’d like to add that to me M&D is not only an "American novel" but also an «English» one, which in some way or another the cover coveys, but this is a personal association of course.
> 
> Also my first association to the name of this thread was 'Anders And' (Donald Duck in Danish). ‘And' meaning 'duck' in Scandinavian languages. Then I thought it said ampersand, as in an amper (mad) duck. All this was very fitting I thought, very clever, and way over my head of course, but then I realised what you were Actually discussing...
> 
> A bit of a ramble, quite embarrassing, but I might as well get stuck in, or else I get too worried about saying something good to the point where I don't say anything.
> 
> Cheers for all your input so far, and we haven’t even started yet! Brilliant!
> Elisabeth
> 
> 
> 
>> 4. jan. 2015 kl. 19.35 skrev Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
>> 
>> yeah, their own Almost-Trinity (to blaspheme from TRP's growing-up
>> religion). They are One,
>> in very important American ways, yes?
>> 
>> A--and, to save another posting, the book is also a buddy book, a
>> buddy 'movie', too, right?
>> From Don Quixote thru Kerouac (and beyond), we got books full of duos.
>> Having meaningful
>> adventures.
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:06 PM, M Thomas Stevenson
>> <m.thomas.stevenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A-and the way I read it though was how the ampersand originated formerly from "and per se and", when & was tagged-on at the end of the alphabet, becoming a blurred andperseand, anpersand, etc., so: borders of words becoming blurred, Mason & Dixon no longer singular entities with individuated selves, but like "Smith's & Sons", a body, a corpus. Much is made of their differences so far, as I've seen.
>>> 
>>> On 4 January 2015, at 16:15, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here's something to think on (maybe): the Ampersand symbol has been largely lost
>>> to history as the future has unfolded from 1789,  in title use, book
>>> cataloguing, title copyrighting, etc.
>>> 
>>> Gone. Not yet but soon a Dodo?
>>> 
>>> A small but meaningful loss in History? Another one?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> For me, aesthetics. Pure and simple. Sometimes an ampersand is just an
>>>>> ampersand. Unsatisfying to you close readers, but there you have it.
>>>> 
>>>> The symbol is pretty. And it suggests a story set long ago if not so
>>>> very far away.
>>>> So a good argument for the aesthetic use of the symbol.
>>>> 
>>>> With the handheld communication device, now a tool in the hands of our
>>>> young as they learn to write, the symbol is in common use when
>>>> texting. Symbols, letters of alphabets and so forth do not correspond
>>>> with sounds. Nor would we want this to be the case. They approximate
>>>> the mental lexicon of phonemes and with other stuff, call this other
>>>> stuff " rules", to avoid linguistic jargon, and given a particular
>>>> context, the writer provides a symbolic framework upon with the reader
>>>> builds meaning. So, what you made up here (below) is wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listÒnchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l