M ampersand D Duck Read

Sun Jan 4 23:04:07 CST 2015

It's news to all of us.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Heikki R <
situations.journeys.comedy at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is news to me. Have always regarded him as a Durham County lad
> through and through.
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:40 PM, M Thomas Stevenson <
> m.thomas.stevenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150105/9fbd771f/attachment.html>