Dixon: a Scotsman?

Elisabeth Romberg eromberg at mac.com
Mon Jan 5 08:39:50 CST 2015 

The reading has begun! And I notice (excitedly) that Dixon's letter to Mason (p.12) was sent from County Durham which is basically next to Scarborough, …or North Yorkshire, at least. Similar landscape: dales, little rivers, villages... the lot.
I can't wait to find out for sure. The last day and night, with Dixon not being Dixon, and a Scotsman at that, and, while putting an unexpected spin on this second reading, it left me a little at loss.

Tell me Dixon is not really Scottish, is he?

Sorry if I’m jumping ahead here, Mark! 


(And btw, I read Trainspotting back in the Day, I presume that's the book you meant Thomas?)

> 5. jan. 2015 kl. 13.57 skrev Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
> 
> On Being Scottish. Two Google Books' snippets:
> 
> Mason's personal desire to eventually earn his place in the Royal
> Society's "purer region, where Mathesis should rule" is foiled by his
> father's lineage (one "line" failing another), and he is packed off
> once again, this time to Scotland to observe  ...
> 
> There are discussions of racist stereotypes of the Scots in Pynchon's
> Mason & Dixon 276-77, 280, 572. W.J. Cash refers to the Virginia Scots
> of this period as " ragged throat-slitting Highlanders" (9). 7.
> Faulkner describes such resentment in  ...
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

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

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list