Dixon: a Scotsman?

Mon Jan 5 08:43:51 CST 2015

You're not but no matter....Jump, jump all...
A--Jumping we will go.....

the book moves in time too! (coming up soon)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Elisabeth Romberg <eromberg at mac.com> wrote:
> 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/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l