Re: MDDM Washington

on 30/6/02 3:01 PM, Doug Millison at [email protected] wrote:

> It's revisionist history -- which Pynchon here plays with -- and not the
> "official" national myth that lets us know that Washington raised hemp,
> that emphasizes his slave ownership, etc.

I'm not denying that the revisionist histories exist, or suggesting that
Pynchon is unaware of them. What I'm saying is that Pynchon's depiction of
GW at home in _M&D_ in fact *contests* the negative - and often highly
polemical - assessments of GW which typify those histories. The links you
provide are all very interesting in their own right, I'm sure, but they
don't align with *Pynchon's* representation of GW and Gersh in _M&D_, which
is what I have been addressing.

Nowhere in the novel does Pynchon depict GW trying to "corrupt Gershom by
giving him the opportunity to profit from the labor of fellow slaves". And,
nowhere in Pynchon's fiction or non-fiction is smoking marijuana identified
as one of "the means They use to befuddle and co-opt". The other point to
keep in mind on this subject is that Dixon smells the dope aroma coming from
inside the house (278.12). This deliberate detail on Pynchon's part clearly
demonstrates the degree of latitude Gershom has in George and Martha's home.

> If Pynchon really wanted to make Washington progressive he might have shown
> W  letting Gershom worship in a traditional African religion, instead of
> having him adopt theJudeo-Christian heritage that slavery imposed on
> African-Americans.

It's Gershom's choice of faith, not George's. (And the stereotype in your
suggestion here is a pretty narrow-minded one, just quietly.)

> Gershom is very much the court jester there at Mr. Vernon during the visit
> of Mason and Dixon, clearly part of the entertainment that Washington
> provides for himself and his guests.

Again, it's by choice rather than compulsion that Gershom behaves as he
does. In fact, much in his humour and behaviour makes fun of George, and
George plays along with it. It's more of a double-act than a court jester.
Their rapport, and the friendship which underpins it, is sound.

> At any rate, I haven't said Pynchon creates an "evil" Washington

You were "arguing degrees of evil among practitioners of the same evil
institution" a couple of days ago, but OK, you're backing away from that
extreme position as well now. That's fine. You think the depiction of GW is
"unflattering"; I think it's quite complimentary. Good.

> The historical Washington was involved in [...]

In my opinion the aspect of GW's biography which Pynchon does choose to
focus on is that he was, according to the historical record, "more concerned
than some planters with his slaves' welfare", as one of the quotes from the
links you provided notes. And, after all, Dixon feels no inclination
whatsoever to punch GW in the face, as he does with the cruel slave-driver
later on in the text, and which is a pretty good litmus test for mine.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/slavery/advertiseimage.html

    " [...] As they went off without the least Suspicion, Provocation, or
    Difference with any Body, or the least angry Word or Abuse from their
    Overseers, 'tis supposed they will hardly lurk about in the
    Neighbourhood [...]"

best