Re: MDDM Washington

jbor wrote:

(cuts)

> I think it's pretty well-documented that the historical GW was in fact very
> solicitous of his slaves' well-being, and that out of the public eye he
> wasn't an advocate of the institution at all, far from it in fact, and I
> think it's this aspect of his character which Pynchon is picking up on from
> the primary source material. Also, I just can't imagine Pynchon readers
> being offended by the depiction - and that's another reason why I find it
> difficult to believe that he intended the portrayal to be an indictment or
> simply somewhat negative, or even only "mock flattering", as Paul puts it. I
> had no opinion either way on GW before reading the text, and very little
> prior knowledge about him. I truly do find it a complimentary portrayal. The
> characterisation just doesn't shock us with a portrait of GW's supposed
> villainy, and I think that Pynchon would be pretty sure by now that the type
> of reader who reads his fiction isn't going to buy into all the blatantly
> patriotic mythologising anyway, as Paul points out. I think it probably
> comes as more of shock to some to see GW as a slave-owning, hemp-marketing,
> real estate entrepreneur being presented in a positive light in a Pynchon
> novel!

(cuts)

I probably should make clear I didn't mean mock flattery in the sense of
disflattery (to coin a word). Just that the picture of GW as quite a modern day
nice fellow was not something we needed to take at face value, even though by
standards of his day GW may have been quite an enlightened person. It now occurs
to me (if the point has not already been made) that possibly Pynchon was slyly
commenting on the unfortunate practice on the part of some so called revisionist
(I guess) historians to judge and evaluate historic personages on the standards
of OUR day, with all the advantage of hindsight and political correctness,
rather than on the general standards of theirs (in this case more than a couple
centuries ago).

Glad Rob emphasized the point that Pynchon readers (by and large) are not likely
to require a lot of demythologing effort being taken in their stead. As if there
were still amongst us those who think George and Martha howed them cotton fields
all by theirselves.

P.