Re: MDDM Washington

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: MDDM Washington


> Otto wrote:
>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Does the formulation "As ... 'tis supposed" indicate that GW doesn't
expect
> > that somebody will hide & help them because everybody in the
neighbourhood
> > knows they don't have been mistreated?
>
> I get the idea from this that GW wasn't expecting that these particular
> slaves would hang round to take revenge upon some cruel overseer, because
> they had had no "Difference with any Body". What's interesting here is
that
> GW seems to allow that slaves might indeed have "Differences" with their
> masters, and not just vice versa.
>

Agreed, my girlfriend said yesterday he's maybe saying that this escape
might have been planned beforehand, she meant it in the sense that GW says
that there hasn't been any trouble recently to explain the escape.

>
> I also get the impression from this particular snippet that GW wasn't
really
> trying to encourage the local landowners to keep an eye out for the
escaped
> slaves, i.e. he's saying something like 'Don't worry, they're long gone by
> now'. It's as if he's only going through the motions in the ad because
that
> is what was expected of him. As we see later in _M&D_ when Dixon frees the
> chained slaves, if George were to have suddenly turned into an
anti-slavery
> zealot and started freeing his own and others' slaves then he would have
> been placing his life in danger, let alone the future of the American
> Republic to be. And, pragmatically-speaking, aren't the slaves better off
in
> the care of a benevolent "master" like George than if they were on the run
> and hiding out in the swamps &c? I think it's certainly a dilemma which
the
> text is posing, particularly so later on when Dixon does free those
slaves.
>

They could be indeed, and the pragmatic reasons you are giving are very good
ones for a diplomat & politician like GW.

>
> Anyway, I find Pynchon's depiction of GW far less "ominous" than that of
Ben
> Franklin - that surreal danse macabre out into the future at 294-5 really
> lays the scary symbolism on thick - and I think John Bailey made some good
> points on why that might be. Franklin's Electricks are the root of the
curse
> of modern civilisation as Pynchon envisions it, that unquenchable power
Grid
> which will ultimately come to despoil our planet.
>
> And I think that most characters in Pynchon's work are shown to be
> "ridiculous" at one point or another: in fact, far from making them
> cartoonish, it actually has a humanising effect. But, compared with just
> about any other comparable character in the novel - Maskelyne, Wicks,
> Emerson, Lord Lepton, Franklin, Zarpazo, Zhang, even Mason and Dixon
> themselves - GW does seem to come off quite nicely on that count too I
> think. And I don't think the point is that Gershom is "much smarter" than
> George either, or that George is actually "giving orders" at all. If
> anything, what they're both mimicking is the traditional master-slave
> relationship where the slave actually does what the master bids, and is
> totally passive and obsequious in his or her subservience. That doesn't
> happen between George and Gersh at all, and George doesn't seem to be
upset
> about it in the least.
>
> 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! In the midst of all that graphic and horrific stuff about the
> slaughter of the Susquehannas by the Paxton mob in Lancaster Town,
> pox-infected blankets and such, and compared with the scene with the
> slave-driver later on, the charming scene with George, Gershom and Martha
on
> the porch really does provide an extremely positive counterpoint.
>
> Paul brings up the scene in Ch. 42 where M & D see Austra again, and the
> narrator comments on "what a glamorous International Life it's proving to
be
> for her too, so far at least. Who says Slavery's so terrible, hey?"
(427.31)
> Obviously there's irony here, and it's a bit like the narrator's caustic
> aside in _V._ about the 60,000 Herero deaths being "only 1 per cent of 6
> million, but still pretty good." (245) But there's a major difference too
in
> that Austra's life *does* seem to be pretty glamorous and exciting, and
she
> seems pretty pleased with it, almost gloats in fact when she "smiles not
at
> all enigmatickally" at Mason as he jealously calls her a "Wanton". It's
not
> so clear-cut what the actual textual sentiment is here at all, there's an
> ambivalence about it, and I recall that that particular passage did jump
out
> at me this time around too.
>
> To fast forward to Ch. 58, we see Washington and Mason playing a friendly
> game of billiards in George's local. Again, it is George who has initiated
> the meeting, and considering the general temper of the times and his own
> erstwhile preeminence amongst the Revolutionary faction, it is both a
brave
> and a pointedly tolerant invitation which Pynchon has GW make here. The
fact
> that the invitation is made in "a note tucked into a Frame full of cross'd
> Ribbons" (572.9 - What is the significance of these ribbons? Is it an
> anachronistic reference to the wearing of ribbons in our times as a sign
of
> remembrance or solidarity with various causes? Or is there a particular
> historical precedent? ... ) anyway, the apparent secrecy of this
invitation
> illustrates just how dangerous it would have been for George to be seen
> consorting in public with Mason, a minion of the much-hated English King.
>
> So, in the fortuitously smoky poolroom, the talk inevitably turns to
> Revolution, and white American colonists are described as being "enslaved"
> by the British, with someone offering the sentiment that "we're merely
> another kind of Nigger" (572). I think the exclamation taking offence at
the
> use of the term "Nigger" at 572.26 is Washington's, which is why Mason is
> suddenly "twitching away", and then the retort at 572.28 is Gershom's,
which
> is exactly the moment when George recognises his friend's voice. I'm
pretty
> sure of this now that I read it over again, and it certainly shows us that
> Pynchon's GW is quite ready and willing to take an anti-racist stand. And,
> note as well that it's actually the "razor sharp" Gershom who intervenes,
> risking personal danger in the exposure of his own racial identity, to
> defuse the situation and protect his friend, George Washington. Through
the
> smoky veneer of Pynchon's narrative this is in fact a very telling moment
in
> my opinion.
>
> I also think that what happens on the next page when Mason recognises
Nathe
> McClean's voice, and the youngster is acting in exactly the same role as
> Gershom, is that an analogy is being made between the lot of a Negro slave
> and the lot of a white wage "slave", i.e. all those workers who have been
> chopping and clearing and cooking and mucking about as Mason and Dixon's
> employees on the Commission over the past couple of years. I have a
feeling
> that what we're being alerted to in this scene, and in the novel and
> Pynchon's works more generally, is that there are basic similarities
between
> all humans - relationships, behaviours, natures etc, whatever the
particular
> circumstances - and that it's the degree of benevolence or cruelty of the
> "master", whether that master be King, Colonel, slave-owner, or employer,
> which makes all the difference.
>

Isn't there a line somewhere: "(...) only degrees of slavery." - I think of
my own "lot (as) a white wage "slave"" who only gets money if there's work
to do.

>
> It's interesting that William Gaddis's early (unpublished) play _Once at
> Antietam_, long excerpts from the original script of which crop up as a
play
> written by one of the characters in his 1994 novel _A Frolic of His Own_,
> likewise "brings up this whole question of wage slaves in the North" (_A
> Frolic of His Own_ 107) being the equivalent of Negro slaves in the South.
> It's quite a radical proposition, but one which neither text is dismissing
> lightly. I think this sort of revisionism of the conventional revisionist
> posture which we see in both texts is quite radical and ground-breaking.
And
> I do believe that there's a real affinity between Gaddis's and Pynchon's
> work in general, whether conscious or not.
>
> best
>

Yeah, you know that I love  _A Frolic of His Own_ especially partly because
of this play written into the text. On the Rasterfahndung-CD Gaddis offers
the opinion that they both have read very little of each other:

"I haven't read . . . I think he and I read very little of each others work
and I would doubt (...) he seems very sui generis, very, he does what he
wants to (...) and we both I think stumbled on this, suddenly absurd, this
notion of entropy."
(track 11, 02:30--03.12)

Well, if he has read only little of Pynchon how does he know if Pynchon
hasn't read more of him?

Otto


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com