Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Recommended Reading for a 250th Birthday
Illustrated by Jenny Bee

Recommended Reading for a 250th Birthday

On Pynchon's Mason & Dixon and What It All Means

“As all History must converge to Opera in the Italian Style, however, their Tale as Commemorated might have to proceed a bit more hopefully.” They are Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, the English surveyors and astronomers who, between 1763-68, charted the eponymous border lines between Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, made famous a century later as the invisible barrier between slave and free states, the fissure in the house divided. Thomas Pynchon’s 1997 novel Mason & Dixon is a frenetic epic of their America. As we approach the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and with it, an assured parade of reductive punditry about what it all means, Mason & Dixon will shake you with big questions. The competing maps of our national genesis myths are legible under its stars.

It is a series of folktales told in winter 1786 by a Philadelphian reverend. The narrative voice is his, replete with unconventional capitalization and grammar. (Do not be discouraged. It grows less distracting after a few chapters.) He knew Mason and Dixon, travelled with them on their Pennsylvanian expedition, and shares their stories to a shuffling crowd. The first third of the book explores the protagonists’ lives before America. A naval battle against the French upends their commission to observe the Transit of Venus from Sumatra. They visit Cape Town, hosted by slaving sex traffickers, then briefly make observations from St. Helena. In America they encounter Franklin, Washington, and Jefferson. In the wilderness their band of surveying associates expands, pulling the story on wild, discursive tangents. They feel the moral weight of their line-drawing mandate and probe the ethics of colonial expropriation. Starchart navigation connects them to a protean divinity. They move like oracles through an interlocking, at times tangled, narrative that fuses historiography, magical realism, folklore, socratic dialogue, and science fiction.


Today the American Right seeks to monopolize our founding myths. AI John Adams quotes Ben Shapiro. They’re scrubbing slavery from museums and textbooks. The Federalist Society’s originalism is the interpretive law of the land. The once-living Constitution is dead. All of this builds to the wet dream shared by the Christian Nationalists and tech bro anarcho-capitalists now running the show: that America is infallible because our culture is white and ordained by God. All contrary historical data will be flushed. It is a collective delusion of grandeur, an exceptionalism upholding that power is more important than truth. And it is winning.

When Justice Kagan wrote “we are all originalists now” she conceded that the constitutional spirit of America is frozen in amber, and that all battles for the future will be about the meaning of the past. Open Pynchon’s time capsule, dump it out, examine each chapter like a relic, and you’ll feel the complexity and disharmony of our national creation. There is no one myth. History is more scattered than fiction. The buzzwords of revolutionary America lose their emotional charge. Liberty, freedom, slavery, democracy, government, God – they’re all there, stripped of hero worship, unmilitant, held to the light. You will feel more and think more about the patriotic verities than ever before.

Mason and Dixon are aware that they are agents of conquest. Their border line —which they carve into the earth, clearing trees as they progress westward— anchors each of the characters, symbols, and ideas to the land. It is a meditation on manifest destiny at its genesis, yet stripped of romanticism, existentially spiraling, lost in the woods. They talk about violence as endemic to expansion. The Paxton Boys massacred peaceful Lenape. Dixon, disgusted with slavery, whips a slavedriver and liberates his captives. The ugly side of history is laid bare without swallowing the entire story. Violence unfolds with proportion, gaining abstract plenitude as the narrator explains “‘Unfortunately, young people, the word Liberty, so unreflectively sacred to us today, was taken in those Times to encompass even the darkest of Men’s rights,— to injure whomever we might wish,— unto extermination, were it possible…” What, then, were the bounds of liberty? What are they now? Does the Second Amendment mean - as the deified Charlie Kirk once argued - that some school shootings are worth it? Should we place any value in what liberty meant to men who systematically denied it to their slaves?

And what is God’s role in our national creation myth? It unfolds as metaphor. Vaucanson's mechanical duck gains full sentience, autonomy, and powers of invisibility and teleportation. It seeks to liberate another mechanical duck and avenge all its plucked, cooked brethren. To that end it stalks a French chef, who flees to America and joins the surveying expedition to escape it. The Duck floats in and out of the story as a God symbol. The chef recounts “I once would have inquir’d coolly, what an Automaton might know of Life, but now I only sat silent, unconsciously having assum’d what I later learned was that Hindoo asana, or Posture, known as “the Lotus.” At what moment the Duck may have taken her leave, who but the Time-Keeper knoweth? Time, however, had acquir’d additional Properties.” The quacking holy ghost judges and acts, a participant in the story, contrasted to the other great religious symbol, a giant golem, forged from the earth by Native hands, who is heard but never seen. In metaphor and in explicit dialogue throughout the book emerges this great Enlightenment preference of deism over theism. It is a rebuke to the Christian Nationalists who now claim that we the people were always evangelical. Au contraire. Jefferson thought Jesus a man, plain and simple. Thomas Paine wrote passionately about Deism as the guiding light of the Revolution. Franklin and Madison too averred that God did not play an active role in mortal affairs. Now Trump sells Bibles, and his cult of personality exalts him as chosen by God. Steve Bannon recently argued for a third term by labelling him a “vehicle of divine providence.” It is the logic of kings, the very logic indicted and purged by our revolution, now ascendant from politicized pulpits.

Questions of God, as they often do, lead to questions of religion. Ben Franklin instructs the title duo “Pennsylvania Politics? Its name is Simplicity. Religious bodies here cannot be distinguish’d from Political Factions.” The Quaker-Anglican-Presbyterian rivalries in Philadelphia follow the surveyors into the forests, where, lurking and scheming, subversive French and Native spies serve a cabal of Jesuits and Chinese mystics that Franklin deems “the two most powerful sources of Brain-Power on Earth, the one as closely harness’d to its Disciplin’d Rage for Jesus, as the other to that Escape into the Void, which is the very Asian Mystery. Together, they make up a small Army of Dark Engineers who could run the World” through the Jesuit Telegraph, a “Marvel of instant Communication… far-reaching and free of error, thanks to giant balloons sent to great Altitudes, Mirrors of para- (not to mention dia-) bolickal perfection, beams of light focused to hitherto unimagined intensities…” Was Marjorie Taylor Greene, when she ranted about space lasers and grand conspiracy, actually making a deep-coded Pynchon reference? No, but it’s wild fun to see the founding fathers consumed by their own Q-Anon-ish paranoia of a Sino-Jesuit syndicate. It is a protracted illustration that there has never been religious consensus and that the church-state barrier was purposefully created. Perhaps J.D. Vance and Clarence Thomas, who lead the charge to tear that barrier down and replace it with Christian patriarchy, would be humbled reading that they, as Catholics, are Ben Franklin’s great anti-American bugbear.

In the passage below, their line is drawn, and Mason and Dixon stand on a New York pier waiting to board for return passage to Falmouth, England. You feel that you are running out of pages, saddened that the philosopher friends are abandoning your land, never to return:

On their last visit to New-York, at the very end, waiting for the Halifax Packet, they dash all about the town, looking for any Face familiar from years before. Yet they are berated for their slowness at Corners. Carriages careen thro’ Puddles the size of Ponds, spattering them with Mire unspeakable, so that they soon resemble Irregulars detach’d from a campaign in some moist Country. The Sons of Liberty have grown even less hospitable, and there is no sign of Philip Dimdown, nor Blackie, nor Captain Volcanoe. “Out of Town,” they are told, when they are told anything.

“Let’s drink up and get out of here, there’s no point.”

“We can find them. That’s what we do, isn’t it? We’re Finders, after all.”

“The Continent is casting off, one by one, the Lines that fasten’d us to her.”

Yet at last, seated among their Impedimenta, Quayage unreckon’d stretching north and south into Wood Lattice-Work, a deep great Thicket of Spars, poised upon the sky, Hemp and City Smoak, two a shed-ful of somberly cloak’d travelers waiting the tide, they are aware once more of a feeling intra-cranial, part Skin-quiver, part fear,— familiar from Inns at Bridges, waiting-places at Ferries, all Lenses of Revenance or Haunting, where have ever converg’d to them Images of those they drank with, saw at the edges of Rooms from the corners of Eyes, shouted to up or down a Visto. This seems to be true now, of ev’ry Face in this Place. Mason turns, his observing Eye protruding in alarm. “Are we at the right Pier?”

“I was just about to ask,—“

“— I didn’t actually see any Signs, did you?”

They are approach’d by a Gentleman not quite familiar to them. A Slouch Hat obscures much of his Face. “Well met,” he pronounces, yet nothing further.

“Are ye bound for Falmouth?” Mason inquires.

“For Pendennis Point, mean ye, and Carrick Roads?” His tone poises upon a Cusp ’twixt Mockery and Teasing, which recognition might modulate to one or the other,— yet neither can quite identify him. “That Falmouth?”

“There is another, Sir?” Dixon, maniatropick Detectors a-jangle, gets to his feet, as Mason Eye-Balls the Exits.

“There is a Falmouth invisible, as the center of a circle is invisible, yet with Compasses and Straight-Edge may be found,” the Stranger replies. At that instant, the company is rous’d by a great Clamor of Bells and Stevedores, as the Packet, Rigging a-throb, prepares to sail. There will be perhaps two minutes to get aboard. “We must continue this Conversation, at Sea,”— and he has vanish’d in the Commotion. Each Day, on the Way over, Mason and Dixon will look for him, at Mess, at Cards, upon ev’ry Deck, yet without Issue.

Mason’s last entry, for September 11th, 1768 reads, “At 11h 30m A.M. went aboard the Halifax Packet Boat for Falmouth. Thus ends my restless progress in America.” Follow’d by a Point and long Dash, that thickens and thins again, Chinese-Style.

Dixon has been reading over his Shoulder. “What was mine then…? Restful?”

In the following chapter we imagine— what if they stayed? They chart the prairie and the desert. They discover Uranus. They are rejected by the country they made navigable, then retire to the mythical St. Brendan’s Isle.

I read the final chapter the day after I moved apartments in Philadelphia, boxes still a-clutter, assuming that we were en route to a pastoral English death finale— a placid, predictable conclusion. Instead I felt swallowed by a literary wormhole as Mason, chasing some final scientific discovery, returns to Philadelphia and dies on the very street I now call home. He is buried three blocks away from where I read the ending. I had no idea. These blocks will fill in the coming year with crowds exalting a quarter-millennium of something. Read Mason & Dixon if you need a reminder that it’s all more complicated than flags and fireworks. You get a say in what it all means. Ours is a map unfinished.


Trey Flynn is a lawyer in Philadelphia.

More For You

To The Parisian Gentleman: Do I Have to Thank ChatGPT?
Illustration created by Jenny Bee

To The Parisian Gentleman is a write-in advice column for matters of taste, decorum, and the spiritual condition of modern life. Our esteemed gentleman divides his time between Paris and the American South, where he has cultivated unimpugnable opinions on nearly everything. Submit your questions via DM or Paris@VextMagazine.com


To The Parisian Gentleman,


Dear Inconsiderate in Idaho,

We recently learned that "please" and "thank you" hold real monetary value in Silicon Valley, in the context of its new golden egg: Artificial Intelligence (AI). Tens of millions of dollars are spent fielding the courtesy people show to ChatGPT. Of course, the powers-that-be behind the technology were quick to defend the continued use of these words.

Why should one say "please" and "thank you"? The answer lies at the very essence of our so-called magic words. They are elemental components of an old idea: "graciousness." This idea can be defined as the various expressions of attention shown towards, and expected of, others. Graciousness is a sensibility, the awareness of awareness itself. Gratitude and an understanding of implication are its guiding spirit.

This notion is ancient, perhaps older than humanity itself. Archaeologists discovered evidence of ritualized burial among Neanderthals, bodies carefully covered in flower pollen—a gesture of gratitude transcending spoken language. The Greeks called this “xenia,” moral and spiritual imperatives governing hospitality. Myths tell of gods disguised as beggars rewarding those who showed courtesy, and punishing those who withheld it.

But we live in real, organic life, not in Ancient Greece, and not in the virtual world. Graciousness has been left to fester, its absence left unpunished, particularly in America and particularly amongst its new professional classes.

Graciousness, above all, is about intention. One must wish to be gracious in order to be so. Modern culture, pathological with its optimization and efficiency, treats every interaction as transactional. When we see others primarily as obstacles or tools, we practice a kind of casual dehumanization. These habits, once formed, shape all our interactions.

A prime example is how the upper-crusts treat wait-staff. Recently, at a friendly dinner in Paris, a new acquaintance refused to say "please" or "thank you". Instead, he snapped and waved dismissively. Even his tone was condescending. When pressed about his attitude, the offending party defended himself, even vaunting such disdain as a family trait. Zeus would not have been pleased.

With all of this in mind, shall I answer your question, Dear Reader? Should one say "please" and "thank you" to AI? In my opinion, yes. Resoundingly yes. Not because AI has feelings to hurt, but because we have habits to maintain and our humanity to carry. Gratitude is spiritually augmentative in its expression, irrespective of the ear upon which it lands.

In saying "please" and "thank you" to AI, we maintain, transmit and build upon the wisdom inherited from our forebearers. Each act of graciousness, each "please" and "thank you" offered sincerely, is a breath upon the flame keeping civilization alive, a flame whose very purpose is to remind us what it means to be human. AI, even if a simulation of intelligence, is still made in the mirror of our own. AI learns from example, as do people. The way we treat others is a mirror, and we are inviting that treatment back upon ourselves.

The question isn't whether AI deserves our courtesy, but whether we can afford to lose the practice of courtesy itself.

So yes, Inconsiderate in Idaho, your wife is right. You needn't thank the dishwasher - it's just metal and water pressure. But you do need to be the kind of person who would thank it, if it helped.

Submit your questions via DM or Carson@VextMagazine.com


Keep ReadingShow less
Why Is Gen Z Rewinding to 2016?
Illustration by Jenny Bee/Images via Unsplash/europeana, Jim Varga, and Joanna Kosinska

Scroll long enough in 2025, and you’ll eventually land in 2016. A year cast in Valencia-filtered nostalgia, it was the heyday of Vines, King Kylie and entire rooms belting “Black Beatles” like it was the national anthem. It was a time before the internet got meaner, before TikTok brainrot took over feeds and before influencers became lifestyle brands. And now, nearly a decade later, people are longing to return to that moment, when their biggest worry was squeezing in one more round of Overwatch before Mom called them downstairs for dinner.

On TikTok, there are over 300 million videos tagged #2016. In them, people revisit the Pokémon Go craze, pay homage to beauty guru–era makeup and share hazy edits of Unicorn Drinks and Coachella flower crowns. There are snippets of ragers soundtracked by Lil Uzi Vert, dancers dabbing and viral clips of people reminiscing about teenage nights spent driving around past curfew — music up, location off. In the comments, users share their own memories or express envy, all idealizing a time that felt spontaneous, carefree and real.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Rise of D.I.Y. Botox and Fillers
Photo via Shutterstock/AtlasStudio

It’s a quiet Friday night, and Kirstin is busy setting up her injection station. Laid out on a tray for easy access, she places an alcohol wipe and a tube of lidocaine cream next to a box containing a small syringe of cosmetic dermal filler. She takes another look in the mirror and studies her face while testing out the plunger, doing a few tiny passes onto the tray before placing the needle to her lips. “It is a bit nerve-wracking, of course,” the 24-year-old says while detailing her first-time experience. “But overall, I’m thrilled with my results.”

Kirstin isn’t a doctor or a nurse, but she is part of a growing number of people doing at-home cosmetic injectables. Through social media, they teach each other how to perform procedures typically done in doctors’ offices and licensed medical spas. They swap tips, share product recommendations and talk about their own experiences. They ask ChatGPT for advice and discuss Trump’s tariffs affecting the cost of South Korean imports. And with the help of facial anatomy charts, fake practice lips and YouTube demonstrations, they fill, aspirate and inject before posting their results online.

Keep ReadingShow less
Niia's "Throw My Head Out the Window" Teeters on the Edge of Control

Niia’s “Throw My Head Out the Window” opens with the wistful wail of a lone saxophone, its notes heavy with longing. Her voice drifts in like smoke, aching in the same register.

In the minimalist music video, she hangs her head out a car window and croons to the Los Angeles canyons. The track builds over skittering, dance-inflected production, her voice picking up momentum as the tension coils tighter in her delivery. It’s moody, striking and teetering on the edge of control, with a deep undercurrent of angst that hovers just above a scream. The bubble threatens to burst, but it never does. And that restraint is intentional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reality TV Is Turning Us Into Armchair Psychologists
Illustration by Mark Paez

At the height of Love Island USA season 7, new episodes were only half the entertainment. As each one aired, the fun came with recapping, discussing and dissecting the Islanders’ every move on social media. But that conversation quickly went south, as some viewers began diagnosing contestants like Huda Mustafa with borderline personality disorder (BPD). As Mustafa’s relationship with Jeremiah Brown shifted from lovey-dovey moments to screaming call-outs, more and more people piled on with amateur commentary. And in the era of armchair psychology, Love Island contestants aren't the only reality stars under this kind of scrutiny.

With social media breeding a new kind of fan culture around surveillance-based reality shows like Love Is Blind, Big Brother, The Ultimatum and Love Island, a different entertainment experience has emerged. Audiences don’t just watch people on reality shows anymore; they try to diagnose them.

Keep ReadingShow less