Oedipa?

[Andrew Dinn]

Basileios Drolias writes:

> > Of course, Mondaugen, being a scientist, is bound to be tarred with a
> > certain amount of ambiguity. As a scientist he has to come up with
> > accounts of why things happen. 

> Isn't GR a mockery of exactly this though: A mockery of cause and effect, of 
> why things happen?

Not quite a mockery, more of a deflation. The point being that
accounts of why things happen are just that - stories which people
accept and use for certain purposes. Such accounts don't guarantee
their own validity or even value. That's for humans to do. The problem
is when paranoia (personal or collective) leads you (or others) to
stick with a story that is well past its sell by date.

> > But his success as a scientist requires
> > that he maintain a certain level of disbelief in any of the
> > explanations he gives. Pynchon's favoured scientists - Mondaugen,
> > Mexico, Pokler, even Stencil - all exhibit this ambiguity towards
> > their beliefs at the same time as displaying a dogged earnestness in
> > their attempts to provide an adequate explanation. His objects of
> > derision are the true believers like Pointsman who already know the
> > one answer they are willing to accept and are merely busy trying to
> > explain how the phenomena support it. The crisis which all the good
> > guys (apart from Stencil) go through is the recognition that this
> > semi-sceptical ambivalence may (or may not) be scientifically sound
> > but is personally inadequate.

> You really think so? I somehow think that all the scientists appearing in 
> TP's works are sad data collectors with high ideas about the future, with 
> great minds from the past as their inspiration, but who are incapable of 
> living `normal' lives. The crises that they  suffer do not have 
> to do with the (deeply Dostoyevskyian I would think) debate between 
> scepticism and pure belief but with the inadequacy of their personalities.

The good guys all have a crisis at some point, Mondaugen at Foppl's
siege, Mexico when Jessica leaves, Pokler in the Dora camp (perhaps
Stencil in Malta?). In all three cases it's for roughly the same
reason - they have remained detached, computing the odds, regarding
the situation objectively, not putting it into personal terms for
themselves or other people. This is the inadequacy of their
personalities, that they depersonalise their own and other people's
private lives in just the same way they depersonalise their science.

Poekler and Mexico both get into trouble through trying to rationalise
the behaviour of the women they are involved with. Mexico cannot see
that Jessica will leave him when the war is over because he cannot
understand how she could want the alternative (the idiot Beaver, who
always reminds me of Arfie in Catch-22). As if she has to have a
reason! Roger cannot help but think so. Poekler likewise keeps trying
to explain to Leni why her political beliefs are all wrong. But are
they? Or are they just different? And how `right' is he? Most of all
what Poekler cannot deal with is the fact that Leni's belief is not
grounded in reasons which are acceptable to him - not grounded in
reason at all. But then neither are most of his beliefs - at some
point that has to be the way with belief! Mondaugen too goes through a
similar process at Foppl's siege, trying to rationalise the
unaccountable, trying to understand the insane people around him.

Although I said I they all eventually reached a crisis where they
recognise their inadequacy this doesn't imply that they all resolve
their problems. What they all do is stop trying to rationalise
everything. The dilemma is not really one between scepticism or
belief. The true believers are actually just a more inflexible version
of the scientific sceptics. They have to rationalise events even
harder in order to fit them in the mould of their dogma, maintain the
coherence of beliefs in the face of any and every eventuality.

The resolution which the good guys eventually arrive at is to lose
their desire to rationalise everything, to treat belief as an
expediency rather than a grail, a tool rather than a cross to
bear. Poekler most of all manages to forget about explaining and start
experiencing and enjoying. Actually, I have a lot of time for the
Poekler.

> Speaking about scientists I was thinking that TP at some points is trying 
> to lift the stigma of the German scientists who were working for the 
> VIIs. (They were really people with high morals thinking about reaching the 
> moon, having nothing to do with politics etc.) I find this extremely odd, 
> or maybe I am missing something (which is quite probable ).

To a degree. Pynchon is pointing out how common and how easy it is for
scientists to convince themselves (or others, at least) into thinking
that their work is not connected with politics or people. Their
training encourages this type of compartmentalisation. Yet, at the
same time this argument clearly does not suffice to excuse the
behaviour. Poekler's walk through hell in the Dora camp is supposed to
pass judgement on him (and the other V2 scientists), not exonerate
him.

By the way, Speer's biography provides a classic example of this
belief that scientists (or engineers) can just do their job and stand
aloof from politics, as does Dornberger's book V2. Both of them are
lying through their teeth, of course, covering up their ambition and
their guilt. I think Poekler is based more on Dieter Huezel, an
engineer on the V2 project who wrote the book `From Peenemunde to Cape
Canaverel'. His book contains far less whitewash than either Speer or
Dornberger.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
O alter Duft aus Maerchenzeit / Berauschest wieder meine Sinne
Ein naerrisch Heer aus Schelmerein / Durchschwirrt die leichte Luft