Pynchon, Fractals, and Chaos

[Timothy C. May]

Bonnie Surfus wrote:


> to avoid anymore.  Basically:  I, as a reader with some stake in the 
> meaning of GR within the negotiation of meaning that includes my 
> knowledge, see fractal images.  Fractal images have been shown te exist 
> throughout the physical world, which includes our own 
> physiological/psychological matrices that execute our epistemological and 
> hermeneutical orientations.  My long and short term memory is aware of 

An interesting question about "interpretation" of text. We all know
about fractals, but is it kosher to analyze, say, Milton or Chaucer in
terms of fractals? I could make the claim that tales within "The
Canterbury Tales" have echoes of the larger journey...so a brief
mention of fractals would not be out of place in an analysis. But this
is much different from saying that Chaucer knew about the fractal
geometry of the world and used it in his work. Granted, Pynchon does
not go back as far as Chaucer, but the point is similar.

Thus, modern metaphors--one thinks of chaos, quantum theory,
evolution, computers, etc.--may be useful in explaining points, and
form an unavoidable vocabulary for many of us, and so such metaphors
are expected in various writings. Even about long dead authors. That
is, one does not have to avoid modern language and metaphors when
writing about authors who predate the language or ideas.

One could even write about "the role of evolution in the works of
Shakespeare," even though of course Shakespeare knew nothing of
Darwinian evolution. (This is because evolution exists, and was
suspected consciously or unconsciously by many, and hence influences
events. And because it's fair to take modern ideas and use them to
examine earlier writings.)

However, this is a different situation from saying so-and-so was
"influenced by" a theory or had some direct intent to explicate a
world-view. For that, one must actually find out if the author was in
fact exposed to the ideas, directly or indirectly.

Thus, I'm not saying fractals and chaos motifs are not present in
Pynchon's work (through GR), I'm just saying it is highly doubtful he
had ever heard of these things at the time.

> window when we'd drive in the rain--the patterns they'd make.  My reading 
> of GR, my very personal reading of GR, includes a vision of fractals that 
> operate almost as syntactic links (so far--to page 153--on the second 
> read) between episodes (stated as such, and sub-episodic action, as well.)

Fair enough. Your reading is heavily influenced by fractal metaphors.
In earlier times, it might have been "catastrophe theory" or
"holography." Both themes can be found in GR, if one is looking for them.

> Whether or not Pynchon was aware of fractals when he wrote GR is 
> irrelevant.  It is interesting, and despite what any may think, I think 
> possible that he was influenced, consciously or not, by work that emerged 
> as published descriptions of fractals, chaos theory, or associated work.  

It is _possible_ that he was influenced, but not probable. For the
timeline reasons I gave. While there is massive evidence that he was
influenced by the mid-50s development of information theory, with
"Entropy" an early story and with entropy playing an explicit role in
"Lot 49," I see no similar evidence that somehow Pynchon heard about
Mandelbrot's work on coastline lengths in the early 70s when he was
finishing GR.

> Moving towards a notion of the cultural matrix or cosmic web, she says 
> "That Saussure's proposals are remarkable similar in spirit to those 
> occurring about the same time in physics and mathematics does not require 
> that Saussure knew of Einstein's 1905 papers or read Principia 

Agreed. I haven't read the 1916 Saussure, so I can't comment on
whether she's "reaching" for these claimed links or whether they in
fact have resonances with Einstein's work. So I'll leave it at this.

> Mathematica.  Indeed, to suppose that such parallels require direct lines 
> of influence is to be wedded to the very notions of causality that a 
> field model renders obsolete.  A more accurate and appropriate model for 

By the way, as a minor point, causality is not rendered obsolete by
field models, nor by anything else we know of (not even the oft-cited
Bell's Theorem). Events still follow causes.

It is true that the modern era is more focussed on "systems,"
including system dynamics, feedback, evolution, emergent behavior,
chaos, ecologies, markets, agents, etc. The whole modern thing.

Some of these systems sort of look like causality is broken (as in
"What caused airline travel costs to increase, fewer customers or
what?"). That is, these systems have multiple agents each pursuing
some strategy, responding to forces, seeking goals, maximizing their
benefits as best they can, and so on. Newtonian models are not all
that appropriate, not that any physicist would even think they would
be.

Analysis of history, and endless debate about what caused what and who
did what to whom, is a clear example of where simple causal models
fail. This does not mean "causality is overthrown," it means that
events do not have simple causes, nor are "events" even simple to
describe. 

I think many literary folks misunderstand the nature of paradigm
shifts and think that the inapplicability of a theory (like Newtonian
mechanics) in some domain means the theory has been disproven. It
doesn't. Usually it just means the theory is not pertinent to the
domain. 

> uninteresting or irrelevant."  She adds that this "climate of opinion" 
> guides intellectual inquiry, and that "such a history would insist that 
> we not be misled by a causal perspective into thinking of corrspondences 
> between disciplines as one-way exchanges, for example, by asserting that 
> the change in scientific paradigms caused a shift in literary form.  In a 
> field model, the interactions  are always mutual:  the cultural matrix 
> guides individual inquirey at the same time that the inquiry helps to 
> form, or transform, the matrix" (CW 22-3.)

I'm not complaining very much about her emphasis on "fields" and
"field models." Indeed, perfectly fine metaphors. But it may be that
she is drawing too many conclusions from the stuff about "in a field
model, the interactions are always mutual." It's always been this way:
the falling lead ball and the earth mutually are "attracted" to each
other, or are in each other's gravity warps. The "field model" does
not really distinguish.

(By the way, whether interacting bodies exchange virtual particles, as
the current theories claim is the case for 3 of the 4 basic force, or
warp space in a field, as is the case for the remaining basic force,
is pretty much irrelevant. And certainly causality is not affected.)

> Sorry for the lenghty quotes, but Hayles speaks so well on the subject 
> and these passages seem to express a bit of what I'm suggesting about 
> fractals and a cultural matrix or climate of opinion that may have been 
> interesting or influential (directly or not) for Pynchon.  But if we do 
> look to hard at these issues, then we are guilty of buying into false 
> causality, or just believing to much in a rigid cause-and-effect that 
> might be more dream-like and mysterious than we give credence to.  

Well, few writers of any talent have used rigid cause-and-effect.
Characters who operate by rigid rules are not realistic (cardboard,
cartoons, automatons, boring). So, I think nearly all authors worth
reading and talking about have adopted a richer framework. Call it
chaos, call it fractal, call it a "field model." It's just life, with
richness, confusion, conflicting goals, drama, tension, delight,
chance, and other such stuff.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay at netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo at toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay