ballistics, etc.

[Swan - Linda]

> On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt wrote:
> 
> > Paul writes:
> > 
> > > Interesting discussion, Brian. But to me it brings to mind a 
> > > question
> > > I've had. The word (parabola) is used--for the most part--metaphorically. We 
> > > don't believe that there is anything about those secret lusts driving
> > > the planet that is _literally_ parabolic.
> > 
> > On the contrary - they ARE literally parabolic. (Somebody astutely 
> > mentioned escape velocity, for one.)
> > 
> > >                                                                   So why
> > > is it at least a little bit important that exact scientific meanings
> > > be attached? 
> > 
> > I agree. Also, P uses the 'parabola' as representing the 'normal' 
> > distribution curve in statistics; and he is more concerned with the 
> > moment of 'Brennschluss', and its symbolisms, rather than finer 
> > scientific niceties. If one gets too bogged down in these, they tend 
> > to take on the characteristics of red herrings.
> > 
> > > And yet it is important. Much of the pleasure of reading the books--though
> > > not nearly all-- comes from the recogition of various learned bodies
> > > of knowledge we have encountered elsewhere--science, history, politics,
> > > etc.  Yet the author is using his wide range mainly, if not solely, to
> > > evoke the human condition--not explicate some formal truth system.
> > 
> > Right - in order to represent / measure our increasing 
> > 'inanimateness' . In order to document (like Nietzsche) both his 
> > awareness of, and complicity in, 'decadence'. 
> > 
> > > What is this demand for "truth" we seem to have? Why does having a lot of
> > > true things in a story make it better? 
> > 
> > It's part of the human perversion. In GR, the Ajtis (sp?) looses its 
> > life-affirming nature when it is written down, becomes a dead, 
> > chopped-up representation of what once was a young couple's 
> > expression of life / love. It relates to "the true nature of control" 
> > (and synthesis).
> > 
> > > Is this something like what they say when they advertise some mediocre TV 
> > > drama-- "based on a true story"? (On a lower level of course--ha ha.)
> > 
> > Oh no, on exactly the same level. ("The twenty-four hour movie under 
> > the rug"; "the rapid succession of stills" - GR.)
> >  
> > > Anybody else wondering along these lines?
> > 
> > Pynchon, for one. Hints in GR. Fully fledged, fully developed in 
> > Vinelands.
> > 
> > right on the money, paul
> > 
> > hg
> > hag at iafrica.com
> 
 
 	I, too, have had similar wonderings and appreciate any attempts at
 enlightenment. Why does Pynchon go to the trouble to get things "right"
 to such a maddening degree? My own tentative and barely thought
 out conclusion is that he may not do this principally for _our_ benefit
 as readers. Few among us were around to read _The Times of London_
 in 1944 or know the difference between a parabola and an elipse as
 a book of analytic geometry would have it. Rather,
 he does his assiduous sticking to the texts of others--and that is what it
 is--as the only writing methodolgy that for him will work.
 	Pynchon has what may be one of the great creative imaginations of
 history. Perhaps, though this sounds silly, it is for practical purposes
 too great. What if a person could effortlessly sit at his desk and spin out
 images and words so rapidly that is was impossible to constrain them into
 chapters and books. All writers have this "problem" to some degree. There is
 so much to say and I can only put so much of it into this particular
 piece. But Pynchon has the problem to an almost surrealistic degree.
 That is, he _would_ have the problem if he had not been
 able to hit upon this particular writing method that for him works. (Works
 brilliantly and which we all love, so in the end he is doing it for us not
 for him.) But to get on with my so called argument. All writers, it seems
 to me, need a sounding board to bounce their ideas off. For most, some rough,
 schematic of reality is sufficient. Sufficient to contrain their imaginations
 to an acceptable form that readers can grasp. Maybe a better way of saying
 it is they need a pattern to follow but plain old beginning-middle-end
 reality is all that is required. But that would never be enough for
 TP. He needs an extraordinarily complex blueprint to follow. To 
 contrain him. An ordinary contraint would be no contraint at all. Not for
 him. Not enough of a challege. And imagine the challenge in following
 _The Times's_ day to day rendition of the war and binding it to
 Pavlov's crackpot ideas about conditional reflexes. An ordinary mortal could
 not do it. But our hero can do it in no other way. It's like having
 another presence there at your desk with you, who is in some degree
 your equal. Otherwise you are sitting there by yourself. Like
 those gas molecules in a closed system. And we all know what happens
 to closed systems. There's that e-word cropping up again. 
	But, oh hell, if his imagination is so damn outpouring, why is
it taking so long to get out that next book?
 	 
 					Linda
 
 
 
 
  
 
> 
> 
> > 
>