GRGR4

[Paul Mackin]

Another stab at some of Andrew's questions: 

 2) `blast of noiselight' 43.12 the dog has been hit in a rocket
    strike hence his desirability to Pointsman who later urges Roger
    to minimise any fuss keeping the dog as near to `normative'
    (44.10) as possible. Does Pointsman really think dogs can display
    the same conditioned behaviour as Slothrop? Or does he really need
    a little fox with the relevant higher brain functions?

Me: The "normative" is a nice Pavlovian touch. Keeping the unanestized subject alive and healthy sometimes for
years was what Pavlov pioneered in. Wasn't the usual
way to do things.
______________________________________________
 
 6) `short long short' (44.12) Morse code? . - . Which letter?

Me: International code for "R"; "Roger" (meaning yes) says Roger.
_____________________________________
 7) `Mrs Nussbaum' and `Lessie' (44.17) How did we get into fantasy
    land here? Is it teh ether? Note that up to this point we have
    done the usual drift from the narration and/or dialogue into the
    various characters voices and/or thoughts. Even the dog got a look
    in in the first paragraph. But where are we here? Is this like a
    TV or radio joke where the actors step sideways out of character
    for a second (possibly into a caricature of themselves, or maybe
    into another character not related to the show).

Me: This bit of humor upon making a strange encounter of any kind would have been almost automatic it those days. Everybody listened to Fred Allen. The fact the
encountee was a dog made it all the more irresistable
to the author.  For this latter reason the alternative
"Dr. Livingstone, I presume" would have been distinctly
inferior. 
______________________________________
 
   

Moment of Truth as just an everyday expression means the outcome is going to be
determined in the next few seconds. And it is. Roger misses
and the dog gets away. Also could mean mean the end of
using dogs as subjects and the switch to humans notably
Slothrop. Roger thinks it might be himself that will be
experimented on.
 
__________________________________

13) "The Book" (47.3) Anyone know their Pavlov? Is the book real? (heh
    heh, loved asking that question).

Me: The Book is real enough. According to Weisenburger
it represented Pavlov's  effort to branch out of
physiological studies and into pyschology. Although
Weisenburg does not mention it, as I recall
history does not look kindly on this projection.
This is nothing particularly against behaviorism
I take it--just the application of neuron level findings
to higher order functions.   A respondent just a moment ago suggested a reference that might shed more light here. 

________________________________


21) "You . . ." (50.31) You? Suddenly we switch to direct address to
    the reader? Why?

Me: Could be the reader, could be Pointsman. Not a bad way to suggest the Pointsman in us all. 
________________________________
22) Pointsman "scores" an octopus? Does this relate to the previous
    sexual imagery?

Me: Or dope imagery which probably preceeded the sexual
conotation in the evolution of the verb. Not sure the
slang usage of "score" was around yet in the forties. Would love to know--if anyone has an OED.
______________________________

25) "distribution in angel's-eye view, over the map of England, and
    their own chances, as seen from down here [. . .] Why is your
    equation only for angels, Roger? [. . .] It's not precognition."
    So, answer the lady. What have *A*ngels got to do with it, anyway?


Me: Angels being "on high" get a better overall picture
of what is going on down here on earth. As opposed to
an earthling's one-blast-at-a-time perspective.
___________________________________
26) "Antipointsman" (55.19) Can Mexico (or anyone) `survive anyplace
    in between' the one and the zero? Does Roger never have to commit?
    (i.e. take a reading and find out if it is one or the other?). Is
    Roger somehow continuous where Pointsman is discrete? (not that
    this would make them opposites, oh no, so it can't be this).

Me: Just the author's irrepresible tendency to project
scientific and mathematical contructs onto human 
behavior and destiny. The guy just can't help it.
__________________________________
27) "Bombs are not dogs. No link. No memory. No conditioning" (56.10)
    "How can Mexico play, so at his ease, with these symbols of
    randomness and fright?" (56.16) Well?


Me: There he goes again with those constructs. Walter
Brennan once said something similar about mules. The
fact they don't reproduce. But that's another story.
Sorry about that.
____________________________
28) "Jessica understands that [. . .]" (56.38) This is what makes Jess
    so cruel, no? Because she can see all this about Roger and yet she
    already knows in her heart of hearts that she will settle for
    Beaver.

Me: Precisely what Jess is understanding at this particular moment is a little murky to me. 
She feels protective of Roger at the same time she knows
"there is no future in it", as they say. Not an uncommon
feminine predicament in my exceedingly humble opinion.
Can't always help loving the wrong man. Not that Beaver is right either.
______________________________
29) "the cherub who's never quite been to hell and back but speaks as
    if he's one of the most fallen [. . .] Cheap nihilism is Captain
    Prentice's name for it" (57.12) ROger does go to hell later. Is he
    not yet preterite?

Me: Everybody's preterite from day one IMHO. But I see what you mean.  
_____________________________________
30) "terrible flirt" Jess 4 Pirate? a little fantasy? What does this
    say about Jess?

Me: That's she a normal, healthy person.

__________________________________________




32) "It'll be like this when I'm thirty . . . flash of several
    children, a garden window, voices Mummy, what's . . ." (59.11)
    Roger's dream or Jessica's?

Me: Seems to me it's Jessica's. Roger's not the dreaming type.
________________________________________
33) "Death has come to the pantry door: stands watching them, iron and
    patient, with a look that says *try to tickle me*." (60.1) There's
    that inflexible old iron again.

Me: Has anyone yet mentioned the so called "Iron Law
of Oligarchy"? Can't recall who promalgated it but
it refers to the tendency of organizations like
labor unions and political parties, regardless of their
initial democractic and liberal purposes, to 
invariably end up conservative and elite. It might
equally well have been termed the "Iron Law
 of Theydom".

		P.