GRGR(4)

[Spangenthal, Robert E.]

>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?


>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).


At 54.35:  "As the data keeps coming in Roger looks more and more like a   
prophet." Roger's response is "Have I ever pretended to be anything that   
I am not?"

This section sums up for me the dichotomy between (and the inability to   
resolve) the perspectives represented by Pointsman and Mexico.

Like Stencil, Pointsman strives for enlightenment that he can never   
achieve. Like Profane, Mexico appreciates the meaninglessness of his   
observations (Mexico can't really 'learn a goddamn thing' except that any   
observable data will plot according to certain formulae and can not be   
used to predict any isolated event).

The same analysis applies to the relationship between science v.   
religion, predetermination v. free will, causation v. randomness, etc.

TRP frames the relationship between Pointsman and Mexico with a comical   
plot (does the talking dog remind anyone else of Groucho Marx?) The   
slapstick scene, with collapsing buildings, talking dogs, and toilet   
bowls stuck on feet, masks the despair the reader should feel upon the   
realization that neither approach can achieve enlightenment.

I think that TRP, as usual, taunts us to attempt to resolve these   
unreasolvable issues.

I am still grappling with the role that Jessica plays in all of this.   
Does she understand the Monte Carlo fallacy? She seems to achieved a   
certain state of grace even though it appears she does not. Mexico seems   
to understand, however, that Jessica is a creation of the war; she will   
go back to Beaver. Does Mexico despair that his relationship with her is   
so ephemeral?