GR's Chipco Stomp Preview

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

In amongst a whole loada stuff Steely corrects John M:

> First, this is not Proverb 5, it's Proverb 2. Second, it reads as Pynch
> wrote it: "The innocence of the *creatures* is in inverse proportion to the
> immorality of the *Master*." The entire construction of the sentence (and
> thus its meaning) is reversed.

Err, x = k/y iff y = k/x? That's the main meaning entirely preserved.
The difference is in the details, of course, but we will come to that.

> And it's creatures, not slaves. BIG difference to us working class stiffs,
> though probably meaningless to the critical handgranades of the PoMos,
> where anything that comes close is passable, and often publishable, work.

> The parallel here is to a creature like Frankenstein, or, in this case,
> some Godzilla-like thang, which, interestingly enough, rematerializes
> all-too-fleetingly in Vineland to stomp the bejeezus out of that Chipco
> plant.

The parallel indeed. Highly apropos to the current passage in the GRGR
where Pointsman's fears about Slothrop running loose and uncontrolled
colour our favourite parable with a distinctly Frankensteinian hue.
Or better still see Slothrop as Der Golem. Ties in neatly with all
those Kabbalistic references and reassembling the shards broken at
creation. Is not the Golem one such failed attempt at reassembly?
Rather like the rocket (or the bomb). Which failure could have fatal
consequences for us all. In which case who more likely to blame the
creature than the idiot creator who should really be carrying the can.

Well, having struck that Kabbalistic note, I will mention that
yesterday I was recalling Gloaming's application of Zipf's work on
frequencies and the MMPI test as employed on Slothrop. Notice how
these tests have been made `objective', qua content-free, looking as
they do at simple order, grouping clustering and correlation
properties of chosen words and phrases rather than at their well known
and perfectly-clear-thank-you-very-much meanings. All in the interests
of objectivity and certainty, of course, on the spurious grounds that
since we can only ascertain precisely what something means 99% of the
time a true science of nature cannot depend on questions of
meaning. Well it struck me that this sort of horseplay with patterns
and hidden structures which is the bread and butter of so many bad
psychologists, bad social scientists - hell these days even
theoretical physicists and computer scientists are in on this act -
this sort of twisting and turning over of the material to see whether
there is some revelation to be found in the warp and woof of the
fabric rather than in the pattern or the embroidery is nothing more
than Kabbalism (or is that Gnosticism by another name). And of course
(a cheap parting shot here) let's not pretend that the arts - lit crit
in particular - is not susceptible to, has not in large part succumbed
to exactly the same type of fiddling as the gardens of academe are
consumed by flames. Call me paranoid but . . .


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.