Discussion opener for GRGR(9)

[Paul Mackin]

Better make me stab at the first section of Andrew's
questions:

> 
>  1) `habitually blank' (136.39) Why are these words italicised? Oh,
>      and whose are they by the way?
>>>Only for mild emphasis. Pointsman is all business and doesn't
want a lot of distractions even in his bedroom. Might give him
bad dreams.

>  2) 137.4 onwards. What does Pointsman's dream signify? Or is it just
>      that he's been taking too muchof that amphetamine and benzedrine?
> >>>According to Weisenburger he's moving left toward the Holy Center.
If this isn't sufficient it's a premonition of poor Spectro's death. Will get
out my _Interpretation of Dreams_ and see what "change" dreams are
sposed to mean. Good chance to reread old Sigmund.

>  3) `sinister' (138.4) Is this playing on the unaccustomed `left'
>      turn he makes? Whose is the name? Also, note the play on `light'
>      in `light tapping' (138.5). cf also `but it already is light' in
>      Pirate's opening dream, Roger and Jessica's light getting `very
>      red' and maybe even `the Khirgiz Light'?
> >>>The name could be Spectro's. Sinister is not too far from spooky
or haunted.

>  4) `paradoxical phase' Does this word signify beyond it's Pavlovian
>      roots?
>>>>Not really Pavlov's meaning, of course, but as the text says 
it's "[s]omething like what happens." Maybe it's like you don't
notice until the dog STOPS barking. Something like that.

>  5) `Spectro_{E}' (138.23) What does the subscript E stand for?
>      Ethereal?
>>>>According to Weisenburg, Eventyre the medium, but Ethereal
is close enough for jazz. 
 
>  6) `helping fill out the threes prediction, which lately's been
>      lagged behind' (138.36). Ignoring `lagged' for `lagging', look!
>      even Roger the oh so objective statistician cannot help thinking
>      in terms of "appetition", nature struggling to keep up with the
>      dictates of his formulae, when he "knows" that each outcome is
>      independent of the preceding ones. So what is Pynchon's stand
>      here? Is he making a point about human nature and backsliding
>      into credulous belief in the routine and ritual of theory - where
>      prediction conditions expectation to the level of presumed
>      certainty? Or is he criticising the validity of Roger's
>      "knowledge", a presumption of independence being just as arrogant
>      as, if not more so than, the presumption of a connection or
>      cause?
> >>>Well, even Roger has his doubts at times. Somewhere, deepdown,
the dice do want to conform, play the game. We're all in this together,
guys and girls. At a higher level,  Roger doesn't think his love Jess is
a random event, even though of course she is. Wants to see her as a
break in the wave or some such.

>  7) `When it does happen we are content to call it "chance" (140.2).
>      Or we have been persuaded.' Is this just paranoia or does this
>      exemplify the point made in the previous question that notions of
>      `randomness' embody as much metaphysical presumptionusness as
>      those of `determinacy'?
> >>>Yeah, really the same question. One of Pynch's greatest charms
is the ability to use scientific constructs (skillfully, even surgically)
to display human doubts and other foibles which are anything but
scientific. We always know that he knows the way things  REALLY
are, and this seems to be very important to us. Hasn't much to do with
metaphysical presumptiousness IMHO.

>  8) `What holds him back' (140.29). Well?
> >>>For better or worse, Pointsman is a disciplined scientist,
committed to the position that things are not necessarily
the way you want them to be. Of course this kind of resolve
can arise from an essential timidity, fear of breaking the
rules, striking out toward the unknown, smiling back at poor old
Maudie Chilkes (love those English names).
 
>  9) `He is my Pierre Janet' (142.2). Anyone know enough to explain
>      this analogy.
> >>>At the least, Janet discovered "the unconscious" along with
Freud, but did not develop the concept. Spectro, too, will be denied
the highest achievement (the Nobel Pointsman hopes for), in S's case
through premature death. Can't remember what Janet's excuse was.
Sorry, that sounds flippant.

> 10) `but the underlying structure is the turning face' (142.31).Any
>      thoughts on the significance of this? Childhood terrors? Orpheus?
>      What? And there are several other scenes where a face is turned
>      and an eye is caught which seem to relate to the Orpheus legend
>      e.g, Slothrop catching Katje's eye in the casino just as he
>      recognises her preterite nature and the threat to himself of
>      preterition.
> >>>This is a scene in which someone was taking something
(something besides amphetamines) and the someone wasn't
Pointsman but our dear author. As Andrew might say, Boy.
And it was supposed to take place in broad daylight. The dream
of boldly facing the man-beast was mild in comparison. 

> 11) `Even if the American's not legally a murderer he is sick' (144.7)
>      Boy! that's rich!
>>>>Can't help being reminded here of not guilty by reason of
insanity, stress, a drinking problem, and other popular defenses
of the 90's. Know that's not what Andrew has in mind.
Suppose we have to get into the old debate of victim's
rights against rights of the accused. Oh, me, I dunno.
 
> 12) `We must never lose control' (144.36) Double boy! He continues
>      `The thought of him lost in the world of men, after the war,
>      fills me with a deep dread I cannot extinguish [...]'. These
>      lines are really scary. Pointsman recognises that he appears
>      `creepy' to others but only as a physical thing. But this is the
>      mental creeps of a higher order which, of course, he cannot
>      recognise.
> >>>>Yes, single or double we don't want OUR BOY Tyrone
turned into a pariah over a few, er,  coincidences. On the other
hand, think of the girls. Victim vs accused again. OK, have at me
Andrew.


Be back with the second section latter.

				P.