"at 6s & 7s"

[Paul Mackin]

Like your post, Redbug. Doesn't seem like over-analysis
to me. Besides, it's fun.
				P.

----------
> From: RedBug <redbug at hyperarts.com>
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: "at 6s & 7s"
> Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 1:54 PM
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm going to go *way* out on a limb now in this my only real
> contribution to the "seventh Christmas of the War" conundrum (p.126).
> 
> As others have mentioned, it's seems so unlikely that TRP would make this
> kind of mistake in GR. Anacronisms are one thing, but a miss-count ... nah.
> 
> I was reading Don Quixote the other night, after the SCOTW thing came up,
> and came across Sancho saying something about things being "at sixes and
> sevens." Now why do those two numbers sound so familiar? I thought to
> myself. The phrase, as most of you probably know, means  to be in a state
> of confusion. 
> 
> I find it interesting that, as in V. with the Benny-Rachel first-meet-twice
> deal (which is preceded by references to warps in time's fabric and
> which occurs at the Space-Time Agency), this episode is preceded by a
> reference to wave mechanics and the collapse of the wave function which is
> at the heart of the many-worlds theory.  But THAT may be stretching it.
> 
> However:
> 
> Roger (or the narrator?) counts seven Christmases/years. Immediately
> following is Jessica's perspective, so full of threes, thirties, and her
> count of six years of war. 
> 
> So, hey, Rog & Jess are "at sixes and sevens", right? I know this may be a
> stellar example of over-analysing TRP, but I find it much less facile (and
> much more interesting) than simply attributing it to "mistake" which I find
> completely unacceptable.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> R. Ed Bug 
> 
>