MDMD(4) p.123 small re-write

[Paul Mackin]

In response to Mathew:
 
I would question whether Pynchon godfathered the entropy-
made-stupid fashion if that's your meaning.  Back in the early sixties 
entropy was a very hot social science research buzzward at my so called 
think tank and I am sure no one there ever heard of Thomas Pynchon.
(Thomas Kuhn was THEIR Thomas)

I don't think P's knowledge of science was (in GR) nearly as weak
as you imply. Of course he does totally outlandish takes on
this or that construct, but they demonstrate at least a
knowledge of basic scientific principles. Just one example,
the sound shadows passage very late in the book. He couldn't have 
done it without understanding how light and sound waves really work.
Of course it's probably only high school physics.

I agree there are too many buzzwords in Pynch and might
also agree with your dim view of scientific readings of literature
if I knew what you meant. 

One of those p-buzzwords might have been trotted out in that
passage about gallows/slavery/crusades/the cross. Isn't the
phrase "an essential term" something we have seen several 
times before. Sounds vaguely scientific or mathematical, for
no very good reason that I can see. " . . . whilst Slavery must
ever include, as an essential Term, the Gallows . . ." The
whole sentence struck me as a tiny bit pretentious. Maybe
he's just putting us on. I did  admire Stephen M's effort to
analyze it however. Wanted to  help but was at a total loss.

Enough questioning of the Master on my part.

			P.



				P.

Matthew P Wiener wrote:

> I should mention that I generally have a dim view of scientific readings
> of literature.  All too often they are written by the halfclued, chasing
> after too many buzzword metaphors.  Things are doubly bad in the case of
> TRP, since his own use of science tends to the vague and impressionistic,
> or else correct but not integrated into the fiction.  His introduction
> to SLOW LEARNER contains what reads like a mea culpa for godfathering
> the entropy-made-stupid fashion.
> 
> Overall, though, M&D is an improvement in Pynchon's use of science.  He
> seems to know what he is talking about in astronomy, and furthermore he
> uses it to develop and mirror his themes rather well.  Off-hand I don't
> remember any chaos theory images, so you'll have to point me to them.
> --
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)