MDMD(4) p.123 small re-write

[Paul Mackin]

Thanks to Matthew for elaborating on points in his earlier post
I had wondered about.

Since I brought up the sound-shadows passage in support of
the proposition that Pynchon must have paid attention in
physics class, I had better elaborate a little myself. My
memory of GR was also slightly old, but I did manage to
find to the passage. The topic is introduced on p. 695 in a
section called LISTENING TO THE TOILET: "Imagine this very elaborate 
scientific lie: that sound cannot travel through outer space. Well, but 
suppose it CAN. Suppose They don't want us to know there is a medium 
there, what used to be called an "aether," which can carry sound to
every part of the Earth. The Soniferious Aether. For millions of years, 
the sun has been roaring, a giant, furnace, 93 millionmile roar, so 
perfectly steady that generations of men have been born into it and 
passed out of it again, without ever hearing it. Unless it changed,
how would anybody know?"

Thus the stage is set for a whole lot of fun, including
eddies in the Soniferous Aether, sound shadows, the Kenosha
Kid (again), and those never to be forgotten Men With Hoses
To Hose The Place Out. I'm reminded of what Eric said about the
talking clocks. Being is given to what in the normal scheme
of things cannot exist, in this case the sound shadow.
Oh, that Pynch.

			P.
				


Matthew P Wiener wrote:
> 
> Paul Mackin writes:
> 
> >In response to Mathew:
> 
> >I would question whether Pynchon godfathered the entropy-
> >made-stupid fashion if that's your meaning.
> 
> Not quite.  I just have the suspicion that Pynchon's particular choice
> of self-criticism, of all the things he could self-criticize, is because
> he had a tiny bit of guilt feeling in the above department.  No more.
> 
> >                                             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)
> 
> Yes, but the social sciences are cloistered enough, so that it could
> have come and gone there and nobody else would have noticed.  But
> once it hit the English departments, not only was it made available
> for the masses, it was a tenured concept.  No amount of harsh facts
> would ever dislodge it.  (The social sciences have since gone the
> English-department-way, but that is a different story.)
> 
> >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.
> 
> Could you remind me?  I'm working on 15 year old memories.
> 
> >                                                 He couldn't have
> >done it without understanding how light and sound waves really work.
> >Of course it's probably only high school physics.
> 
> Without knowing the passage, your wording doesn't sound encouraging.
> Sound does not cast shadows.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Not to me.  "Term" is mathematical, yes.  But like I said, I think
> Pynchon is integrating the buzzwords in better this time around.
> Perhaps this is a reflection of his background reading: no doubt
> Pope, Donne, Marvell were on his list.
> 
> >                                    " . . . whilst Slavery must
> >ever include, as an essential Term, the Gallows . . ." The
> >whole sentence struck me as a tiny bit pretentious.   [...]
> 
> Eeh...?  The whole book struck me as a tiny bit pretentious.  That
> was part of the fun, was it not?
> --
> -Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)