MDMD(4) p.123 small re-write

[Matthew P Wiener]

David Casseres writes:

> [...]  but Pynchon's agenda is what it is, and one of the things
>Pynchon tells us is that the beauty of science and technology -- what
>Oppenheimer called "technical sweetness" -- does not exist in a
>vacuum and cannot be separated from its intimate involvement in
>wealth, power, business, government, war, and so forth.  And for that
>reason it must, in a novel, be discussed metaphorically and morally
>and emotionally.  To do this without falling into cocktail-party
>philosophy is an extremely difficult feat, and I can't think of any
>other writer who even tries to the extent that Pynchon does, let
>alone succeeding as Pynchon does.

Richard Powers does it even more extensively than Pynchon, and he
conveys an astonishing range of ambiguity about where the science
and its inherent beauty and seemingly inherent misuses fit into
human lives and greater society, and he does so with a good detailed
knowledge of the science involved, an engaging penetration into the
histories behind the scenes, and a careful poetic craft, whereby the
scientific metaphors penetrate into multiple levels of his writing.

One trivial example was in THE GOLDBUG VARIATIONS.  At some point I
noticed that the main characters consistently used different but
similar looking words.  A would have cause to say "immanent", and
two chapters later, B would say "imminent".  This happened more
than once.  I thought that was a very nice riff off the larger (and
more obvious) DNA metaphors.

Overall, Powers has much more warmth and humanity than Pynchon.  I
believe this is a consequence of Powers integrating his scientific
themes "metaphorically and morally and emotionally".  (On the other
hand, Powers isn't as funny or as gonzo as Pynchon, perhaps for the
same reason.  Or more simply, Powers is classical to Pynchon's pop.)
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)