Chapter 45: The Duck Strikes Beak

[John Bailey]

Happy Line-iversary to all!

And on to Chapter 45…
Seeing as how this chapter is only a meager four pages, I’ll mix my comments 
and questions with the chapter summary. The section begins with some 
developments upon the duck situation: ‘Back Inhabitants all up and down the 
Line soon begin taking the Frenchman’s Duck to their bosoms, for being 
exactly what they wish to visit their lives at the Moment, - something 
possess’d of extra-natural Powers, - Invisibility, inexhaustible Strength, 
an upper Velocity Range that makes her the match, in Momentum, of much 
larger opponents, - Americans desiring generally, that ev’ry fight be fair. 
Soon Tales of Duck Exploits are ev’rywhere the Line may pass. The Duck routs 
a great army of Indians. The Duck levels a Mountain west of here. In a 
single afternoon the Duck, with her Beak, has plow’d ev’ry field in the 
County, at the same time harrowing with her Tail. That Duck!’

Firstly, it would seem as if the Duck is here joining the ranks of the 
Badasses, the larger-than-life legendary lawbreakers whom Pynchon describes 
elsewhere as fulfilling a certain function in popular myth. She may not be 
Big in size, but she’s growing in stature. A quick comment: note that it’s 
‘all up and down the Line’ that she’s gathering this renown. I didn’t really 
notice this point at first, and just unconsciously substituted ‘in the 
surrounding region,’ but it’s interesting to consider how the line is linked 
to this spontaneous myth-generation. What is it about the Line which 
influences the process? At this point the Line has only just begun; is only 
a dozen or so miles long. This link between the Line and the Duck becomes 
more powerful, but the nature (or perhaps the point) of this connection 
eludes me.

The connection between the passage above and superhero narratives seem 
obvious to me, at least, although I wouldn’t limit it to superheroes. The 
Duck is part of a much broader cultural process, which would probably 
include countless folk heroes. The second paragraph of the chapter goes on 
to attribute to the Duck a related but somewhat different role, that of the 
Gremlin or Faery or whatever pops your cork, taking the blame for personal 
‘disaster, general stupidity and blind luck.’ Everyone has a story about the 
Duck, it seems, though little proof of the encounter. She’s always the one 
that got away.

For anyone interested, the Indian ‘Monkeyman’ story which came up last year 
has been written about quite well at 
http://www.sarai.net/journal/02PDF/03morphologies/05theatre_urban.pdf
Although the .pdf format has given some people I know a headache, so if you 
would like a text version posted email me offlist. The Monkeyman is a great 
example of a non-localised ‘urban legend’ (though that term has been abused) 
which appeared in India, and for those who followed it as it happened, 
provided a fantastic daily read.

It’s also worth noting that our tenacious twosome never actually meet the 
Duck, unless I’m mistaken. This adds to the idea of the Duck as representing 
Something Else, more of a symbolic figure than an actual character. They 
meet the LED, and other fabulous creatures/things, but the Duck is only 
perceptible in the effects she has (although knocking Mason’s hat from his 
head is a pretty solid act.

Skeptical Mason takes up the typical role of the High Culture faux-Luddist, 
whose indictment of technology rests upon someone else’s supposed 
flaws…‘They’ll believe what they like…in this Age, with its Faith in a 
Mechanickal Ingenuity, whose ways will be forever dark to them. God help 
this Mobility. They have to take all Projectors upon Trust, - half of whom 
have nothing to sell, who know nonetheless of this irrational need to 
believe in automatons, believe that they can sing and dance and play chess, 
- even at the end of the Turn, when the latch is press’d and the Midget 
reveal’d, and the indomitable Hands fall still. Even as Monsieur Vaucanson 
furls back the last Silk Vestment, - no matter.’

The chess playing referred to here is almost undoubtedly von Kempelen’s 
Turk, a life-sized automaton which would play (and usually beat) anyone who 
challenged it. Concealed within the machinery was a real person who operated 
the machine via a very complex process. The Automaton Chess Player was 
created by Wolfgang von Kempelen and first shown in 1769 (an anachron- oh 
whatever), touring the world for almost a century afterwards.
See…
http://www.randi.org/jr/01-19-2000.html
and for a list of links regarding von Kempelen and his automaton try…
http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/farkas.htm
There are plenty out there.

One thing to note is that, of the ‘fifteen eminent chessplayers’ who 
operated the Turk, I don’t think any were midgets. HOWEVER, this is the same 
mistake made by Edgar Allen Poe in his celebrated essay on and ‘exposure’ of 
von Kempelen’s machine. I wouldn’t be surprised if Pynchon is referring to 
Poe, if obliquely, here. Gravity’s Rainbow makes a similar reference to the 
chessplayer (and names him Marcel - ?) at p.675.

The Duck is becoming more powerful…Says Armand: “ ‘As her Metaphysickal 
Powers increase, so do her worldly Resentments, real and imagin’d, the shape 
of her Destiny pull’d Earthward and rising Heavenward at the same time, - 
meanwhile gaining an order of Magnitude, in passing from the personal to the 
Continental. If not the Planetary.’ Perhaps fortunately, no one present has 
any idea what he is talking about.’

Reminiscent of GR (and perhaps its critical reception?), this seems to be an 
interesting reflection on… something. The machine is HAL and Dave in one, 
growing ever more abstract whilst simultaneously becoming more 
human…becoming something bigger than this world can handle, something equal 
but separate from reality. Is it a symbol of story? Metaphor? Technology? I 
don’t know.

The chapter ends with some of the party-members reflecting on the apparent 
contradiction between epic Tragedy and mundane tragedy. This corresponds 
thematically with the preceding section: what links the two is an interest 
in Scale. Grand folly, apocalyptic disaster and utter ruin are discussed as 
things which are celebrated, whilst everyday loss is regrettable. In the 
transition from the quotidian to the mythic, the huge leap in scale leads to 
a reversal which seems to fascinate Pynchon, and the inexplicable 
correlation crops up again and again. Thoughts, anyone?




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.