GR translation: more steeply than the waking will ever need

[Mike Jing]

I am not sure what your point is.

Well, apparently I am the idiot here who is asking all these stupid
questions about a novel that is often ambiguous.  I do understand
multiple meanings are possible, and that may even be intended by the
author.  But being the idiot that I am, I may not be aware of certain
hidden meanings, or more often than not, I would get the meaning
completely wrong, and many a time people here have helped me
understand these things better.  And I'd like to think that at times
some of them may have learned something new as well.

And there is the additional problem of translating it into a language
that is quite far removed from English.  The difference in
connotations between the two languages sometimes make the choice of
words very difficult.  Well, the only thing I can do is to try to
understand it as best as I can.  And if I am not sure, I'll have to
continue asking idiotic questions.

I am just happy that I don't have to translate anything that you wrote.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Bled Welder <bledwelder at gmail.com> wrote:
> Remind me to write a book where everything has "multiple meanings".  Idiots
> will sit around and go, "Well what he meant here is, this, or that, and it
> could even be this, or that..."
>
> I'll be like that guy who wrote that bitchin book that everybody loves to
> read and think about because it's perfectly elusive and multiply meaningful.
>
> "What's he mean here, man?"
>
> "Oh, well in that bit there, he possibly meant this..."
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nice..".perceptible signs of a different order".....a phrase that could
>> have come from Crying of Lot 49 and yes to double meaning (at least)
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/29/2012 8:28 AM, Markekohut wrote:
>> >> Perhaps all, each and every object? The contrast between order and
>> >> randomness.
>> >
>> > Slothrop senses some kind of disruption in the randomness of the room--a
>> > Maxwell's Demon perhaps. The room is "coded." There are perceptible signs of
>> > a different order.  Order is double meaning here.  There is the order (or
>> > lack of order) in the arrangement or rearrangement of objects, but  also
>> > there seems to be a Secret Order--the kind of order that takes oaths.
>> > Another Order.
>> >
>> > Consider the use of the word "debris" in the book--it occurs 27
>> > times--first time by Sloat in observing Slothrup' s desk.  It's a godawful
>> > mess, completely random, without significance to Sloat's spy mission. Except
>> > for one thing--the map of London tacked over the desk--it does seem to have
>> > meaning, relevance.  It's coded. Sloat snaps it with his spy camera.
>> >
>> > Sloat is still watching Slothrup at the Casino.  Only this time it's
>> > Slothrop who is beginning to Observe.
>> >
>> > He's not in Kansas anymore.  The normal, waking world is not a closed
>> > system.  It's been penetrated.
>> >
>> > P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:23 PM, Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I should really have searched my own email before firing that one off.
>> >>> But this discussion of "the waking' is giving me new ideas.  Now I am
>> >>> thinking of the act of waking up from a dream, and the lingering
>> >>> images from the dream, which can be thought of as some kind of
>> >>> "debris".  Or is it actual debris floating and turning in the wake of
>> >>> a boat?  I may have finally gone off the deep end here.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, it seems reasonable to assume that "the ordinary debris of
>> >>> waking" are the ordinary, everyday objects around Slothrop.  Now the
>> >>> question becomes, which objects belong to "the
>> >>> paraphernalia of an order whose presence he has only lately begun to
>> >>> suspect"?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:05 AM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> 2012/10/28 Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM, David Payne
>> >>>>> <dpayne1912 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Although see how "waking" is used on p. 205..12::
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "For a minute here, Slothrop, in his English uniform, is alone with
>> >>>>>> the paraphernalia of an order whose presence among the ordinary debris of
>> >>>>>> waking he has only lately begun to suspect."
>> >>>>> That reminds me, what are these "ordinary debris of waking" anyway?
>> >>>> Until now I thought Laura had the right answer (from the 12th of
>> >>>> June):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's a nice thought experiment: you're sitting in a cluttered, really
>> >>>> messy room, because you're pretty much of a slob (the room's filled
>> >>>> with "the ordinary debris of waking.").  But then you're told
>> >>>> (Slothrop only suspects) that someone has selected certain items in
>> >>>> the room and moved them, slightly, without your knowledge, for
>> >>>> purposes beyond your understanding ("Their" order) .  Which objects?
>> >>>> Why?  That's how Slothrop feels.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Seems still plausible to me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps we should ask Max what he made of the two wakings in his
>> >>>> translation?
>> >
>
>