GR translation: more steeply than the waking will ever need

[jochen stremmel]

Whose point would that be?


2012/11/2 Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>:
> 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?
>>> >
>>
>>