GR translation: more steeply than the waking will ever need

[Bled Welder]

Yes I think I see what you're saying.  I don't understand why the sorry but
nevertheless!

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>wrote:

> There's a problem there, Bled. If you translate a piece of literature
> into another language you have to decide sometimes what the author
> meant with a certain word - if you don't have a word in the other
> language that's congruent with the word you read on the page. And that
> is not the case with a word like "waking" - in no language I know of.
>
> Sorry.
>
> 2012/10/29 Bled Welder <bledwelder at gmail.com>:
> > It takes talent?  Pull this off, lady.
> >
> > I need waking, that steep.  Or is it ly.  If I adverbize it, does it
> become
> > talentful?
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:21 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course, you'd have to have talent to pull that off.
> >>
> >> LK
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bled Welder
> >> Sent: Oct 29, 2012 1:14 PM
> >> To: Markekohut
> >> Cc: Paul Mackin , "pynchon-l at waste.org"
> >> Subject: Re: GR translation: more steeply than the waking will ever need
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121029/780b147a/attachment.html>