GR translation: more steeply than the waking will ever need

[Ian Livingston]

Certainly there's no way the water could be symbolic of the chthonic
unconscious we carry into every day, framing every scene, purposing every
act. Ordinary debris is moved as we are moved, objects on the surface of
some dark.... Waking is active, to be wakened is passive; waking
subjective, the objective is wakened by some outside force acting upon it.


On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Bled Welder <bledwelder at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20121029/0377efd8/attachment.html>