A math joke in Gravity's Rainbow

[Monte Davis]

Love it, Bekah, thanks! A lot of the "TRP and science" seam I've been
working (see the long post to Mark a minute ago) is also "TRP and history,"
sometimes even "TRP and the history of science" -- that last discipline
being every bit as twisty, if not as long, as political or social/cultural
history. 

I'd like to hear more about how you think Pynchon's historical fiction
relates to the genre. Your "bodice ripper" (or "sword and swashbuckler,"
Sabatini and Captain Blood and all that) reminds me that most HF was put
into a sub-literary genre ghetto, the last place to put TRP -- even though
of course he's been writing HF in passages, sections, and whole books since
"Under the Rose" grew into V. (Some science fiction, too, from an even lower
ghetto -- I mean, King Kong? PlasticMan comics!?!? Get me to my critical
fainting couch!)

BTW, did we ever talk here about the *guts* it took to choose that
18th-century diction for M&D? For anyone already a Pynchon fan, or for
anyone exposed to much 18th-century English prose, it should become
transparent, maybe even a pleasure, in 20-30 pages... but how many potential
new fans did he lose before they got that far? Shades of Giles Goat-Boy...

In "TRP and Science" #3 I mentioned distinguishing "where Pynchon is using
historical facts, where he's pointing to alternate but plausible historical
sequences, and where he's quite deliberately playing to conspiracy
theories." In this context I'd amend the last clause of that to "where he's
writing implausible alternate history,  'secret history' (e.g. the Trystero
after Thurn und Taxis), or flat-out conspiracy theory." 

The combination of all three is where he blows up so many expectations of
genre *and* mainstream fiction. In reading other historical fiction, I think
the same way you do about historically verifiable vs. invented events,
situations, characters etc. If I can't tell the difference on the fly, I'll
check some other sources. And I usually award an author who knows the
difference, and in whom I can infer a consistent rationale for her
inventions, some extra-literary points for credibility.

But with Pynchon, I've learned to take for granted that there are going to
be off-the-wall, flatly incredible, wacko touches that turn out to be
historical fact -- and that right next to them will be very plausible,
unremarkable, deadpan touches, consistent with all I know of history-book
history, that he pulled right out of his ass. And then he wraps both in a
conspiracy theory that's historically as off-the-wall as the Illuminati or
Elders of Zion -- but somehow *feels* fearfully true to the dark side of the
real world's real history. 

It's amazing. I'm thinking "Damn, Pynchon sure researched the hell out of
the Columbian  Exposition and Colorado mining and union/anarchist history
and Ruritanian espionage and Venetian commerce and electrical science and
Balkan vendettas... although some portion of that, how much I'll never know,
is really good plausible Pynchon counterfeit... " 

And here comes a dirigible loaded with every pulp boys' adventure trope of
1880-1920. A-and oh yeah, an alien artifact from Frankenstein's polar
wastes. And a sand submarine to Shambhala. And a time machine. And
metal-winged angel babes. And his second talking dog. 

As for AtD's Tesla, the dates and places and bare bones of his character are
historical -- but all the rest belongs to either (1) the
historical/political (not scientific) discourse of Big Money Sucks Profit
from  Big Inventions, or (2) the full-tilt conspiracy-theory (not
scientific) discourse of Big Money Suppresses Idealistic Genius' Invention
That Would Have Given the World Unlimited Free Power Forever. Which is, as
you say, one reason why it's not good to build your understanding of history
*or* science on a Pynchon book.

FWIW, as I wrote during the group read, I think Einstein and relativity are
barely alluded to but omnipresent in AtD, in the same way that the Holocaust
and A-bomb are barely alluded to but omnipresent in GR, or the War of
Independence and Civil War are unforeseen but omnipresent in M&D. That's
another way in which Pynchon breaks the frame of historical fiction: one of
the latter's common tropes is that we know what's happening elsewhere and/or
what's coming, but the characters don't. Pynchon manages to write his
narratives and their chronology  "around" huge there on every page.    
   

 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Bekah
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:43 AM
To: Monte Davis
Cc: 'Kai Frederik Lorentzen'; 'pynchon -l'
Subject: Re: A math joke in Gravity's Rainbow

Just my ignorant o,  but it seems as though Pychon uses math and science the
way Hilary Mantel (Bring Up the Bodies) or Barry Unsworth (Sacred Hunger)
or Richard Flanagan ( Gould's Book of Fish) use history - and Pynchon does
it, too.   Writers of historical fiction these days (not the old bodice
ripper days) do considerable research to get the "facts" straight.   But
sometimes they stray from those "facts" for the sake of the story - that's
what makes it fiction - parts are invented.   And we can't legitimately
"take issue" with the inventions because the book is fiction.   But if those
same "facts"  were the basis of a work of non-fiction,  the author could
surely be taken to task - even for an essay.   Imo, that's fine - how else
would we have the fine science fiction we have?

But inventing "facts"  makes "suspension of disbelief"  a real stretch for
those who are familiar with the facts - sometimes the old "SOD" just snaps.
(Mine did with P. Roth's Plot Against America and other books.) 

I have a problem when readers think they are learning history (or science)
by reading fiction.   No,  no, no, no, no!   What I do when I'm presented
with new info in fiction is to go check some sources (note the plural).   If
the author has it "correct" I applaud the research and how the plot weaves a
human story into accepted history.  When the "info" is misleading or
downright incorrect I applaud the author's inventiveness - (if it's not too
agenda driven or heavy handed).   

It seems that the science in AtD should be treated the same way -  also to
remember is in AtD Pynchon was writing from the pov of historical
understanding and events  - not with today's knowledge.  GR may be different
in this aspect as it's from a 1970s pov re WWII.  

Please be gentle - I'm a novice,
Bekah