A math joke in Gravity's Rainbow

[Markekohut]

Just a moment to pile on with a Yes to the " omnipresence of Einstein and relativity" in AtD...after my latest rereading.......( in which I had Monte's ob in mind)......and about which, altho Monte might not agree here, and I know it is too simplistic as stated but it goes like this: relativity entered the Western world about the time " the transvaluation of all values"---Nietzsche ---did
And when Truth became......debateable......
Modernity...

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Monte Davis" <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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
>