Not P but DFW: Richterish-looking sound wave

Tue Mar 3 04:26:50 UTC 2026

And I do appreciate that, greatly.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 6:55 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> My working volunteer premise is that any question is not pointless...
>
> It makes me feel good that any small contribution might help you publish
> the best translations into
> the language of billions of one of the greatest writers in the world, in
> the history of the world...
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 12:15 AM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mediums would indeed come in handy right now.
>>
>> Jokes aside, one problem is that the name "Richter" is transliterated into
>> Chinese differently when it's German than when it's English. Leaving it in
>> its original form would no doubt be considered bad practice by common
>> Chinese editorial standards, and make it incomprehensible to the average
>> reader.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, even if I go with Charles the seismologist instead of
>> Gerhard the painter, "in the manner of Richter" would make no sense to a
>> Chinese reader because (1) in Chinese, the phrase "Richter scale" doesn't
>> actually contain the full name "Richter", so the average Chinese reader
>> wouldn't even recognize the name, (2) even if the name is recognized, say
>> with the help of a footnote, the reader wouldn't realize it's referring to
>> a seismogram, because like I said, the Richter scale is not
>> about seismogram per se. So I actually have to explicitly translate it as
>> "looking like a seismogram", thus bypassing the name altogether.
>>
>> This illustrates some of the problems when translating into Chinese that
>> do
>> not arise when translating between English and languages that are closely
>> related to it. So if I ask a question that seems pointless for the purpose
>> of translation, please consider that there may be a good reason for it,
>> because Chinese works very differently from English in many respects.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 6:52 PM J Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I don’t get why you have to nail down the reference. We are talking
>> about
>> > a sonic seismogram of some kind. That curve or set of curves appears to
>> the
>> > author “Richterish”, so why not try to say something equivalent.  Is
>> there
>> > no way in Chinese to say “ like Richter”, or “ in the manner of Richter”
>> >  or some similar phrasing and let the reader decide.  I would say either
>> > deliberately or somewhat sloppily, or a bit thoughtlessly DFW wrote
>> > something that could be validly interpreted either way. So maybe just
>> leave
>> > it open.
>> > Of course mediums could be gathered and Wallace contacted on the other
>> > side to settle this vital debate one way or another.
>> >
>> > On Feb 19, 2026, at 1:14 AM, Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > First of all, I would like to point out that the word "bits" used here
>> has
>> > nothing to do with anything digital, but simply refers to different
>> parts
>> > of the picture (and parts of the audio that they represent)  that can be
>> > manipulated in the audio editing software. It definitely has nothing
>> > whatsoever to do with seismographs, digital or otherwise.
>> >
>> > Secondly, here are some examples where the word "Richterish" is used to
>> > refer to the art style of Gerhard Richter, one is a newspaper article
>> dated
>> > 2004, so the word had already been in use in the media back then:
>> >
>> > https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2004/mar/30/1
>> > https://www.jeffmidghall.com/printmaking
>> > https://www.frieze.com/article/albert-oehlen
>> >
>> > Now, to summarize, the case against Gerhard Richter the painter being
>> the
>> > Richter referred to here is basically:
>> > (1) nobody has heard of him outside a small circle of art enthusiasts,
>> > (2) none of his paintings looks particularly like sound waves.
>> >
>> > I have already addressed (1), but obviously you disagree, and not much
>> more
>> > can be said in that regard.
>> >
>> > As for (2), since we don't know exactly what kind of picture Wallace
>> saw,
>> > it's difficult to know for sure whether it looks anything like a Gerhard
>> > Richter painting or not.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, the case for Charles Richter the seismologist is
>> almost
>> > the exact opposite:
>> > (1) everybody knows about the Richter scale, at least the name,
>> > (2) waveform display in typical audio editing software looks very
>> similar
>> > to seismograms,
>> > (3) since the Richter scale is derived using seismograms, voila,
>> > "Richterish-looking" must be referring to the general look of
>> seismograms.
>> >
>> > To me, (3) is where this line of reasoning breaks down: the connection
>> > between seismograms and the Richter scale, though close, is
>> insufficient to
>> > warrant the use of the word "Richterish" to describe a seismogram. Like
>> I
>> > said, this is more of a gut feeling of mine than anything else, and I'm
>> > very surprised to find out that it's a feeling almost no one shared. So
>> > far, I have only found one person who thinks Gerhard Richter is the one
>> > referenced here, while almost everyones refuses to even entertain that
>> > possibility. To them, it's completely sufficient that audio waveforms
>> look
>> > like seismograms and seismograms are related to the Richter scale and
>> > that's the most famous Richter they know. I find it rather astonishing
>> that
>> > no one shared the same uneasy feeling I had about this usage.
>> >
>> > In any case, if neither side can be persuaded, we'll just have to agree
>> to
>> > disagree.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 11:52 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The usual word is Richteresque, I learn.    [like Kafkaesque, Daliesque,
>> > Pynchonesque]    But Richterish is used...
>> >
>> > from Google:  However, there is a slight "clash of definitions" here
>> > because Richter’s style is actually the opposite of a shaky seismogram.
>> >
>> > And look at some of Richter's paintings, a whole lot---most?---are not
>> > like sound waves AT ALL....so where would Richterish-looking sound waves
>> > even  come from?...one usually doesn't usesome part of an artist's work
>> to
>> > generalize even loosely about...
>> >
>> > "individual bits"?    Who talks about a whole Gestalt artwork that way?
>> >
>> > Google definition: The only time you’d hear about "bits" in this context
>> > is if you are talking about *digital seismographs*.
>> >
>> > Nobody knows anything about Richter but the scale that is part of the
>> > phrase. Almost no one knows about the artist then, no matter that he was
>> > 'hot'  then and Wallace would NOT use it like that in a magazine for
>> smart
>> > general readers...I argue.....and an editor would not let him IF he
>> would
>> > follow the editor.....(and they do for the best magazines although not
>> > necessarily for books...)
>> >
>> >
>> > Visualizing Sound Waves
>> >
>> > When you look at your screen while editing, you aren't just seeing
>> > "noise"; you're seeing a mathematical representation of air pressure
>> over
>> > time.
>> > 1. The Waveform (Time Domain)
>> >
>> > This is the standard view you see in almost every editor. It shows the
>> > *amplitude* (loudness) on the vertical axis and *time*on the horizontal
>> > axis.
>> >
>> >   -
>> >
>> >   *Sine Waves:* The simplest form of sound—a smooth, repetitive
>> >   oscillation. It sounds like a pure, clear whistle or a tuning fork.
>> >
>> >   -
>> >
>> >   *Square/Sawtooth Waves:* Common in synthesizers; these look "jagged"
>> >   or blocky and sound buzzy or harsh because they contain more
>> harmonics.
>> >   -
>> >
>> >   *Complex Waves:* This is what human speech or music looks like—a
>> >   messy, organic-looking forest of peaks and valleys.
>> >
>> > 2. The Spectrogram (Frequency Domain)
>> >
>> > Some high-end software (like iZotope RX) allows you to see a
>> *spectrogram*
>> > . Instead of just seeing how loud a sound is, you see which
>> *frequencies*
>> > are
>> > present.
>> >
>> >
>> >   -
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:03 PM Mike Jing <
>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Upon further reflection, I'm all but convinced that Gerhard Richter is
>> > indeed the intended reference here. What's being talked about here is a
>> > picture or waveform of a soundwave, showing its amplitude vs. time,
>> > displayed on a computer screen by audio editing software. Although it
>> looks
>> > very similar to a seismogram, I find it odd to describe it as
>> > "Richterish-looking", because although a seismogram is closely related
>> to
>> > the Richter scale and thus to its namesake and co-creator Charles
>> Richter
>> > the seismologist, it's not quite the same as the relation between an
>> artist
>> > and his work. For one, the seismograph/gram was not actually invented by
>> > him, nor does it hear his name. This is where I think the use of
>> > the name-derived adjective breaks down. It's far more likely the
>> > "Richterish" here actually refers to an artist, in this case a painter,
>> due
>> > to the visual nature of the comparison. In fact, a google search of
>> > "Richterish" yields several results that refer to Gerhard Richter the
>> > painter.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, Gerhardt Richter had a good deal of play in the early
>> 2000s,
>> > and many in art circles raved about his work. A writer like Wallace was
>> > likely exposed to his work. And this particular essay was published in
>> the
>> > *Atlantic
>> > Monthly*, whose readership may very well be more knowledgeable in such
>> > matters than the general public. So it's not out of the realm of
>> > possibility. Actually, I think it's quite probable, for the reasons
>> given
>> > above.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 2:07 PM Mike Jing <
>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > That's what I went with originally, and I was going to reject the
>> > suggestion out of hand due to the simple fact that I've never heard of
>> the
>> > artist or his work. Then I looked him up and it turns out he is sort of
>> an
>> > important figure in contemporary art, so I thought I'd better ask in
>> case
>> > it was my own personal ignorance.
>> >
>> > Thanks for replying, Mark.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 2:54 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It refers to the Richter scale....jagged sometimes earthquake-like
>> > size....
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:18 PM Mike Jing <
>> > gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The following excerpt is from David Foster Wallace's *Host*:
>> >
>> > NexGen (a Clear Channel product) displays a Richterish-looking sound
>> > wave,
>> > of which all different sizes of individual bits can be highlighted and
>> > erased in order to tighten the pacing and compress the sound bite.
>> >
>> > It was suggested by a proofreader that the Richter here refers to
>> > Gerhard
>> > Richter, a German painter, and the picture of the sound wave displayed
>> > by
>> > the NexGen software looks like some of his abstract paintings. I've
>> > never
>> > heard of the artist before but it does sound plausible, and the word
>> > "Richterish" is similar to "Picassoesque". Does anyone care to confirm
>> > or
>> > refute this?
>> > --
>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>