Not P but DFW: Richterish-looking sound wave

Tue Mar 3 12:34:08 UTC 2026

It could indeed require a lot of footnotes, depending on the book. It’s
certainly true for this particular book, due to its diverse subject matter.
And because Wallace often likes to include a fair number of footnotes of
his own, this is a situation where we have footnotes on footnotes.

Regarding the Richterish problem, my feeling is that the point of the
reference is not to remind people of the shape of an audio waveform, which
almost everyone knows, but to describe the impression he got from looking
at the picture displayed on the computer screen. Of course, it’s impossible
to know for sure without knowing how exactly the picture looked like, but
I’m quite convinced this is the correct interpretation.

As for censorship, it indeed exists, and it’s normally in the form of
self-censorship at the editorial level, mostly concerning matters that are
politically sensitive. For example, in DeLillo’s Zero K,when mentioning
self-immolation of monks, the phrase “in Tibet, in China, in India” was
changed to “in India and other places”, and when talking about famines in
Ukraine, the phrase “engineered by Stalin” was omitted outright. In
addition, any other mention of Tibet was prefaced by the adjective
“Chinese”.

In the published translation of GR, the name of Karl Marx was censored in
the first edition, because he was described as “that sly old racist”, and
as far as I know, that’s the only case of censorship in the book. But
interestingly enough, the name was fully restored in the revised second
edition. On the other hand, the sexually explicit parts in the book were
present in their entirety in the first edition of the translation, but were
heavily censored in two places in the second edition, although it was
billed as “revised and unabridged”, and some readers are understandably
quite upset about such false advertising.

In the case of AtD, the only trouble I can see is with the terms “Chinese
Turkestan” and “East Turkestan”, and I will have to try to find a way to
prevent them from being changed. I don’t expect any censorship due to the
anarchist nature of the politics involved.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 7:40 PM Corbeau Castrum <filsducorbeau at pm.me> wrote:

> I am curious about this Chinese translation business and the way of
> handling esoteric references. Do you leave a note for everything that the
> average Chinese reader might not know (which seems like that could be a
> lot, if us anglophones, native or otherwise, enter heated battle over just
> one word)?
>
> Also, I found a couple of Richter's paintings that could qualify as
> looking like either sound waves or seismogram:
> https://wahooart.com/fr/art/gerhard-richter-image-abstraite-8XY4KU-fr/
>
> https://ideelart.com/blogs/magazine/observing-gerhard-richters-abstract-painting
> https://fr.lumas.com/pictures/gerhard_richter/abstraktes_bild/
>
> My proposal is that the abstract quality of Richter's paintings makes them
> more capacious for metaphoric description than the more literal
> seismological interpretation. So the answer to this problem is not what is
> more "true" but what is more strategic.
>
> But is not the ultimate point of the reference just some way of alluding
> to the wave form? Perhaps this is the easiest answer?
>
> Could you make a decision (arbitrary, perhaps) about the Richter
> translation, and in the footnote explain the problem/Wallace's seemingly
> ambivalent usage?
>
> In the context of you GR translation, I'm also very curious about any
> forms of (political) censorship that you might have encountered, especially
> given how Pynchon's politics circle around the anarchist variety (which I
> can't imagine is very appreciated by the CCP). Or is the situation more
> like what Zizek said: "Let the government watch me and be less stupid,
> maybe he will learn something. This is not my problem [...] what do I care,
> people are stupid, they don't threaten me, it's like showing a newspaper
> [sic] of Hegel's Logic to a cow." (
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiD3InAjnMA)
>
> Zizek can be amusing, somehow I don't feel like I can trust what he says.
> (Maybe he's too obviously neurotic and provocation-enjoying? He feels like
> the critical theory equivalent of Tarantino—he comes off as sophisticated
> for the crude, and as crude for the sophisticated. If only Z was an artist
> rather than a Lacanian. Then at least there would be no pretenses.)
>
> On Friday, February 20th, 2026 at 11:55, 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
> > >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
>