File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9711, message 1064


Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:06:31 -0500
From: Paul Stone <pas-AT-MNSi.Net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Number Symbolism


>If you think most discussion of numerical patterns is bunk, try reading this
>article and get back to us about it: John S. Gordon, "Ithaca as the Letter
>C" in _James Joyce Quarterly_ (the oldest and still central Joyce-studies
>journal), 32.1 (Fall 1994), 45-59. Gordon uses statistical analysis of the
>number of occurrences of the letter c in Ulysses to demonstrate that it's
>almost statistically impossible for Joyce not to have deliberately intended
>to work as man c's as possible into the Ithaka episode -- the number is more
>three times the maximum for the rest of the distribution (sc. the other 17
>episodes). Which to me doesn't mean much unless it ties in thematically. But
>it does -- see the rest of the article, where c's are relevant to the
>episode in a whole slew of ways, from the shape of the bow Odysseus strings
>to kill the suitors in the Odysseus (which is what Bloom somehow is engaged
>in in his thoughts in the second half of the Ithaka episode), to the nerves
>(the anatomical element of the episode according to Joyce) and the then
>newly-discovered synapses (nerve is from Latin for bow-string).

Greg,

	If someone reads a passage and says "Hey, there are a real lot of c's in
here." and then tests it numerically and finds out that there are indeed 3
times more than usual, then that IS interesting. And maybe it is even
directly intentional that Joyce put all the 'c-words' in there. (I wonder
what that means?) But Joyce was also a very musical writer and it is
possible that he just liked the c sound and intentionally put THAT in
there. Okay, maybe that is apples and apples. Of course, the 3:1 is
prevalent in Ithaka. Water:Earth mentioned explicitly. This is all really
interesting, But hardly complex math. Just a recurring motif. Like in line
349 
"He had not risked, he did not expect, he had not been disappointed, he WAS
satisfied". 3 negatives, one postive.	It is obvious that Ithaka is the
"science" chapter. Simply from the way the question/answer thing alternates.
	I would be interested to know if there was an exhaustive study of all
letters in all episodes? Did other's have 'letters' too? If no one has done
that study, perhaps you could add a 'letter' heading to each of the
chapters in you Ulysses Schema.
	I wouldn't put anything past ole JJ though. 

>Joyce used a lot of science in Ithaka (the penultimate episode in Ulysses).
>What do you think of the math/science-thinking there (I could say positive
>and not-so-positive things about it)?

	Well, I remember the last time I read Ulysses (about five years back) I
was amazed at the glaring scientific "ERRORS" in Circe (15). I'm sure that
Joyce put those in there on purpose, but fellow classmates (who know not
even the equation for the area of a circle), if not directed to these
errors in scientific fact, would certainly today still believe these faulty
assertions put forth by purposely dimwitted characters. Sorry, I would have
to travel to my parents' house and dig up my old essays to give you exact
references. But they are there.
	
	My point is still: fudging around with simple numbers and using simplistic
numerical motifs which are naturally echoed in nature and man's
actions/thoughts (if stretched or compressed enough -- and in fact, as you
have admitted, intentionally manipulated by JJ) is not really
mind-boggling. To have a sophisticated mathematical allegory is what I'm
waiting for. And I ain't never seen one. 

	Once again. I think that this is really interesting. But it is hardly ever
done well, and even when it is done well, like in Dante, and Joyce, it's
just simple counting -- which is already a necessity for good scansion.
Language is simple math when it becomes poetic. There is always a pattern,
and that is why it is satisfactory. Exhaustively searching for a pattern of
polynomial/binomial expansion, or Exponential Growth,  or set theory in
literature is like saying "hey that white coloured stuff over there is
coloured white." Sooner or later, no matter how complicated the equation
becomes, it will describe the pattern. The problem is, language and math
are totally unrelated, except in that really simplistic way, and if you
have simple language, you have no math, and with complicated math, you have
no intelligible language. You can't square the circle, and Joyce realized
this as he alludes to it in "Proteus" [3]. 
	Like Twain said "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
	If you search long enough, you can prove anything by manipulation of numbers.

	But what about the serious attempts at linking real math with real
literature? I'm still waiting.

wolffy



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005