Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATD 1-25"

Latest revision as of 05:54, 2 November 2022

Spoilers Invisible Text

Robot, I see you're experimenting with adding spoiler content such as this:

Spoiler (highlight with mouse to read): The phrase is also found on p198, as one of Webb's last thoughts. End of spoiler.

Not a bad idea, but I greatly would prefer the following method:

See also Page 198 (spoilers).

I prefer this for two reasons. 1) There won't be duplicated content, so there won't be two or more entries for someone to edit. 2) Even though the spoiler text is in white, contributors will see the text when editing pages. We want to discourage that. What do you think?

Again, though, I am greatly troubled by even my suggested format. This section was created by me with one purpose in mind: to be spoiler-free. Spoiler additions can only benefit the second-time reader, and this section of the wiki is meant to help the first-time reader. That's its purpose. If you have some notes to make that involve spoilers, why not add them to the Alpha index, for instance here by creating an entry in the L section for "Light over the ranges."? Bleakhaus 14:57, 22 December 2006 (PST)

I've taken this off page 1 for now to match the rest of the page by page. I maintain that references to later pages should be disallowed here, but I'm definitely willing to discuss the issue and welcome all opinions by contributors. Bleakhaus 11:20, 24 December 2006 (PST)

Cut contribs- let's talk about them

Now, the ballon is up!, we could say. Which we know from V. (and p. 483 in AtD) is a British colloquallism that means that hostilities have commenced. Spoiler: the balloon is going up to end AtD. "It has happened before..." GR, line 2. Very thematic to TRPs full worldview, I suggest.

Archived discussion

p 11 "plummet/bad physics": i am a physics idiot/wiki newbie, but i dont get it why it should be bad physics here. You write: "... Once the Inconvenience loses its buoyancy, it will continue to fall, unless its weight is reduced to what a lesser amount of hydrogen could support." Thats exactly what Cosmo commands Counterfly to do on p 12: ("...jettison our sandbags or we are done for!"). Seems to be of the essence to both close the valve asap and to get rid of the ballast to make good for the loss of gas, right?

Ragtime

Doctorow fictionalises the same era, including anarchists, bombings, early Hollywood.--Robot 13:31, 5 December 2006 (PST)

Navigation

I wonder if there isn't some way to connect the annotations by page, perhaps with a little navigation box at the bottom of each set of pages that allows you to go back and forth without having to go back to the main 'Annotations by Page' page and select the next set of pages?

One could just add this at the end with the usual double-equals section header, but then it'd show up in the table of contents at the top. Maybe not a bad thing, but I figured I'd bring it up here and see what folks thought before trying it. -- cswingle Wed Dec 6 09:28:52 AKST 2006

The template ATD PbP inserts the following into an article when you type {{ATD PbP}}:

BlakeStacey 11:31, 6 December 2006 (PST)

well, we've got two options: place the whole table of contents at the bottom of each page, or perhaps just links to the previous and subsequent page. Bleakhaus 14:26, 6 December 2006 (PST)

I don't think the full TOC at the bottom is needed, although we could do it that way. I think it'd be most convenient and inobtrusive if there were links going forward and backward to the previous and next set of pages. For example: (1-25 previous | next 57-80), if you happen to be sitting at the end of pages 26-56. cswingle Wed Dec 6 13:31:57 AKST 2006

I'm not sure users necessarily want to click "next" through each successive set of pages. I'm more in favor of just having it at the bottom of the page. If it shows up in the ToC, that's okay, right? It's easy to try out, so let me now try it out now (see pp.1-25 and see what everybody (or concerned parties) think. WikiAdmin 17:56, 6 December 2006 (PST)

although either way would work, i note that inserting the ToC is much easier that coding the 35-40 pages individually... not that it's a HUGE deal, but... Bleakhaus 18:59, 6 December 2006 (PST)

I like the way it looks, and it's not really an issue that it's in the ToC. Thanks. cswingle Thu Dec 7 08:33:14 AKST 2006

Spoiler template

I threw together a spoiler warning template which might be useful for demarcating sections of pages which have spoilers in later parts but not in all. Use {{spoiler}} to get the following:

BlakeStacey 11:20, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Argument

So, given that we want to present to visitors an informative guide to AtD, where do we stick the argument? The discussion page would seem to be the place, but for most areas it remains empty. I myself have become involved in one (c.f. 153), and not wanting to respond in the disc. section to an argument advanced in the main, replied in the main as well. Yet a visitor trying to figure out page 153 will not be enlightened by two (or more) random Pynchon nerds squabbling. How shall we resolve this?

I propose the following: that we carry out argument (signed by username) in the discussion page, according to a format parallel to the main page. In this schema, I might post the following after the Pugnax entry, and before anything following:

Re: "...during a confidential assignment in Our Nation's Capitol (see The Chums of Chance and the Evil Halfwit)..."

'This could be seen as a criticism of American Presidents present or past, or perhaps the Vietnam War, which Pynchon himself opposed.'

Where does the Vietnam War enter into it? I admit that there may exist some occult meaning, but when, in the context of "Our Nation's Capitol", an Evil Halfwit is mentioned, there can only be one person that Pynchon could hope to directly evoke. There may be some broader theme of "evil halfwits", present or past, in "capitols" that further text might elucidate, but this passage, in itself, describes only one man.

And then the author of the original would tell me how I'm an idiot and I've got it all wrong, safe from the eyes of the innocents who stumble upon the page, wondering who, exactly, the "Evil Halfwit" is supposed to be. Foolishmortal 23:27, 9 January 2007 (PST)

It thus far hasn't been TOO much of an issue. Here's my 2 cents:

1) keep argument on the main pages if it is BRIEF.

2) if it gets too long, move it all to the discussion page, along with a reference. Check out what I did to the Bin Laden discussion on page 153.

3) Although we wan't to remain respectful of other people's opinions, outright cuts are allowed where there seems to textual connection. The wiki philosophy trusts that the wiki system will work itself out, and, I note, below every edit box is the warning, "Please note that all contributions to Pynchon Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." The Vietnam thing is a good example. I'm going to cut that now. Bleakhaus 13:34, 10 January 2007 (PST)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put a discussion, but I would like to mention: The bit about Herr Riemann being a topological genius. Topology is a branch of mathematics dealing with properties of geometrical objects that are unchanged by streching, etc. In topology, a doughnut is considered equivalent to a coffee mug, in some sense. There is a branch of topology called knot theory, which, as the name suggests, deals exlusively with knots, which knots are equivalent, whether one knot can be transformed into another, etc. So the character is suggesting that Riemann is a master of knot theory, and he would be the ideal person to untie the relevant knot on the airship. (Fred)

Ok, related point. Who the hell cut my Pugnax bit? I don't mind, I could be full of it, but if you are going to cut something, stick a note in the discussion page justifying it.(The post in question identified Pugnax as a dog of war in the Shakespearean sense). It could be that Pugnax has zero to do with Julius Caesar, but if it must be cut, allow me to retort. Foolishmortal 22:14, 20 January 2007 (PST)

This is the wrong place for your Riemann comment-- place it on the page it's mentioned (no one will ever read it here!).

I'm still amazed how personally people are taking edits on the ATD wiki. On Wikipedia, it is assumed that thousands of anonymous strangers will judiciously edit, cut, or rephrase your contributions. It's a wiki. That's what happens on wikis. As for your Pugnax comment, I forget but that was probably me. If you still feel it's worth including, place it back in with better explanation. Bleakhaus 06:35, 21 January 2007 (PST)

Didn't take it personal. Strictly business and all that... It's just that, without a comment justifying the edit, I have no idea on what grounds the edit was performed. I could assume it was arbitrary, repost it, the same editor would remove it again, etc ad nauseum. Nothing is learned by this process. Prob not going to repost since I don't have any evidence other than Pugnax meaning warlike and his being a dog to imply that he is a "dog of war" a la Shakespeare.

Maybe I'm just a little naive/paranoid, but I'd say that the Pugnax comment seems pretty appropriate. A dog named "War" really ought to call to mind the phrase "Dogs of War." It might be stretch to read it as anything other than a bad pun rendered incarnate, but I think even a strict New Critical-type reading should acknowledge the plausibility of the allusion. Just my 2¢. Squidwiggle 14:43, 21 January 2007 (PST)

agreed. I think Pugnax is purposely linked with 1) human beings....his literacy...2) the reading Middle Class, (the bourgeoisie), with the choice of Princess Casamassima, a distanced--most feel--novel on anarchism

put in its place by Noseworth when he says that he hopes they experience nothing more than reading about such events, surely a comment on the 'reality' in ATD and on fiction in general? And, the link between the bourgeoisie and war is made explicit in ATD, most particularly in the scenes wherein the ocean liner and war interact.

I wonder if the Miles comment on page 24 about his three card monte debunking isn't a way to see how characters in AtD and other Pynchon books search for meaning. Just as Miles says his insight doesn't "last long" but has a moment of clarity, we see these "peculiar feelings" with Lew Basnight, Kit, Merle Rideout, as well as characters like Oedipa Mas, Tyrone Slothrop, even Jeremiah Dixon. Asking here, because I don't know, as a relatively new and small contributor so far, I would appreciate feedback first before I post in the wiki. Jkvannort (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2022 (PDT)