English Department Studies 6 English Department Studies: Moving Outward: The Development of Charles Olson’s Use of Myth by Mark Shackleton Culture Bumps: On the Translation of Allusions by Ritva Leppihalme The Multiverse of Stephen King: A Study of Genres by Heidi Strengell “Work as if You Live in the Early Days of a Better Nation”: History and Politics in the Works of Alasdair Gray by Johanna Tiitinen Through a Glass, Darkly: The Limitations of Language and the Meaning of Silence in Patrick White’s The Tree of Man, Voss and Riders in the Chariot by Antti Mäkinen Reading the Texture of Reality Chaos Theory, Literature and the Humanist Perspective Merja Polvinen Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki, in the Arppeanum auditorium, on the 19th of December 2008, at 12 o’clock. English Department Studies 6 University of Helsinki 2008 Cover design: Merja Polvinen Cover image: www.freeimages.co.uk © Merja Polvinen 2008 ISSN 1237-458X ISBN 978-952-10-5108-1 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5109-8 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2008 Acknowledgements A brief flurry of clichés: Night is drawing in, the cold air tighten- ing its grip, and my tired legs have that slight tremor on every step. But after a long journey, including those few frustrating (even scary) misdirected scrambles in difficult terrain, I finally spot the cabin on the opposite bank of the river. Off with the boots and with a final adrenalin rush I wade across the freezing water, drop my rucksack on the porch and step in the warm glow of the stove. This journey, however, has been neither solo nor unsup- ported. My colleagues at the Department of English should know by now what that community means to me, and they are all in- cluded under a warm and fuzzy blanket of thanks. A few indi- viduals must, however, be singled out for explorer-style bear- hugs. My supervisor and Graduate School boss, Professor Bo Pet- tersson was there at the beginning, listening to my breathless ac- count of a research plan as he raced across Rautatientori to catch a train, and I have benefited from his wide reading and generosity in numberless (and less rushed) discussions ever since. Docent Mark Shackleton, as well as sharing his family name with one of my all-time heroes, initiated me to the world of Tom Stoppard, and if the tone of this dissertation is still too trenchant, it is no fault of his. Dr Joseph Flanagan’s throw-away comments have taught me more about argumentation and the analysis of poetry than any books could have, and Dr Maria Salenius has solved many a thorny problem for me by being eminently sensible (and forcing cups of coffee down my throat). Dr in spe Howard Sklar, even though he beat me to it in our race to finish, receives thanks for being the perfect pacer, and never failing to encourage and in- spire a lagging colleague. I also wish to thank all the other staff members and fellow students whose presentations of their own work and commentary on mine has taken place in the Depart- ment’s seminars over the years. I have been fortunate enough to be involved with two incar- nations of the Finnish Graduate School of Literary Studies, first Acknowledgements led by Professor Pettersson and then by Professor Pirjo Lyy- tikäinen. In both cases the benefit from the discussions with the graduate school supervisors has been enormous, as has been the feedback and friendship offered by by fellow students Dr Juuso Aarnio, Dr Ulrika Gustafsson, Dr Mari Hatavara, Saija Isomaa, Tuomas Juntunen, Mikko Kallionsivu, Tintti Klapuri, Toni Lahti- nen, Laura Lindstedt, Maria Lival-Lindström, Karoliina Lummaa, Teemu Manninen, Hanna Meretoja, Outi Oja, Dr Riikka Rossi, Dr Hanna Ruutu, Cecilia Therman, Tuulia Toivanen, Juho-Antti Tuhkanen and Jussi Willman. An enduring consequence of a shared hotelroom during a Graduate School seminar has been an absolutely invaluable friendship with Sanna Nyqvist, currently a research project colleague, to whom I extend heartfelt thanks for providing sparring and support in equal and delightful measures. Sanna Nyqvist, Dr Phillips Brooks (whom I thank at my own risk) and Dr Nely Keinänen were kind enough to comment on the manuscript in its final stages and to them belongs the credit for many improvements, though naturally they are not to shoulder the blame for any remaining mistakes. My pre-examiners, Profes- sors William R. Paulson and Anthony Johnson produced extraor- dinarily thoughtful and detailed commentaries which not only benefited this dissertation, but also contained food for thought for future projects. On a more personal note, I wish to thank my father, Profes- sor Emeritus Tuomo Polvinen for imparting to me his apprecia- tion of the occasional absurdity of academic life, and my mother, Chief Inspector (ret.) Eeva-Liisa Polvinen for putting that absurd- ity in perspective. My sister Sari Polvinen and brother-in-law Jukka Halme deserve enormous kudos for being disconcertingly knowledgeable about a field they should, really, know nothing about, and my husband Teemu Naarajärvi deserves it for every- thing – not least for trusting a woman to be able to hand in a dis- sertation and celebrate her wedding the same week. Friends, al- ready grown weary of waiting, will finally receive their thanks: Guy Windsor, Katie Murray, Tätimafia, Meidän smial – with your encouragement I got there in the end. Acknowledgements My work on this dissertation has been made possible by the financial support of the Finnish Graduate School of Literary Stud- ies, the Department of English, Helsingin yliopiston 350-vuotis- säätiö, Ella ja Georg Ehrnroothin säätiö, Emil Aaltosen Säätiö, E.J. Sariolan säätiö, and in the very final stages by the Academy of Finland research project Styles of Mimesis. I also wish to thank the Chancellor of the University of Helsinki for supplying travel grants to conferences and thus providing me with the joys and benefits of international exposure and research contacts. An earlier version of section 3.2 was published in Narrative and Identity: Theoretical Approaches and Critical Analyses edited by Birgit Neumann, Ansgar Nünning and Bo Pettersson (Trier: WVT, 2008: 87-98). I thank the editors for their kind permission to reprint this material. Moreover, some of my remarks on scien- tific metaphors can be found in the European Journal of English Stud- ies special issue on literature, epistemology and science edited by Ronald Shusterman (11.3, 2007: 273-284), others on Tom Stop- pard appeared in La conoscenza della letteratura, edited by Angela Lo- catelli (Bergamo University Press, 2002: 135-158), and a very early presentation of the general argument of this dissertation was pub- lished in New Formations 49, edited by Philip Tew and Wendy Wheeler (2003: 48-60). Helsinki, November 2008 Contents Acknowledgements Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Enter Chaos Theory Primary Material Background: Theorising Interdisciplinarity Metaphorical and Non-Metaphorical Uses of Chaos Theory Structure of the Study 1. THE PROLIFERATION OF SCIENTIFIC METAPHORS 35 1.1 Heuristic Metaphor: Science as Activity 40 Sociology of Science The Context of Discovery 1.2 Rhetorical Metaphor: Science as Text 51 Rhetorical Aspects of Scientific Texts Explanatory Metaphors in Science Writing Science as Textuality 1.3 Conceptual Metaphor: Science as Knowledge 67 Chaos as Conceptual Resource Encountering Science Conclusion: The Ends of Metaphor 79 2. STRANGE ATTRACTORS IN LITERATURE: 83 CONSTRAINTS ON FORM AND MEANING 2.1 The Literary Work as Object and Process 88 Attractive Structures Bounded Meaning 2.2 Chaotic Geometry in Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia 103 Classical Geometry and Romantic Freedom Nature’s Picassos: Entropy vs. Chaos Theory 2.3 John Barth’s Arabesque Frames 121 Chaos and Narrative Time ‘Chaotic-Arabesque Postmodernism’ From Postmodern Irony to Literary Meaning Conclusion: Postmodern Romantic Formalists 137 3. EMERGENT IDENTITIES: 141 COMPLEXITY AS THE SOURCE OF COHERENCE 3.1 The Emergent Self 147 Fractal Reflections and Ambiguous Codes Determined and/or Self-Determined? The Humanist Posthuman 3.2 Authorial Identity: John Barth’s Iterated Opera 163 Intertextuality: Recycling Literary Predecessors Autotextuality: Barth Recycling Barth The Ageing Body of Work Conclusion: Live Stories 183 4. THE SELF-SIMILARITY OF MIND AND WORLD: 187 IMAGINATION AND REALISM 4.1 Realism and the Rules of Dynamics 191 From the Scriptoral Metaphor to Philosophical Realism Mimesis through Universal Dynamics Externalist Realism and Metafiction 4.2 Jorie Graham and the Bodily Connection 212 The Physics of the Imagination Lyricism and Comprehensibility 4.3 Tom Stoppard’s Gut Instinct 222 The Attraction between Bodies on Heat ‘It’s Wanting to Know That Makes Us Matter’ Imagination and Chaos Conclusion: Science and Story-Telling 245 CONCLUSION 251 List of Abbreviations 259 References 259 Index 276 Introduction The opposite of a correct statement is a false state- ment. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. Niels Bohr to Werner Heisenberg In Tom Stoppard’s play Arcadia (1993) Bernard the literary scholar and Valentine the mathematician have an on-going feud over the value of their respective fields of interest. Their verbal duels are a fine example of the age-old argument over whether science and literature can be meaningful. Bernard berates science for only providing meaningless factual details: he ‘can’t think of anything more trivial than the speed of light’ (A 61), and he feels that cosmology is pointless compared to the beauty and insight in Byron’s poetry. Valentine, on the other hand, voices the excite- ment generated by new scientific knowledge, and has the satisfac- tion of seeing Bernard’s pet theory destroyed by one of those triv- ial factual details (A 88).