Dear Cyndy,

Just now I completed editing Chapter 3 of my first novel,
Die Andere. The first three chapters aggregate about 60
printed pages. All 43 chapters comprise about 780 pages.
Obviously there's still much work to do. Subsequent to the
editing, I'll use a special computer program which I haven't
yet obtained, to format the text for e-book publication or
such. As I mentioned, I don't expect that there will be
many readers, perhaps none at all, but I enjoy the project
of issuing something definitive. 

I've given up attempts to assess and assign "literary" value
to my work, in part because if what I've done is no good, 
it's too late for trying to make improvements, but in part
also because I've come more and more to believe that recognized
"literary" value is in large measure a matter of social
convention. If the text is reasonably lucid and intelligible, 
it will find its proper status in the market place, high or low
as the case may be. Its value for me, as a document of my
conscious, semi-conscious and unconscious experiences will
be unaffected.

Referring to the fragment of Chapter 53 which I translated,
I find that my writing is becoming less and less responsible,
in that I make less and less effort to elaborate a framework
for my stories; I improvise extemporaneously. When Charlotte
walked into that cooking school, she had no idea what she would
find there, and neither did I. Initially I had conceived of
the cooking school as satirical parody of the university, - but
Charlotte and I were distracted by an expressionistic representation
of the spirit in a house of glass. The cooking school as university
or the university as cooking school is a perspective I haven't
(yet) pursued.

The faceless, purposeless crowd which Charlotte encounters and
through which she forces her way is emblematic of society as
I have often experienced it. The empty office of glass was an
improvisation on the spur of the moment in which I thought 
I recognized a model of absolute subjectivity, a spiritual void,
a space where Charlotte saw nothing but mirror images of her self,
and in which absent meaningful interaction with the "outside"
world, she soon became disoriented and irrational. The transfer
of the four hundred dollars from the Schopenhauer cache to the
Institute's offering plate, demonstrates the neutrality of
money which derives its value always only from context. Between
the pages of that textbook of pessimism, money served as an
expression of generosity and community; on the sterile offering
plate of the faceless institution it becomes a symbol of anonymity
and alienation. - As you may note, I'm not shy about annotating
my own writing, with no pretense of compensating for its inadequacy.

My preparations for the Plumbing Board hearing have taken a dive
into the turbulent waters of fluid dynamics where I believe I've
discovered the plumbing code to be anchored to nonsense. It's
a discovery which I must keep to myself, because the Board couldn't
admit the validity of my reasoning. They would contradict me as a matter
of policy, and so would the Court. I might lose the case for making
and losing a gratutitous argument with which I had taken an unnecessary
risk.

Here are the details: The rule with which Mr. Ciarmataro proposes
to satisfy the requirement for detailed reasoning is:

10.05 General Regulations
4.	Fittings and Connections Prohibited.

b.	Obstruction to Flow.

1. No fitting, connection, device, or method of installation
that obstructs or retards the flow of water, wastes, sewage,
or air in drainage or venting systems where the obstruction
results in flow resistance that is greater than the normal
frictional resistance to flow shall be used unless otherwise
specifically indicated elsewhere in 248CMR 10.00.

2. The enlargement of a three-inch closet bend or stub to four
inches shall not be considered an obstruction under this provision
provided that the horizontal flow line or insert is continuous
without forming a ledge.

That "the enlargement of a three-inch closet bend or stub to four
inches (should be) considered an obstruction" is, of course 
counter-intuitive. How can one possibly "obstruct" the flow of
water by enlarging the channel in which it courses? The engineer
who concocted this puzzle, was trying to show off with the argument
that the enlargement of the pipe from 3 to 4 inches would (might)
convert laminar to turbulent flow, and thereby increase the effective
flow resistance. Obviously the enlargement would enhance the 
flow rate in the smaller pipe and would "retard" the flow rate
in the larger pipe, - but such decreases in flow rate are not
signs of "obstruction." They occur in numerous fittings in the
installation, wherever the diameter of the pipe is increased, as
it must be with a confluence of multiple drains. The engineer's
error is his postulate of a "flow resistance that is greater than
the normal frictional resistance to flow", because flow resistance
is never constant; it is always dynamic; it depends on among other
factors, the cross-section of the flow and on its rate, parameters
which change from moment to moment and can't be predicted.
Accordingly, a "normal frictional resistance to flow", whose value
can never be determined is a figment of the engineering imagination
which becomes a convenient pretext for the plumbing inspector's
expressions of hostility. 

The practical Nantucket application of this prohibition is simple:
The Nantucket Inspector assumes that "the way we do things on
Nantucket" establishes the "normal frictional resistance to flow",
and any variation from "the way we do things on Nantucket" must
surely "increase" the frictional resistance, although it might
just as likely "decrease" the frictional resistance - or more
likely have no effect at all. But the judges want to keep things
simple. They don't want to think, they don't want to try to understand.
They just want to say "guilty as charged." That makes everything
very easy. I'm not going to try to convince them, but I find it
interesting to try to understand how things work, - in the toilet
and in the courts.

It's one a.m., time to go to bed. Good night.
Jochen