Forwarded msgs: 2 of 4

[John M. Krafft]

From:	MIAVX2::JMKRAFFT     "John M. Krafft" 21-MAR-1992 11:42:50.95
To:	
CC:	JMKRAFFT    
Subj:	Re: Pynchon and Gibson (again)

X-News: miavx2 alt.cyberpunk:761
From: TRINGHAM at usmv01.usm.uni-muenchen.de (Tringham, Neal)
Subject:Re: Pynchon and Gibson (again)
Date: 19 Mar 92 15:28:44 GMT
Message-ID:<1992Mar19.152844.18455 at news.lrz-muenchen.de>

[much material deleted]

Mike writes: 

>Whether the enlistment of these artists is appropriate [to `cyberpunk', as 
>shown in Mondo 2000 articles] is a matter of
>debate.  I am certainly not aware that any of those mentioned above 
>[Burroughs, de Sade, McLuhan, Pynchon] have agreed to be labelled 
>"cyberpunk"...

My fairly deeply grounded antipathy to Mondo 2000 means that I have no idea
what the articles you mention actually said. My comment would be that
Burroughs and Pynchon were certainly _influeneces_ on cyberpunk (Gibson et. 
al. have said this themselves). That doesn't mean they _are_ cyberpunk in any
reasonable sense, and I wouldn't claim that Pynchon has ever written `a
cyberpunk book'. My original post was simply intended to comment on what I 
saw as interesting parallels between the eighties as depicted in
_Vineland_ and the Sprawl. 

>The correlation of Pynchon and Gibson based on the "themes" of ninjas,
>large and scary corporations, government "dirty tricks" departments, etc.
>is superficial.  If this is the criteria for being "cyberpunk" then we may
>as well drag in Akira Kurosawa, Kafka, some large portion of SF writers,
>all CIA conspiracy theorizers, the Teenage Mutant Turtles (tm), all kung-fu
>movies and who knows what else.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. I'll try and restate the
points of my original post (fairly) briefly...
When I read _Vineland_ (NB: NOT Pynchon's works in general) I was struck 
by the similarity of the `look and feel' of Pynchon's American Eighties
and the Sprawl. Part of this similarity lay, I felt, in the appearance
of common images (a word you may well prefer to `themes' in this context),
such as the stylish female `tough girl' martial arts type (Molly in
_Neuromancer_, the ninjette [pace Tom Maddox] in _Vineland_). Another
component was the theme of `commodification' of the world (as shown by, 
for example, _Vineland_'s constant citation of movies, TV shows etc. with
attached dates and Gibson's obsessive use of brand names). I was impressed
both by the number of such elements that the books had in common, and the
similarity in the approach taken to them. Most of the examples you
cite above only involve one of these common elements, or have a totally 
different approach to them, or both. Kafka, for example, projects a paranoid, 
highly alienated view of the world which is to some extent reflected in
_Vineland_, and hardly at all in _Neuromancer_. There are (surprise surprise)
no ninjas. Or corporations (except possibly in _Amerika_, which I haven't
read...). Or `commodification'. Or... 

>Now if you can relate Gibson to Pynchon on Pynchon's "real" themes of
>entropy, paranoia, isolation, loss of individual control, etc. or Pynchon
>to Gibson on Gibson's themes of escapism, conspiracy, etc. then you are
>getting somewhere.  (And I mean on a specific level of how these themes
>are developed and explored, how they relate to characters in the novels,
>how they propel the action etc. not "gee, they both have individuals
>fighting against big business" which is like saying "both Star Trek and
>Star Wars have spaceships and laser-like weapons - they must be the same".)

As I said above, I am not trying to prove that Gibson and Pynchon are saying
the same thing. Or that Pynchon is a cyberpunk writer. My point was simply that
I felt _Vineland_ had a similiar _feel_ to the Sprawl, a feel that
I haven't seen elsewhere. This can be quite true whether Gibson and Pynchon 's
most fundamental themes are the same or not. And the odd ninja or occasional 
conspiratorial multinational do not make for a `feel' in the same way. I was
interested in whether anybody else shared my perception of these books. It 
would appear that you don't. Fine. It would also appear that Gibson does
(cf a Tom Maddox post some time ago). Also fine. 

As for the advice: while I appreciate the LitCrit 101 (is that correct 
Americanese?:-)), a fully detailed article along these lines would
a) require detailed reference to books I don't have with me, 
b) be so long that almost no-one on Usenet would actually read it, and
c) take so much effort to write that if I _did_ do it I might as well just
send it to a journal or something anyway. 

Again: I was interested in whether anybody else in the group had also
has this reaction to _Vineland_. Not, particularly, in `proving' anything. 

Neal Tringham