tube and tubal litigation then and now

[kelber at mindspring.com]

If VL is a novel about social control and encroaching fascism, it's kind of interesting to look at distinctions he might make between film and TV.  
He sees Hollywood as an active manipulator of social views, with the ability to make people think bad guys are good guys and vice versa.  At the same time, 
film-making doesn't imply a huge power-structure behind it:  look at Frenesi's film collective.  TV requires both a monolithic power structure for transmission and marketing, while actively manipulating peoples' views, and rendering them lethargic and unable to act.  

That's a simplistic rendering, but it's only one aspect of Pynchon's views.  He's clearly a movie buff, and whether he loves it or hates it, he's clearly watched a lot of TV (and lent his voice to The Simpsons).  As things stand today, Hollywood seems to have little power to influence ideas, opting instead to pander to its marketer's perception of what the public thinks.  It's apparently no longer permitted to have a pro-abortion stance in a Hollywood movie (Knocked Up, Juno, etc.), not because Hollywood wants the public to be anti-abortion, but because the Hollywood powers-that-be are terrified of the Christian right.  TV (or at least, cable TV) doesn't seem to be as constricted, at least for the time being.  It was TV, also, that brought events ranging from the Viet Nam war to Hurricane Katrina to peoples' consciousness, and ultimately energized a lot of people to get off their couches and protest.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>

>Back to the Pynchon use  of TV and tubal.  I think P is with many  
>elaborations pointing out the eerie accuracy of Orwells vision but   
>incorporating Mcluhan's  idea that the medium is the message and  
>allowing for the entertainment value  and comical weirdness of the  
>whole enterprise of substituting TV for civic life, social norms,  
>youthful rebellion, judicial process, family, outdoor adventures and  
>even sex, which is the ultimate in weird because your TV can pleasure  
>you  but you can't  pleasure your TV.
>