IVIV (12): 195-197

[John Carvill]

>  The assertions you and John are
> making about Pynchon's ambivalence to technology lack examples and
> textual reasoning.

I don't think my and Monte's 'assertions' are closely enough related
that they can be grouped together that way. And I can't speak for
Monte. But, as for 'lack of examples and textual reasoning', yes, it's
true I have failed to provide teh sort of scattershot formation of
citations offered by Mark, but that don't mean they can't be found. I
don't have time to look for (or even think about) examples from
Pynchon's work to support my not very assertive assertion that Pynhon
is ambivalent about technology, but I am vaguely puzzled that anybody
should need such examples to be cited.

To be fair, though, I have already mentioned photography in Against
the Day. Oh, and film, TV, etc. Then there's the Rocket.......

As for 'textual reasoning', that sort of think lies even further
outside my current time/energy/inclination boundaries. I am about to
run through IV one more time, however, this coming week, so I'll keep
the theme of ambivalence re. technology in mind.


> I don't think it's a matter of  Pynchon ascribing agency to the
> technology

Me neither.

>but to the mindset that fails to  account  either for the
> negative effects of technology

I agree. My opinion is that Pynchon has pondered the phenomenon
whereby scientists and engineering types tend to respond to a request
for a technical solution by asking themselves, "How could we do
that?", without first asking, "Why would we do that?", or "Should we
do that?"

Pynchon having been an engineering student is enough to make this
matter fairly complex, and to reduce the likelihood of his taking a
one-sided view. Working for 'the kite factory' up in Seattle makes it
many times more complicated, surely. That the guy went on to write his
most important book 'about the Rocket' puts this stuff at the heart of
his life's work. It seems, to me, very hard to imagine that Pynchon,
with all of his knowledge of, and interest in, matters of technology
(and their historical importance) , could take anything but a nuanced,
two-sided view. To claim him as some sort of unambiguous Luddite
would, surely, be to reduce him to caricature.

> or for what is frequently the
> essential and inherent violence of technology.

On teh other hand, I know a lot of techincal people who are very
gung-ho about it. I recall someone I work with (i.e. another computer
coder) telling us all, near the beginning of teh invasion of Iraq,
that they had seen footage on teh news, showing US military
helicopters being unloaded from a ship, at the docks, and, (growing
ever more wide-eyed and excited now) that the helicopters had been
"Shrink wrapped!" You know, like, *cool*.