IVIV (12): 195-197

[Joseph Tracy]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 7:56 AM, John Carvill wrote:

>>  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.
Sorry if my language seems loaded. Trying for clarity. This isn't an  
attack but a an inquiry into a provacative question that I would like  
to have greater clarity on.
> 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.
It's just that like Mark , I can think of many examples,subtle and  
unsubtle that cast western techno progress in an unflattering light ,  
but not much that indicates its benefits.
>
> To be fair, though, I have already mentioned photography in Against
> the Day. Oh, and film, TV, etc. Then there's the Rocket.......
But aren't all these things examples of strong antipathy to technology?
>
> 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*.