IVIV (12): 195-197

[Joseph Tracy]

Reading the different posts on technology, I thought of how TRP  
handles trains in  ATD; trains do have practical consequences that  
are helpful , convenient, fast etc.for characters in the story, but  
basically they are a declaration of ownership  of the land  the  
people, the watershed and the minerals of an area,  a tool of  
capitalist expansion, instrument of theft. There is even a kind of  
fascist element in that they are often a collaboration between  
corporate and government interests. Because they are huge investments  
of capital they automatically rearrange power. In P's world they also  
disturb and release bad spirits , evil Karma which falls on the  
layers of tracks and diggers of tunnels. Thy are also featured as  
engines of war that presage a darker kind of warfare, the anonymous  
violence of the power machinery of empire.
That's all a  pretty harsh judgement of a technology, and where do  
you draw the line ?  Some people would like to go back to trains as  
the main technology of land  transport But the momentum is on to new  
technologies. But Pynchon's point is that power concentrates into  
fewer hands as technology concentrates capital, so that the people  
with the power draw the lines(M&D), and the technology itself begins  
to draw the lines. The ice caps are melting., the fish  disappearing.

Ok , so not exactly cheery stuff. But very small point. Spike and  
Sortilege are part of a community that has seen the worst of all this  
and decided that the line has to do with eco ethics.  Frequently in  
some form or other , Pynchon has taken this and human rights, the  
pursuit of spiritual insight, and opposition to violence as points of  
valid heroism, however imperfect.
On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Robin Landseadel wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2009, at 6:04 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> In Michael Moore's latest, Capitalism: A Love Story, he gently  
>> brings up the idea that there's nothing inherent to technology or  
>> work that makes it necessary to treat workers like garbage. It's  
>> master-slave, boss-worker, corporate board-work force that  
>> distorts the workplace.  Once could (only in theory of course!)  
>> imagine a work place where the workers owned the high tech- 
>> factory, set the work conditions, etc., where technology wouldn't  
>> be oppressing the worker.  Or one could imagine (less theoretical) 
>> the same factory where workers are coerced into long hours, in  
>> horrifying conditions, paid slave wages, etc.  I think Pynchon's  
>> against technology (and photography, and electricity) only when  
>> it's in the wrong hands (which it usually is).
>>
>> Laura
>
> 	"My names 's Doc and I'm a private gumshoe or —nowadays
> 	more like gumsandal. I used to work the traditional Hollywood
> 	type of P.I. gigs, setting up drug busts for parties and divorce
> 	cases, helping the cops out with their many shakedown
> 	schemes and so forth but . . .
>
> 	Since I've moved out here to the beach I've been more into the
> 	smaller tickets, less karmic hassle*, less guilt tripping . . .
>
> *Image of black cat "randomly" appears among other scenes of  
> Manhattan Beach . . .
>
> His name is Thomas Pynchon ["R", not "H"] and he used to work for  
> one of those giant military industrial behemoths, writing articles  
> for the house organ, giving advice and warning on how to avoid  
> getting killed in the process of transporting one of the company's  
> killing machines . . .
>
> 	Togetherness<cleardot.GIF>
> 	Aerospace Safety
> 	December 1960, pp. 6-8.
> 	Thomas H. Pynchon [sic],
> 	Bomarc Aero-Space Dept., Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle
>
> 		<cleardot.GIF>Airlifting the IM-99A missile, like marriage,  
> demands a
> 	certain amount of "togetherness" between Air Force and
> 	contractor. Two birds per airlift are onloaded by Boeing people
> 	and offloaded by Air Force people; in between is an airborne
> 	MATS C-124. One loading operation is a mirror-image of the
> 	other, and similar accidents can happen at both places. Let's
> 	look at a few of the safety hazards that have to be taken into
> 	account when Bomarcs are shipped. . . .
>
> <cleardot.GIF>		In the July 1960 issue of Aerospace Safety, mention  
> was
> 	made of the second Air Force-Industry conference on missile
> 	safety; and of plans to create Air Force-Industry Accident
> 	Review Boards. If future emphasis is to be placed on such joint
> 	action, much can be gained from a positive, realistic -- above
> 	all, cooperative -- approach to safety problems.
>
> <cleardot.GIF>		Cooperation is even more important where the problem
> 	area is double-ended: where both contractor and military
> 	personnel perform the same job and are subject to the same
> 	safety hazards. Therefore, in the following discussion of one
> 	such area -- that of Bomarc transportation -- any references to
> 	slip-ups on the military end of the airlift are meant to be strictly
> 	non-partisan and objective. As long as there have been near
> 	accidents, it's better to use them as a guide for future safety than
> 	to pretend they never happened.
>
> <cleardot.GIF>
> 		As this article goes to press, the safety record of Bomarc
> 	airlifts can be summed up in four words: so far, so good. You
> 	may recall, however, the optimist who jumped off the top of a
> 	New York office building. He was heard to yell the same thing
> 	as he passed the 20th floor: so far, so good.
>
> <cleardot.GIF>		This is not to imply -- necessarily -- that IM-99A  
> on and
> 	offloading crews have been living on borrowed time. Nor --
> 	necessarily -- that the end of the winning streak, when it comes,
> 	will be as tragic as impacting against a concrete surface at 175
> 	or so mph. But then again . . .
>
> http://www.themodernword.com/Pynchon/pynchon_essays_together.html