Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001
Joseph Tracy
brook7 at sover.net
Sat Mar 9 22:36:53 CST 2013
The article sounds awkward and unfunny, without the normal wit or playfulness or much telling historical reference. "I deprecate this way of expression." for example just doesn't sound like Pynchon to my ear.
On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, David Morris wrote:
> I do remember this:
>
> http://against-the-day.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pynchon_playboy
>
> A supposed "interview" was published in an issue of Playboy Japan, entitled "Most News is Propaganda. Bin Laden May Not Exist." It purported to be a talk with Pynchon on the events of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. Its authenticity has been disputed, and few facts exist to prove one way or another whether Pynchon actually said or wrote the opinions printed. Got info? Add it!
> Talk by Thomas Pynchon
> Rough translation by Naoki on the Pynchon-L list
> Most News Is Propaganda. Bin Laden May Not Exist.
> All people who live in New York today have been talking about recently is whether they have been to the site of the World Trade Center. This is because it has become a "trendy" topic. Personally, I still cannot find myself wanting to go see the site.
> The main thing that has changed in my life-style recently is the fact that I do not ride the subway anymore. Before, I got on the subway wherever I went but today, I never ride the subway in fear of biological weapons. After all, there was the case with the Tokyo Sarin Gas. I believe that the damage that can be caused by the biological weapon called antrax is increasing and we are in a situation where someone could use biological weapons at any time.
> The media station that is consistently giving reports on this terrorist case is CNN. Because everybody watches CNN, it would be safe to say that the news being watched by all of the citizens is the same. However, it is dangerous when people start to believe that what they see is real news.
> For the television stations this kind of situation should be a great chance to express their individuality. However, the only thing the newscasters do is read the news in a monotonous voice or when the news comes on during the report, all they do is spit out the words they receive. In any case, they talk with the mere intention of filling up the time they have on air.
> The adjective "affect less" best fits the way the newscasters talk. It is a way of expression that has no connection to the human being and no emotional power at all. I deprecate this way of expression. If you listen closely to those words, it doesn't sound like real news. It sounds more like propaganda.
> Talking of propaganda, what changed the most due to the terrorist incident is The New York Times. Until recently, I would wake up an hour early to go buy this newspaper but now, there it isn't even worth the time to sit down and read it. Even before I place my hips in the seat, I am already finished reading it by flipping through the pages. It wouldn't be wrong to say that there is hardly any useful news. It is mostly propaganda.
> The news on how there are more antibiotics to antrax other than cipro was a little useful, but that kind of useful news has become a rarity. The New York Times is usually known to be the most reliable source of media when doing research on something that happened twenty to thirty years ago. However, that is no longer the case. The most reliable newspaper that is read by educated people today is probably England's The Guardian. Everyone is reading it on the internet. I also believe that a lot of the information coming out of the White House is also propaganda.
> The problem is that common people cannot make a distinction between news and propaganda. On the contrary, the news sent out from Isreal is extremely reliable.
> In any case, once a war happens, the war for media becomes a great significance and even the newspapers that look decent at first glance, you can no longer trust. About a hundred years ago, the man who started publishing the Daily Mile said the following: "News is something somebody wants to suppress. Everything else is propaganda."
> Therefore, all information that can be obtained without difficult coverage, even though it may be from the White House, you can think of as propaganda.
> Bin Laden should be looked upon as a symbol
> The United States has always had a tendancy to look for an enemy. It is a country that cannot stand not having one. Even for this terrorist incident, it is already determined that the villain behind all of this is bin Laden, but in reality they are saying that because they cannot stand not doing so. I believe that bin Laden is someone's clown for a rodeo.
> Although my thoughts are always paranoid, I believe that I'm the only one who feels this way. It is said that NSA is on a lookout for him but I think that like an onion, new layers will be discovered. No matter how I look at the situation, it doesn't seem like bin Laden is doing this independently. The only impression that I get is that he is some kind of star actor.
> Honestly speaking, we cannot even tell if the face that comes out on television and on the newspapers is his real face. I remember someone saying right after the terrorist incident, "Come on, you want bin Laden? We'll give you 20 of him." Even if the United States succeeds in killing him that would mean that there are still 19 bin Ladens left. Even if there is only one, there are probably many people who would take his place once they kill bin Laden.
> If we look at this from a different point-of-view, we should look at bin Laden as a symbol rather than a man. Bin Laden may not even exist.
> The other day when I was surfing the net, it said that the punishment that suits bin Laden the best is to catch him alive, bring him to a hospital, give him a transexual operation, and send him back to Afghanistan. He would then understand the disservice done to the women in Afghanistan.
> We cannot forget that many of bin Laden's brothers were partners with George Bush Jr. for the purpose of oil ventures in the past. The doctor who is known to be at bin Laden's side at all times was a member of the group who killed Sadat. When that assassination happened, Egypt became involved and there must have been people who fled to Afghanistan.
> What is often said is that it is the United State's wealth that is the cause of the terrorists' hatred. I can understand their feelings well. When I see a wealthy person, I instinctively feel anger deep in my stomach. If you think about how Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, it is only natural for them to feel hatred toward the wealthy United States. They have no other choice but to detest them.
> Even if the United States stops their support for Isreal, I don't think that everything will become peaceful. However, from their point-of-view this is the origin of all Isreal's mistakes.
> On a final note, if I were to vigorously invest in something right now, I would invest in the tobacco industry. After that incident, people who had stopped smoking before have started it again.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Terrif witticism.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:29 PM, malignd at aol.com wrote:
>
>> One hopes he's not that stupid.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Allan Balliett <allan.balliett at gmail.com>
>> To: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Tue, Feb 26, 2013 7:15 pm
>> Subject: Re: Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001
>>
>> Can we trust P to address many of the 'facts' that contradict the 'official' 9/11 story? -Allan in WV
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I would only argue, if pressed, that P's 1984 start of Vineland is to show that IT--Orwell's vision--- had arrived.
>> Had started at the time period that IV ends and was full blown.
>>
>>
>> From: "kelber at mindspring.com" <kelber at mindspring.com>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001
>>
>> Don't think it's so much the number of years between the novels' settings and "now," as the idea that each setting is what triggered the "now" we're in. GR takes place mostly in 1945, which could be seen as the official start of the Cold War (and the book traces some of its earlier rumblings) - the Cold War being a defining characteristic of the era Pynchon conceived of and wrote the book. Vineland takes its starting point as1984, which Pynchon saw as the start of his present: post-Cold War, Reaganism, incipient fascism. In retrospect, aside from its Orwellian connotations, 1984 wasn't a significant milestone for anything that happened later. And the COINTELPRO flashbacks didn't foreshadow the worst excesses of Reaganism, which were more economic than politically repressive. The year 2001 seems fresh because it is a distinct milestone ushering in our present period, whatever it turns out to be: the War On Terror, the Drone Wars, the Demise of the Nation States and Rise of the Corporatocracy (my own pet name for this period), or who knows what else.
>>
>> Laura
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Bailey
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:27 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > V., COL49 and Vineland are the closest to contemporaneous, right?
>> > Vineland was published in 1990 and set in 1984, so it might be the
>> > most relevant comparison here, maybe? Is what I'm now thinking. I
>> > imagine it came together in the mid to late 80s. And Bleeding Edge
>> > might have been percolating for around the same time recently, though
>> > all probably have threads reaching back to whoever knows when.
>> >
>> > What really interests me is the way the 2001 setting of BE feels so
>> > current, when in fact it's more 'historical' than some of Pynchon's
>> > other novels.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Heikki Raudaskoski
>> > <hraudask at sun3.oulu.fi> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> William Slothrop and Kekule also come to mind from earlier centuries.
>> >> But yeah, there isn't that much century hopping in GR.
>> >>
>> >> I just realized that the main bulk of V.'s framing narrative is also
>> >> set in the NYC of the former decade.
>> >>
>> >> In V., the framing narrative acts as something of a sounding board
>> >> for the historical chapters. It remains to be seen if BE bears some
>> >> similarity to V. in this respect too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Heikki
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You're absolutely right! Now I'm wracking my brain to think of all the
>> >>> sequences is GR and ATD. LK
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Antonin Scriabin
>> >>> Sent: Feb 25, 2013 7:16 PM
>> >>> To: kelber at mindspring.com
>> >>> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001
>> >>>
>> >>> Well V. takes place in the late 19th and early 20th
>> >>> centuries, if I am not mistaken. Mason & Dixon is a purely
>> >>> 18th century affair, barring Vulcans.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 25, 2013 7:08 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>> ATD spanned two centuries, late and early, and
>> >>> it's hard to see how anyone could write about
>> >>> 2001, without referencing back into the previous
>> >>> century. Aside from a brief hop back to the
>> >>> demise of the dodos, doesn't GR (and all the
>> >>> others) remain in a single century? Previous
>> >>> centuries are talked about in COL49, but we don't
>> >>> actually go there. Any other instances of
>> >>> intra-book century hopping that I'm forgetting?
>> >>> Laura
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Antonin Scriabin
>> >>> Sent: Feb 25, 2013 6:56 PM
>> >>> To: kelber at mindspring.com
>> >>> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001
>> >>>
>> >>> Something tells me we won't be in this century
>> >>> for long, or to the exclusion of other centuries.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 25, 2013 6:34 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> Oops! Working through earlier
>> >>> emails, I see this was already
>> >>> posted. Exciting news, anyway. With
>> >>> all his zigzagging (yoyoing?) back
>> >>> and forth in time, he's finally
>> >>> arrived in our century.
>> >>>
>> >>> Laura
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> >From: kelber at mindspring.com
>> >>> >Sent: Feb 25, 2013 6:22 PM
>> >>> >To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> >>> >Subject: Bleeding Edge takes place
>> >>> in 2001
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Dave Monroe posted this on Facebook,
>> >>> but hasn't posted it here yet. Dave?
>> >>> Dave?! Are you here? Great find!
>> >>> >
>> >>> >http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/02/thomas-pynchon-new-book-bl
>> >>> eeding-edge/62483/
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"The book is about the early 21st
>> >>> century tech scene in New York City.
>> >>> According to the log line from the
>> >>> reports' preview, "it is 2001 in
>> >>> Silicon Alley, New York City, in the
>> >>> lull between the collapse of the
>> >>> dot-com boom and the terrible events
>> >>> of September 11."
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Laura
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list