Bleeding Edge takes place in 2001

[Joseph Tracy]

That is a very good point. Maybe he is just different in conversation.  It certainly fits with my sense of his political leaning and mistrust of mainstream news/history.  There is also the weird tendency to be all inclusive in his statements  to Japan Playboy( "All people who live in New York..." , .."everybody watches CNN..", " ...The Guardian. Everyone is reading it on the internet.")which I have not noticed in any other published piece. Also according to Jonh Krafft in a bio on Pynchon, P's publisher disavowed his remarks in the Playboy interview.(http://books.google.com/books?id=1lshMpwOA4wC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Pynchon+Playboy+Japan&source=bl&ots=Ad_48Vf990&sig=-_G73cFPv_ScfWiE9VqhTGka1KU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IRA9UfqmFvLU0gG95IHIDw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Pynchon%20Playboy%20Japan&f=false

On Mar 9, 2013, at 11:54 PM, David Morris wrote:

> No lawsuits or zootsuits ensued.
> 
> On Saturday, March 9, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:
> The article sounds awkward and unfunny, without the normal wit or playfulness or  much telling historical reference.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 punishmen