Bleeding Edge

 BLEEDING EDGE

Thomas Pynchon

Books for Bigots

The second of Pynchon's oeuvre read, as the learned are want to say.  My plan is to complete it slowly, one chapter at a time - - before nodding off.  Having first read MASON AND DIXON and now BLEEDING EDGE, I have a good idea of Pynchon's efforts in immersing himself wholly in different worlds.  Amazing really. 

What strikes me immediately is how much effort his books must require: the absorption of  huge amounts of information, encyclopedic really.  And I have just begun Vineland which again takes an entirely different set of knowledge.  But of course, these pieces are for the purpose of considering the probabilities of Bigots reading the book under discussion, not Pynchon's encyclopedic efforts.

I would suggest that a Bigot reading BLEEDING EDGE could quickly become confused.  Having read a number of novels in my life, it seemed to me as I was reading, that this book got away from Pynchon.  There is a lot here. There are many characters and many subplots, the center being Maxine who operates a small investigative agency allowing her the acquaintance of all those who live on the margins in and out of the Dark Web but never a resolution.  Or, if there is, I missed it.

Highschool age children, an ex-husband or errant husband, reappears; corporations doing extremely secretive and assuredly illegal activities; undisclosed government agencies appearing and reappearing with uncertain motivations; various and sundry computer geeks searching the Dark Web; a sister and  girlfriends married to men involved in the mystical activities of mysterious corporate entities.  Nothing ever very clear.

And then we have 9-11 and descriptions of the city during and after the event with its effect on various individuals.  Having visited New York in October of the year the twin towers came down, it is a pretty accurate description.

Throughout the book there  is always the hint of sinister threats and activities that could adversely affect the various characters that come and go and through all this Maxine is apparently investigating the source of all this highly suggestive evil which is the corporate spirit, Hashslingerz. 

Then we have a couple of interesting chapters plugged into the book that really don't seem to have much purpose other than to get your attention.  The first is the chapter where Maxine does a pole dance at the club and goes home with a man who apparently she needs assistance from in her search of the Dark Web and  masturbates him with her feet - - him having a foot fetish.  Just another day's work for Maxine.  Most Bigots with whom I am familiar would find this chapter disturbing.

Then we have a chapter where the mysterious Nicholas Windust orders her to her knees on the floor strewn with debris and does her from behind.  This being done directly upon her appearance in the apartment without any "how are you" or other salutation.  She submits and after, thinks, it actually was fairly enjoyable.  But this chapter nor the one referenced above  do not add any to the story and simply cause you to wonder "What the hell?"

These two chapters are reminiscent of the abduction in Chapter 53 in MASON AND DIXON where Eliza Fields is kidnapped by Mohicans presumably and taken to a Jesuit Monastery in Canada where she meets Captain Zhang and together they escape the Jesuits and return to the area being surveyed by Mason and Dixon.  That was a very puzzling chapter as are the two in BLEEDING EDGE.  And, again, one wonders why they are there other than to renew the reader's attention if beginning to wander.

But they are there and the effect on most Bigots with whom I am familiar would be privately titillating and publicly horrifying in that most Bigots of my acquaintance have contradictory personal and public views of such situations totally opposite from each other which causes high levels of internal consternation which, in turn, they then inflict on those with whom they associate.

Since there is sex, and sex of various sorts, this would not be a book for the general Bigot of my acquaintance which would be somewhat unfortunate in that it does give a glimpse into the lives of computer geeks whose lives are online rather in the daylight dealing daily with actual people.  Writing about a life on line will of necessity become common since that is where most people spend most of their time now.

Again, I will give Pynchon credit in immersing himself in another world and giving us a view of it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Are We Sure?

 ARE WE SURE?

Are we sure this is what we want?  The American myth, the American belief, our reason for being is and has always been, a land where people from elsewhere can have a new beginning, can achieve what they could not achieve from where they came.  The Statute of Liberty symbolizes that belief.  

The question is, do we want to lose this belief -  that America exists for the reason that it is a place of new beginnings.  The world has seen us as such - - a place that one can make a new life and prosper.  Throughout our episodes of decimating the Native Americans and the history of slavery and Jim Crow, the world has continued to see us as a place of refuge and hope.  It was, and may, continue to be.

Our current efforts of deportation and exclusion is contrary to the very belief and mythology of America.  Our very reason for being was to offer a place for others to come and prosper.  If one were to look around, that has been a continuous belief in ourselves and our place in the world since the first boat arrived.  And it continues to fulfill that dream.

The current question is this.  If we lose this belief in ourselves and our country; this belief that America continues to be a place of refuge and opportunity, what do we have?  What is to replace our reason for existence as a people and a country?  It doesn't appear we have a replacement near at hand.

We are not cut out to be an empire even though we have the power to be one and some think we are.  Some give voice to the idea that our reason d'etre, now, is to bring America to the rest of the world.  I suppose that would solve the perceived problem of people coming to America for freedom and opportunity.   But this is something we are not very good at - - Iraq and Afghanistan are examples.

The issue as I see it is this:  If we lose our mythology, our national idea as a place of refuge and opportunity, we have nothing to replace it?  Am I missing something, or is there another belief system, another mythology, another reason out there ready to replace the one we have and have had since the beginning.  I don't see it.

Our current administration, the current leadership of this country offers no alternative.  The accumulation of wealth seems to be our only goal.  Some of us have succeeded in the effort to accumulate money and things and houses - - some of us, a minority of us.  Some of us are insatiable; never enough - - the continuous effort to accumulate.  Is this what we are all about?

So to repeat the question, if we lose the idea that we are the land of opportunity and freedom, what do we replace it with?  Our current momentum is to reject this view of ourselves.  No people, no group of people, have ever existed without some idea of themselves and their reason for being.  If we decide to discard our mythology and our reason for being America, we will need to find something to replace it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Educationally Speaking

 EDUCATIONALLY SPEAKING

If one were to take a look, or in other words think about, our current administration here in the United States, one must come away rather concerned.  If one were then to consider the rest of the world, especially Europe and Asia, one can see that the leadership of the people in charge in those places is, for the most part, educated.  This is whether you agree with their politics or not.

This is not just currently.  Historically the countries of Europe have had an educated class, usually upper crust but not entirely.  These are the people who have traditionally been in charge.  If one were to look at Chinese history, in order to even work in the administration of government, one had to pass exams: in other words be educated.  In China this requirement is of several thousand years standing.  The Chinese have always and continue to believe that education is important not only for the people who are in charge, who are running the country, but for everyone.

Then we turn to look at ourselves.  Let's have a little honesty here.  We are currently and have been often led by men, mostly men, who are uneducated and know very little.  The latest examples in American life are George Bush the Second and Donald Trump.

It is unequivocally clear:  these two men don't know anything and were and are uninterested in correcting the lack.  There can be no legitimate argument to the contrary.  We elect leaders in this country, on a regular basis, that clearly are ignorant, uneducated, and seemingly not very bright.  This is not secret stuff:  it is apparent to anyone who pays attention.

So, what is it about us, us Americans, that will allow ourselves to be led by such people?  Do we simply not care and will vote for anyone who will tell us what we want to hear?  This is not a positive sign for either our current situation or our future.  Here in the US, meaning us Americans again, we don't seem to care about education or being educated.  Being educated means, among other things, having some idea of what is happening in the world now and historically and how this affects us personally and as a civilization and what it means for our descendants.  It doesn't signify employability - that's being trained to do a job and does not constitute an education.

One might from this, project our future as a country and as a civilization; it does not seem to be something to look forward to.  One can not survive for any length of time not knowing anything.  It simply doesn't work that way - whether you are sitting by a campfire at your cave in 10,000 B.C. or on your sofa in front of your TV today.  This applies not only to individuals, but to countries and civilizations.  When the people who are in charge know nothing as is the situation here, the possibilities of disaster are multiplied many times.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo 

The Library

 THE LIBRARY

A library normally has thousands of books.  We should take this as a fact, as a basis of our discussion.  A second well-known fact, or projection if you must, is that I, or you, or anyone will not read all the books available in any given library.  These two notions should be uncontestable to anyone who has ever been in a library.

We currently have a set of people who complain and not only complain, but demand that certain books should either not appear in a library or if present, be disappeared so that they no longer are available to those who might want to read them.  

These people have the view that their opinion of a book should determine its availability to the public in general.  The current hullabaloo in Bondurant is a case in point.  As a person who reads books, the idea that some person or persons unknown to me can decide what I have available to read, is simply untenable.  Who are these people?

If you don't want your kid to read a book, tell your kid not to read the book.  What is so difficult about this?  If you do not have the ability to keep your kid from reading a book that your kid wants to read, you might want to reconsider your role as a parent.  Or, consider your own deficiencies in not understanding that not every one has your view of what is appropriate reading and what is not.  

I understand that this library thing has a religious element.  When it comes to a book about gay people or gay kids or a gay life, objections are raised that may have their basis in a person's religious beliefs.  But you know what!  I don't have the same belief and your belief should not have any effect on me or others who do not share your particular belief.  If I want to read a book about a particular subject, what is it to you!  By the way, what is your view of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO or of the KORAN or of MEIN KAMPF?

I would project that if you are a person that doesn't want your kid to read a certain book, you are a person that is perfectly content that your kid not read any book.  Books are considered dangerous things and the view appears to be they can cause a great deal of trouble to someone set in his or her ways and therefore some will do whatever necessary to maintain a maximum amount of ignorance in themselves and in their children.

This piece is not an exercise in literary criticism, but what the book deniers do not understand is that a novel is not written for the purpose of convincing the reader to behave or identify in a certain way, a novel is written to tell you the way things are - - life as it is.  Denying access to a novel about gay people does not keep you from being gay, but it does deny you the knowledge that there actually are gay people and they lead gay lives.

The question is "Why should your kid be as ignorant as you?"  Are you the ruler in charge of ignorance; the maintainer of unknowing?  This fight for ignorance and set beliefs has been fought for centuries.   And as we can see, the fight continues and we must recognize it for what it is.  It is not a war against gay people or sex or unrecognized behavior, it is a war on books  - this is what it has always been. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Search for Intelligent Life

 THE SEARCH FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE

The search for intelligent life in the universe continues with new telescopes, computerized data, and now presumably AI.  A bacteria or a virus will do - any biological form will assure us that there is indeed life and intelligence out there somewhere.   The presumption being that where there is life, there is intelligence.

Our current situation here on earth is illustrative however:  life and intelligence are not necessarily concurrent.  One does not presuppose the other.  The number of life forms found on earth has yet to be determined with any certainty; it's a really big number.  I would suspect that if life, as we know it, can be located on another planet, it will not take the form of a solitary creature.  This should be considered a certainty if we take earth as an example.  Every biological unit on this planet will be eaten by other biological units, hence you need more than one for life to exist.  These biological units may have a form of  intelligence; some more than others.  But if life demands intelligence, all life forms presumably have some, at least enough to keep themselves alive.

It follows that if there is life as we understand it on other planets there must be more than one solitary version.  A little reason goes a long way in understanding the difference between what is intelligible and what is unintelligible.  But back to earth.  We, meaning us earthlings, homo sapiens in particular, pride ourselves on our intelligence.  We have concluded that we are an intelligent life form.

I would suggest that this conclusion does not necessarily comport with the facts.  Examples are endless and illustrative; we are all aware of human activities that defy reason and logic, and indeed, can not be attributed to intelligent life. Our legislative bodies are a prime example of human hubris in this regard.  These bodies of biological units (legislatures) presume themselves to be not only adequate to the tasks given them, but of the superior understanding necessary to regulate the behavior of all other biological units within their grasp - - meaning you and me.

If one were to actually look at what our legislative bodies do and how what they do affects you and me, one might quickly gain the idea that the search for intelligent life might be of more benefit if we were to look a little less celestially.  It would be significant if we found life, intelligent or not, on some other planet in the universe, but it seems to me that it would be more significant if we could find some here on earth.  On first glance there doesn't appear to be much intelligence locally and especially in our legislative bodies.  

One must not get the notion that I am casting unfounded and  disparaging remarks about our elected representatives which in turn reflect on the people who elect them.  But if one were to look at the situation without preconceived notions, one must necessarily come to the conclusion that our idea of intelligent life here on earth needs an adjustment.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Mason and Dixon

 MASON AND DIXON

Thomas Pynchon

Books for Bigots

Mason and Dixon, the first Pynchon book I've read, has been a significant find.  As I approach the end of the book with some sort of report for Bigots in mind, what comes to me is that I'm reading Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - a Russian novel.  What Pynchon has done here is give you a view into 1760s America, along with I might add Cape Town and St. Helena with a bit of England thrown in.   A late chapter of a conversation between Mason and Dr. Johnson and Boswell on their way to the Hebrides made me smile.

This book took an immense amount of work to write.  One must credit Pynthon with a massive effort and imagination.  As I have always maintained, I am not a literary critic but simply a guy who reads books.  What I have found is that if after reading a book, one thinks about it and writes something about it, it sets in your mind better.  This would apply to any Bigot as well where after reading some screed, make a few notes of some Bigotry notable for its eccentricity.

This book has nothing against Bigots.  In fact, there was no thought of them.  The portrayal of slavery was simply that, with the exception Dixon taking a whip from a slave driver who was whipping slaves driving them down the street; but even then it was simply a personal distaste of torture and maltreatment.

What I take Mason and Dixon to be is a history book; a so-much better history book than simply a description of things that have been - - one can get the feel of America as a colony at that time, the people that inhabited it; knowledge that nothing is quite what it seems; that there are other inhabitants out there in the forest that need accounted for.   And for all those who wish diversity to disappear, unfortunately a realization that you can run into just about anyone and anything from anywhere on the frontier.  There are always those looking for something different and they are of all kinds.

 

The other acknowledgement that one must make is the immense effort it took to make America as we know it.  It would seem to mirror the effort it took to write the book.  I am glad I read it and now will be required to read Pynchon's other books which will take considerable time and effort.  It should be worth it.  And, I highly recommend the book to any Bigot who might inadvertently come across a copy in his or her travels and carrying's on.  It really doesn't harm a person to know a little of how he or she got to be the way they are and the historical factors that go into one's personality.  It might actually cause one to have a thought process or two which often can be beneficial. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

No Mismatches Allowed

 NO MISMATCHES ALLOWED

As Iowans we should be proud of our legislative efforts.  We are a State that is leading the nation in  extinguishing any diversity and our latest effort needs commendation.  Senate File 579 signed by Governor Reynolds says that an Iowa city can't give its citizens more civil rights that Iowa gives them.  A necessary development, don't you think?  We simply don't want some people to have more rights than other people have; or, as the Governor would say, we do not want our civil rights "mismatched".

And we certainly don't want a person living in Des Moines to have more civil rights than a person living in Waukee - -  for instance.  It just wouldn't be right.  Or what about Newton?  It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the citizens of Newton to have more civil rights than a person living in Colfax or Sully - - for example.

What Senate File 579 says explicitly is that a municipality cannot decide for themselves what is unfair or discriminatory.  Only the State of Iowa can do that.  So let's say that Newton, for instance, determines that a restaurant can not  deny service to a person wearing a cap.  Since the Iowa Civil Rights code says nothing about caps, Newton would not be able to protect your right to wear a cap while eating your lunch.  It may be discriminatory, but it is not forbidden.

Apparently, what has caused all this ruckus is the idea that some people would like to identify as something other than simply male or female.  We have taken particular offense to this idea.  What Iowa has decided to do is to declare that you are either a male or are female and that's the end of it.  How or why this came about is not clear, but it seems to be the case.

Self-identity is no longer allowed.   I am not to suggest, at least publicly, that even though I may have the body of a male, I have the hormones and mental traits of a girl.  No more of that-  - not allowed, verboten.  It could destroy civil society which is already teetering dangerously.

Now I realize I said the same thing about samesex marriage and things didn't fall apart, but this has got to be different surely.  This goes way beyond samesex marriage; when a gay person says they are gay they are not saying they are female when they are clearly male.  This transgender stuff is not acceptable and will result in total social catastrophe - - our whole belief system will collapse and anarchy will result.  We simply can't let some big bulky guy walk up to us and say, "Hey, I may look like a man, but I'm really a woman."

Not happening folks! Enough is enough and we should applaud our legislature in attending to things that are really important; those things which will make our lives better.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo