Hey all-

I'm new here, but just finished reading Pattern Recognition. I'm wondering, is it clear what HB ends up doing with his knowledge of the footage? He fires Boone because he only seems interested in the money, that's clear. But were his intentions merely to find out how the film was distributed as a marketing tactic, or did he want to do something with the footage itself, to find a way to turn it into a "commodifier"?

Of course much of this is unclear, since the nature of the transaction between Bigend and Volkova is only reported through Parkaboy, who can't understand their French.

But apparently the footage served as a sort of organization backbone for Volkova's media empire to build itself up around--"Massive organizational redundancy, in the service of absolute authority" (341, berkley paperback). Perhaps it is this "business model" of sorts that Bigend was after?

Because the footage as something coolhunted seems played out by the end--"So mystery internet movie is out, yogurt drink is in" (364).

Any help tying this loose threads together would be much appreciated!

To know more you need to read Spook Country, or at least ask in the Spook Country with spoilers section of the forum.

However Bigend was truly curious about what was behind the footage, and he knows (through past experience) that what interest him usually can be sold afterwards for a big chunk of money, once he tires of it.

He fired Boone because he did not trust him.

I don't think trust is the real issue behind Boone getting sacked. It had more to do with Boone pretending to be better then he really was.

Hasa is correct. It's stated "factually" in the text. Professors ought to be willing to do that sort of research.

So, when somebody lies and dissembles to you, to hide the fact that they cannot do the work you want them to and you fire him for that, that is not a problem of trust?

What is it, then? I no longer trust him with the situation, or to do his job, or not to do it again.

What other term you propose? Unreliable? It comes to the same meaning. Because he does not fire him for being incompetent (which he is not), but for hiding his level of competence.

Maybe I am using a different meaning of "trust".

Hello gwijthoff

quote:

Originally posted by gwijthoff:

...Because the footage as something coolhunted seems played out by the end--"So mystery internet movie is out, yogurt drink is in" (364)...

That quote reminds me of this from Neuromancer:

quote:

`Ready,' the computer said.
It wasn't a name he knew. Something new, something that had come in since he'd been in Chiba. Fads swept the youth of the Sprawl at the speed of light: entire subcultures could rise overnight, thrive for a dozen weeks, and then vanish utterly.
`Go,' he said. The Hosaka had accessed its array of libraries, journals, and news services.

quote:

Originally posted by The Psychophant:
So, when somebody lies and dissembles to you, to hide the fact that they cannot do the work you want them to and you fire him for that, that is not a problem of trust?

What is it, then? I no longer trust him with the situation, or to do his job, or not to do it again.

What other term you propose? Unreliable? It comes to the same meaning. Because he does not fire him for being incompetent (which he is not), but for hiding his level of competence.

Maybe I am using a different meaning of "trust".

Or perhaps you just enjoy getting in sissy slap-fights with Uber on the Internetz. Which is fine by me as I find them hilarious and ridiculous.


Semantically tho......while you're making a point that is semantically valid, is it really correct?


I suppose we'd have to dig up the real live actual text to decide, but there would seem to me to be a difference between:

"I don't trust you, you lied to me, you're fired"
and
"You're incompetent, I don't trust your work, you're fired"

right?

It's a pretty minor point and I wouldn't want to get in the way of you and Uber-D sniping at each other but I think that's the nuanced value being used here. Certainly it can be shoe-horned in to "trust" but I'd think "incompetence" might be more likely when splitting hairs such as these, no?

Just for the record, I was answering Hasa. I prefer to ignore (the old fashioned way) Uberdog unless there is no other way.

We have two fragments explaining the break up in the Bigend-Boone partnership:

quote:

"Is that why he didn't stay?"
"No. He left because I no longer wanted to be in partnership with him."
"You didn't? I mean, you don't?"
"No."
"Why?"
"Because he pretends to be better at what he does than he is. I prefer people who are better at what they do than they think they are."

quote:

"Hubertus? Boone hadn't been able to get anything, in Ohio?"
"No. He got the domain name from your e−mail to Stella. He had the entire address, of course, but nothing he could do with it. By telling you he'd at least learned the domain, in Ohio, he thought he might be able to garner partial credit, with me, after the fact. But in order to move as quickly as he knew we needed to move, he had to tell me the truth, all of it." He shrugs. "You weren't telling me what you were up to either, but at least you weren't lying to me. How did you get that address, by the way?"
"Through someone with NSA connections. I have absolutely no idea how he got it, and no way to ever find out."
"I knew I'd picked a winner, as soon as I met you."
"Do you know where Boone's gone?"
"To Tokyo, I imagine. To that designer girlfriend, the one he stayed with when you were there. Did you meet her?"
"I saw her apartment," she says, after a pause.
"I think it's all actually about money, for him." He grimaces. "Ultimately I find that that was the whole problem, with most of the dot−com people. Good night."

Boone does not come across as incompetent, not at all, even if he gets stuck in Ohio. But he is a liar, and that is what Bigend really dislikes.

So, once again, if it is not trust, how would you call firing someone because he lied to you?

quote:

Originally posted by The Psychophant:


Boone does not come across as incompetent, not at all, even if he gets stuck in Ohio. But he is a liar, and that is what Bigend really dislikes.

So, once again, if it is not trust, how would you call firing someone because he lied to you?

Ah-ha! Fair enough. ;-)

Again tho, isn't it lack of results?
I mean we have Mainwaring in the same book and what's her name Dorotea, and he doesn't seem to trust either of them.

Which wouldn't prevent him from firing Boone for the same reason, but it does suggest that betraying his trust isn't really a firing offense.

...and furthermore Susan, thanks for posting the excerpts but they seem to not support your point don't they?

He specifically says doesn't want to be in a partnership with Boone for competency reasons and that what Bigend "really dislikes" is his interest in money more so than sharing Bigend's hyperfocus on secrets-for-secrets-sake knowledge.

I can certainly see where you can infer that he's fired Boone for lying (about his competence) rather than for not being able to get him any good information. But lying and dissembling don't seem to be things that concern Hubie in the way they might concern a normal employer, particularly given the later examples of Dorotea and Pam M.

Or maybe Hube is just pissed he got snowed by a puffed up resume.

Consider the choice of words, something very telling in my reading of Gibson. Pamela is an employee of Blue Ant, and she remains an employee, reappearing in Spook Country. She is just out of Cayce's case (hah!). Dorotea is hired because she has something he wants, even knowing that she is a snake. So she is sacrificed to the Russians without a second thought because she is no longer useful. He offered Boone to be his partner. That is quite a different status.

Maybe it is just me, and my peculiar approach to a foreign language but I do not see any accusation of incompetence in those fragments, just of not recognizing failure, and then covering up that failure. Bigend's schemes fail nine times out of ten, but when they win, they win wildly. So that is why he needs accurate information. Because information is what he is made of, and he can bear with not knowing something, but a falseness poisons his whole construct.

His agents, both Cayce and Hollis, keep secrets from him and he does not mind, just as long as he gets what he wants, and they do not actively deceive him.

quote:

Originally posted by The Psychophant:
Maybe I am using a different meaning of "trust".

Maybe this is why I disagreed. 'Trust' implied (for me) a moral component that I cannot see as a important point for Bigend. He is result-driven.

And I remembered only the first passage you quoted.

I read that as him being fired for incompetence rather then deceit.

I tried today to remember what special talent Boone was hired for in the first place but I can't remember.

quote:

I prefer to ignore (the old fashioned way) Uberdog unless there is no other way.

You still haven't mastered the ignore part of that.

""But Pamela Mainwaring is no longer with us," Hubertus says." (PR, p. 206)

You take that as just off Cayce's job, Psychophant? her reappearance in SC def. surprised me, given that I wasn't sure if Hubertus had had her shot off-stage or something.

BTW, I adore the baroque aspect. Guy hires cool hunter hunters to find cool hunters to find cool.

In PR, the nested layers mirrored each other somewhat directly: footage buzz, cool hunter, et cetera.

IN SC: the cool collector/exploiter, Bigend, seems to have learned to exploit the reverberations of the initial nested waves bouncing off the opposite cool shore.

quote:

Originally posted by theminx:
""But Pamela Mainwaring is no longer with us," Hubertus says." (PR, p. 206)

You take that as just off Cayce's job, Psychophant? her reappearance in SC def. surprised me, given that I wasn't sure if Hubertus had had her shot off-stage or something.

Perhaps Pamela quit her job, and then Hubertus coaxed her back. He might not have been paying her enough for her particular skill set.

Chapter 24 : Cyprus
is a rather confusing chapter.

What exactly does Dorothea mean by: "She was easy," when referring to Mainwaring?

It seems that Mainwaring was leaking information.

All of the items that Pamela provided to Cayce were suspect: the phone (but that was just from the pool, so couldn't be bugged); the laptop; and the credit card, use of which Dorotea's people apparently were tracing.

Presumably Dorotea spilled this to Hubertus when he was buying her off, and then he either moved Pamela to another assignment or canned her. I had always assumed the latter.

(Don't have the book with me, but I skimmed this bit earlier)

quote:

Originally posted by The Psychophant:
So, when somebody lies and dissembles to you, to hide the fact that they cannot do the work you want them to and you fire him for that, that is not a problem of trust?

What is it, then? I no longer trust him with the situation, or to do his job, or not to do it again.

What other term you propose? Unreliable? It comes to the same meaning. Because he does not fire him for being incompetent (which he is not), but for hiding his level of competence.

Maybe I am using a different meaning of "trust".

Bigend "trusts" people to be true to their talents and character, not to act according to their job description or in his interest. he "trusts" that they will will act as he perceives their needs direct them.

He hires people based on intuition, puts certain personalities with certain skills into certain situations.

It wasn't that Boone had violated the conventional notion of trust, but that Boone wasn't as good as Bigend had believed him to be. He was counting on betrayal and selfishness from Boone, he wasn't counting on him being pedestrian.

Look at how he dealt with Dorotea and Mainwaring. They both betrayed him and yet he continued to deal with them after the fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Fashionpolice:
Chapter 24 : Cyprus
is a rather confusing chapter.

What exactly does Dorothea mean by: "She was easy," when referring to Mainwaring?

It seems that Mainwaring was leaking information.

She means it was easy to get to her, easy to get her to collude. She was easily bought off.

quote:

His agents, both Cayce and Hollis, keep secrets from him and he does not mind, just as long as he gets what he wants, and they do not actively deceive him.

But Mainwaring and Dorotea actively deceived him and yet he is OK with that so long as it plays into his larger picture. The thing with Hubertus is, he's amoral. He doesn't care about morality or trust, he cares about the scent he picks up, the trail he's after, the nascently defined "next big thing" after which he puts all his resources.

What I think you are missing is the essential nature of Bigend's character.