So, having just been to the signing, I have been informed that the linkage that follows is personal, and not author intended. And like the insane person that I am, I feel the need to explain myself.
First, the motivation:
Pattern Recognition is explicitly, and implicitly about the identification of source. Particularly, what can be done with self-identification.
Given that, it seems that putting an eye on how Cayce identifies herself on F:F:F seemed... reasonable
The connection, was this:
In the old days of LISP at MIT, there was a naming convention on functions that gave yes & no answers of terminating them with "P" thus, "integerP" would tell you if a thing was an integer. This naming convention bled into MIT geek jargon in general, "hungryP" would ask somebody if they were hungry, in a word and a letter. I'm not making this up...ESR's Jargon-file
"CayceP" as the author of a post, by this convention, is a question, about whether or not the author is, or is not Cayce.
I Descend into mania:
Cayce, is allergic to some forms of strong branding. The quickest ways of identifying the source of a piece of material [(This shirt is from Tommy Hilfiger, I know because of the flag thing) (The food in this bag are from McDonalds, I can tell from the golden arches) (These shoes are from Nike...) (etc)] make her ill.
So, regardless of the fact that Cayce herself is unlikely to be aware of the above-mentioned MIT naming convention, it is still, odd, amusing, and interesting, that the marketing professional allergic to branding signifies her products as an inquiry to their author.
I felt not in left-field because he spends a bit of time with ancient computing, Voytek, Ngemi, and Hobbs are collectors of... That was just enough for me to think maybe W.Gibson had encountered some of this old hacker lore...
From about half way through the book to it's conclusion, I kept waiting for one of the technically inclined people (B.Chu and Voytek being the most likely) to explain the amusing nature of Cayce's handle to her.
Within the work it would have been apropos by accident, and... it turns out, that as a work, it's apropos by accident.
Thought I'd share...
Not a bad theory, also considering the obviously intentional reference to Steven King's Wang (which I must admit made me laugh very hard, massive geek that I am).
we just throw in a question mark. like (number? (+ 8 4))
Read my novel in progres The reflection engine
|Powered by Social Strata|