(from "what spook country might look like"):

"its very strange though, to see how reality and fiction have essentially caught up to one another- and also to speculate as to how they met. for instance, there is a quite impressive thesis, (there's of course an mp3 of it somewhere on the internet, i'll look for it later and put it up here) that says that things like the internet, and computers themselves are the products of an idea that has its roots and home(or at least used to) in military culture; namely the idea of consciousness expansion. The person who was saying this (someone giving a lecture, i believe at stanford- i'm not so good with names, though) argues that in fact the entire cultural movement and ideal of 60's/70's consciousness expansion that is now reflected upon as countercultural, was actually an adoption of preexisting military dreams (a soldier on a battlefield needs sattelites and computers to 'see over the horizon' and information and behavioural profiling in order to 'see the future', and computer hard disks were actually originally developed to act as artificial memory extensions) which were brought into the semi-civilian arena both by the imposition of the Vietnam War, and the movement towards communal living.

(now ask yourself, why do we still, now seek consciousness expansion? could it be that we now need consciousness expansion to protect ourselves- militaristically- against the opressive government it has helped create?)

okay, it was Fred Turner. and i guess it was Harvard The link is:

http://media-cyber.law.harvard.edu/AudioBerkman/fred_turner_2006-12-01.mp3

wait and then there's this other guy who was talking on NPR (http://www.bu.edu/wbur/podcasts/2006/01/onpointb_0103.mp3) talking about geographic web postings-- doesn't this basically mean that from now on, historical landmarks will begin to be considered irrelevant because the historical information will all be archived on our cellphones?! And the URL says BU.edu, so it's somehow archived by Boston University? They're the ones who still have a NASA remote viewing laboratory in their Energy Studies College building (i swear- its right there on like the fourth or fifth floor, you can go look at it- take a picture with your cellphone and its funny how they try to sell it as something that creates "a world alive with information", when really its just an excuse to steal the actual living or non-abstractified/representational information from the real world! makes me want to know what happens to computer hard drives when they get thrown out- archeologists of the future have to know! and where is information downloaded on a cell phone actually stored? how long does it stay there? UGH!"

Inkeeping with Gibson's theme of the death of locality, I started investigating the issue of where all our information is physically stored, and what will happen to it over time. Of course, because knowledge of such things is generally a delicate security issue, the topic is fairly nebulous at present. Right now, I'm trying to reconcile two main ideas regarding cell phone data storage- The investigation is ongoing, but for now the mainlines of speculation flow thusly:
Kosmonaut K(me): introduces the notion that communications data is probably physically stored on servers, wired in a sort of para-net, which can only be directly accessed by the communications companies they belong to. further questions that come to mind in this line are: how static is this information, who maintains the networks, and how permanent is its storage.

Box: Box speculates that the data is not actually stored anywhere, but is actually kept "floating"(to use his terminology) in space- meaning that, rather than being permanently stored at any specific location, the information is constantly being sent from one sattelite to the next, only ever being temporarily stored physically, only to be deleted after it is sent on its way. this leads to further questions regarding various methods of accessing sattelites via various PDA's, as well as the question of what happens to the data stored on a sattellite when the sattelite is shut down- i.e. does 'space junk' possibly contain massive archives of 'dead' information and terminated communications, and how can that information be retrieved?

those are the two mainlines of speculation right now, but i am sure there is a whole lot more that can come into play, and honestly my prediction at present is that the answer will probably lie in a mixture between the two ideas. I thought we should investigate this topic publicly, as a community, especially since it relates very much to a main theme concerning Gibson's current work.

happy digging

Ok, I'm confused. What does this have to do with
the book Pattern Recognition?

well, actually, the idea came first from something that Gibson said about Pattern Recognition and a theme he is exploring, more in general, in an installment of Times Talk;

here's a basic idea of my take on the subject:

we live in an information age, which is characterized, generally, by the pervasiveness of Information Technology. The thing that we call the internet is one very important example of information technology. For a while now, people like us, and people like Gibson, as well as a few notable others, have used the internet as a sort of embodiment of information technology, and most of what we think about information technology comes from analyzing the internet.
'The Internet', however, is, in reality, although a seemingly endlessly complex subject, but one form of information technology which governs the information age; there are other things, like cell phones, mainstream media, and even psychology- some of which are in fact a lot like the internet, and some of which are not.

In Pattern Recognition, the world of the information age, in all its different manifestations, is explored, and at its heart, we find people like Cace, who is, to say the least an extreme creation of the information age (rather than simply an extreme creation of information technology, a la Casy from Neuromancer)

it gets pretty complicated from here, and i have some work to do for now, but maybe i'll finish this up later- for now, though, i'm pretty confident that if you consider those points for a while you'll get where i'm coming from- i'll post a follow up a little later, though. i hate deadlines.

quote:

Originally posted by Marshdrifter:
Ok, I'm confused. What does this have to do with
the book Pattern Recognition?

Sez the archaeologist

Archeologist is also (somewhat) acceptable.

arcologist?

quote:

Originally posted by misty:
arcologist?

I should hope not.

"Arcologist?"
"I should hope not".

Hey! You got a problem with Arcologists, buster?

Mmmh, I checked this thread (Pattern Recognition) since I JUST finished the last page of that stunning book. Did I like it?
Hrmm, I always like WG:s style of writing (addicted to it is more to the point), but I'm also a big wire-head for Sci-Fi of the 'Gibsonian' style, and I must (pardon me) say that I am saddened that the prophet put the story in present time. In this moment I haven't been able to look through all posts, but I am certain that most of you 'hardcore' WG:s have to feel the same? This book is good, very good, but it is set in the mainstream era, in the present time which are over-exploted as it is. If I want to read about 'spy'-reality I settle down with a John Le Carre. If I want to get cyber I just flick through one of my engineering/net.-documents, and if I want to be spooked I get a Coontz paperback. But I like to dig down into the Gibsonian universe...and that is not set in the present time.
Before you punch me up, do you agree?

quote:

Kosmonaut K(me): introduces the notion that communications data is probably physically stored on servers, wired in a sort of para-net, which can only be directly accessed by the communications companies they belong to. further questions that come to mind in this line are: how static is this information, who maintains the networks, and how permanent is its storage.

Box: Box speculates that the data is not actually stored anywhere, but is actually kept "floating"(to use his terminology) in space- meaning that, rather than being permanently stored at any specific location, the information is constantly being sent from one sattelite to the next, only ever being temporarily stored physically, only to be deleted after it is sent on its way. this leads to further questions regarding various methods of accessing sattelites via various PDA's, as well as the question of what happens to the data stored on a sattellite when the sattelite is shut down- i.e. does 'space junk' possibly contain massive archives of 'dead' information and terminated communications, and how can that information be retrieved?

Answer:
Okey guys, the above information are classified, but to a certain extent, so I can give you a brief overview of the traffic-data from the telecom-side. Each telecom-operator (as well as the PSTN and military branches) are by law (in the countries I've worked in) required to store traffic-data for 3-10 years depending on the data itself. This is actually done with DAT-tapes, still, manually once every 24 hours. This magnetic media are then (usually) stored in underground bunkers where we also keep all electronics that have to survive EMP- and nuclear attacks. These bunkers are quite well protected, and you'll find them under all big European cities. There are equipment down there older than shit and stuff that are hardly invented yet. And you will not get in without very good clearance. Now, the data stored are actually harmless (as far as I know), it's mostly traffic-data down to cellular level and nothing like your conversations. Things like that can be extracted if needed, but you'll need clearance on the national level to legally do it, something that I never encountered. A simpler task are tracking, something I did now and then to assist the boys in blue. Back in the days you could track someone on cellular level (within say 3 km.), but now most agencies can ping it down to a few meters. AND: Since mostly all IP-traffic are going the same way, the same can be said about tracing computers. NSA and those boys are playing on another level anyway, so all the above were just a 'You-knew-that' insight, right?

I went off the track there. My thing is: Does it bother you that Pattern Recognition is a present-time story? /Z

quote:

Does it bother you that Pattern Recognition is a present-time story?

Not even slightly. Gibson was talking about hanging up his cyberspace hat even as the MS of All Tomorrow's Parties was going to the publisher.

Also, the book in preparation is also contemporary. Gibson's appeal is not the science, but the language.

well said, gil.

watching no maps (for the first time) there was a point where WG put it really simply. he was basically saying he's grown out of that stage and it would be wrong in so many ways to try to return to it.

i love WG's style, and his characters. now if he came up with a novel without a character, without observation, then i'd have a problem.

Hello ZenSwede,
As for me, I knew nothing about cyberpunk or Gibson except for having seen Neuromancer in bookshops, being a pretty thorough browser of everything in any bookshop.

I tend to prefer contemporary settings in a novel (that is to say, contemproary to the author: Jane Austen is great... as is Dickens in my view.)

So in 2004, I simply bought PR on the strength of the blurb and was totally intrigued.
The atmosphere, the characters, the sparse and careful language.

Then read Neuromancer and did not take to it much. The future, sci-fi has never been my thing.

I have Idoru to read now, thinking a female heroine (I am told?) will make the book more interesting to me-- being able to identify somewhat. We'll see.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aisha,

quote:

I have Idoru to read now, thinking a female heroine (I am told?) will make the book more interesting to me-- being able to identify somewhat. We'll see.

i'm particularly fond of idoru and MLO because of the way the girls are fleshed out.

quote:

Originally posted by misty:
i love WG's style, and his characters. now if he came up with a novel without a character, without observation, then i'd have a problem.

That pretty well sums it up for me.

I remember thinking in the late 1990's that the
whole "future" thing was pretty much finished.
The present (even at that time waaaay in the
last millennium) pretty much had all the core
components and anything else was setting and
characterization.

Thanks for that input, y'all. I must say that I'm truly surprised, since to me the essence of the 'Gibsonian reality' have always been the future setting, and I just took for granted that I'm chatting with equal cyber-geeks when I'm in here. Now I've reached the age when I don't really hit the roof about it, since I actually agree with Gil, Misty and Aisha...Gibsons writing is the essence that kick ass. On the other hand, it feels like Big-G are digging that cyber-coffin from the -90:s down for good. And in it you'll find stuff like Billy Idol's Cyberpunk, Pesce's VRML, Cyberspace reality and all that I try to capture in my own movie-extracts. It has been a pattern for me for so long, and Gibson have been it's ultimate prophet. Billy Idols biggest hit this year is 'Jingle Bell', Gibson is now 'mainstream', HMD:s are in museums and the hottest Virtual World online now are SecondLife. Hah! Well, at least that pattern is broken.

quote:

> Are you ever going to write a sequel to NEUROMANCER?

I hope not. If I did, it would almost certainly indicate that I had
gotten into some particularly dire kind of financial and/or spiritual
trouble. It would be the literary equivalent of deciding that the way to
resolve a mid-life crisis is to go back and marry your highschool
sweetheart.

So he said. It feels like I've been in love with the same sweetheart, just to see her again as a washed up oldie with to much makeup and smelly armpits...*sob*. Girls, gimme a hug. /Z

I would say the essence of the 'Gibsonian reality' is not the future setting, but the way he writes about it. It took me a while to realise it, but that involved yet detached, forensic and impossibly nuanced approach that we enjoy is what makes PATTERN RECOGNITION so compellingly unlike what anyone else - say, William Boyd or Ian McEwan - would do with that same material. Because WG is still writing AS IF the present day is as distantly fantastic as anything in Count Zero. It's our world through the new eyes of an alien observer. That's why although the plots are important, I don't really care if everything ties up. The plots aren't the point.
So looked at from that perspective, PR is still very much a Gibsonian otherplace. If you grew up in rural conditions without a tv, a telephone of your own or central heating - like maybe half of the people on this planet right now - then Cayce's life is as futuristic as anything in the Sprawl or Bridge trilogies.

Everyhting Sentinel just said.
Amen.