[27] Vineland, 2011 [Literature, Fiction, Essay, Review]

If Deleuze was right in seeing writers as physicians of culture, symptomatologists exposing the sickness of society, therapists proposing remedies of variable plausibility, Thomas Pynchon's Vineland is a treatise on Hematology: Vineland is about what ails the USA in its blood.

The book alternates its brilliant jokes -and almost everyone in the book is one- between the 60s and the 80s as Prairie leaves her ridiculous hippie dad, Zoyd (reduced to performing annual rituals of cross-dressing violence on TV to collect a disability check), in the search for everybody's object of desire: her mom Frenesi Gates.

On the trail of Frenesi's videodrome ghost we learn of the rise and fall of PR3, the People's Republic of Rock and Roll, a secessionist campus in Trasero county, California, of her involvement with the radical film crew 24fps and her calamitous relationship with bad guy Brock Vond, the fascist-par-excellence whose seductive powers are at the core of the cloudburst.

The mechanics of the book, and thus Pynchon's diagnosis, can be divided broadly in two: first is the mirror house, deformed reflections. Everything returns as a twisted version of its former self, including the actual dead (in the form of Thanatoids, undead victims of karmic faults who go around interacting with the living, watching TV, etc.). Family, individuals, pop culture, they all return in contorted, often amusing ways e.g., "Say, Jim!," an inverted Star Trek with an all black cast with the exception of a freckled redhead communications officer, lieutenant O'hara. At the end, not even fascism is what it used to be, as young would-be-rebels no longer need camps for "reeducation."

The second mechanism is sexual seduction. Fascism advances by means of corrupting desire embedded invariably in the character's DNA.

Beyond this, I will say no more about the book itself, don't want to spoil it for anyone; for praise of the books' literary merits, formal quirks, embedded song lyrics and puns (such as the japanese conglomerate Tokkata & Fuji) I'll refer you to Salman Rushdie (His New York Times review available here http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-vineland.html). For a thorough analysis of the Cultural Trauma in the book you can take a look at James Berger's lucid essay at The Modern Word (http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/papers_berger.html).

In the reminder of this entry I'll avoid repeating those great reviews in favor of a report from the field. A few years as a resident of California has prepared me to give you first hand information as to the current state of Vineland, the good.

THE ORIGINAL PLAYERS Vineland's children of the sixties, corrupted by the eighties, blindsided by the nineties, obliterated by the oh-ohs, are now effectively part of the living dead.

They gather in places like Cheswick's, a dimly lit box where time passes slowly, without anyone ever jumping through a window. In fact, there are no windows in the place, which suits everyone just fine. The minimum amount of air coming in is enough to keep them going.

Since there are no sits outside, the patrons take dutiful turns going out for smoking, standing right in front of the windowless hole that serves as ventilation. More smoke goes in than if they were sitting inside looking out. It is a formal game of do-as-you-are-told they have learned to play to perfection. In fact, the greatest faux-pas in this place of droopy eyes and daffy stares, sun-burnt wrinkled faces and faded tattoos is to inadvertently carry your drink in your hand as you cross the border between the inside of the box and the smoking area. This could "fuck us all up!" and its ferociously averted.

Obedience is the name of the game, and as long as they can have beer and tequila shots, the original players will keep dying quietly in line, and there's enough IPA and Patron to last everyone another two life sentences inside the place.

PRAIRIES CHILDREN Prairie's children are in their twenties or so and are a jolly bunch. Their life is full of music, but it is not Rock and Roll. In fact, Rolling Stone magazine reports there was not a single rock song in 2010's top 25. What you do hear in Vineland is pop-rap songs like this:

Bedrock

Oh baby, I be stuck to you like glue
Baby, wanna spend it all on you
Baby, my room is the G spot,
call me Mr. Flintstone I can make your bedrock.

G spot, I'll spend it all on you. Right. The mechanics of Vineland are what they always were, the pursuit of sensual pleasures, and screen to watch them. The contract is to work a job five days a week, and in return you can have an epic party every weekend and a facebook account to share it. A zero-sum game as long as you don't hate your job and the party indeed gets you laid.

Epic parties take time, are not always epic, and often take more money than Vinelanders earn. As these frustrations accumulate, the difference between the girl doing the St. Vitus dance on booze and ecstasy and the homeless dude shaking it to the same tune and drugs on Newport ave. starts appearing less accidental. The shared illusion that prompts one resident to applaud another on saturday nights is perturbed by the sight of wrinkles.

The karmic effect of time starts to contaminate the party, but for that too, Vineland has an antidote. And that is where the Flintstones come in..

CHILDREN OF PRAIRIE'S CHILDREN The Flintstones and the rest of the soft-core, infantile coating on sex prefigure the boundaries of the next stage. Thankfully, adulthood remains untouched during the party, because when the party looses its luster, or becomes too expensive, or one looses luster and feels no longer welcome to the party, reverting to childhood is much easier. When the time comes to make children, there's less adulthood to miss.

Kids provide great relief to Vineland, as socially accepted validation of any citizen which requires no particular skill. Be famous or be a parent; a renewed covenant where Prairie's children get to work the job they are tied to without loosing face. That's just the way life is, they'll tell you, this is what it means to grow up. And don't worry, you can still party. In moderation, of course.

BALANCE IS THE KEY In conclusion, thirty years later, all is good in Vineland. There is no revolution nor need for it because life here is truly a continuum. We have fat-free chocolate, and FDA-approved opiates without opium. Music is both sex-filled and kid-safe. The tube and life are identical, no need to escape one with the other. Young and old are closer together, all sharing the same desires and occasional addictions. Those desires taught at ever-tenderer ages to little Vinelanders, who will be even more efficient than their parents at both the party and at keeping the balance by finding meaning in the miracle of another little Vinelander on the way.

And if at any point should suspicion rear its ugly head suggesting we've been duped, the joint that is no longer revolutionary nor prosecuted will be there, and the tube will soothe our worries through one of those great Vineland saints who will sing to us tenderly:

Don't worry
about a thing.
every little thing
is gonna be alright...

Fabio Arciniegas A. San Diego, CA. May 26, 2011

[19] On occasion of Innita's cup size

When artist and friend No(that's his name) asked me to comment on whether his lover and muse --rock star Innita-- would be better received by critics if she had smaller breasts and clothed herself more, I was reminded of Paris' story and the perils of taking sides in arguments about women's looks; however, in matters of aesthetics is better to have a Trojan war than a cop out, so I've accepted to weigh in.

I guess the question could be answered statistically, a-la rotten tomatoes. However, the enduring success of Dolly Parton alone would be enough to skew any numerical results, so a philosophical answer is in order.

"Would critics receive better a clothed, A-cup Innita?" Let's break down the problem. Which critics are we talking about? Low, mid, or highbrow?

First of all, there's no such thing as a lowbrow critic, only lowbrow consumers. like camels they eat what they're fed.The predilection for larger breasts in this camp is guaranteed.

The midbrow is characterized by dissent and a contrarian attitude. Critics of this ilk are guaranteed to oppose Innita, they are in love with Audrey Hepburn anyway.

And the highbrow? Well Nietszche readers probably have guessed where I'm going talking about three levels, camels and so forth [1], and all i can say is this: i have yet to see the first child who doesn't love a big pair of tits.

Fabio Arciniegas A., San Diego, CA January 2010

[1]. "Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child. Thus spoke Zarathustra."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/noparainnita/sets/72157619469279744

[18] Some thoughts on Compression, Visualization, and Blackjack

Beautiful Mnemonics - Compressed Graphics

It occurred to me a while ago that some printed graphics can be said to be "compressed," not in the JPEG sense, but rather in the traditional information theory sense of the word, i.e. they can contain more information than explicitly shown, provided the recipient knows the conventions necessary to extract the implied information. In traditional Tufte terminology, these graphics could be said to have a data-ink ratio higher than 1.0, and more poetically, to borrow another Tufte motto, they can illustrate a negative "smallest effective difference."

The example shown below is the compression of the traditional table for Blackjack basic strategy to a set of smaller tables with many implied cells. Perhaps these tables will not be useful to a complete amateur, but everyone with a basic knowledge of the game I have tested them with has found them very useful in memorizing the rules completely, something they have failed to do with the traditional table, which shows independently the 220 data points.

I believe this is an effective example of a special type of "compressed graphics" that can serve as "beautiful mnemonics" rather than "beautiful explanations."


(click for large version)


Below is a longer explanation of the two points above for those not familiar with Tufte's terms.

A longer version - Questioning data ink ratios and the smallest effective difference

Given the amount of manipulative and content-free media pushed around us (think Fox news), teaching people how to create elegant and meaningful visual explanations seems a useful goal. Perhaps no one has contributed more to it than Edward Tufte, who in his books explains the basic principles of effective information design and shows many outstanding applications. If you have not had a chance yet to see his work, I recommend you stop here and check the following link:

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/

One of Tuftee's recurrent themes is avoiding waste, making graphics with a "high data-to-ink ratio." In other words, charts where every line and piece of text is meaningful, without unnecessary colors and decorations. A sort of Visual Strunk and White which Tuftee praises with the lyrical phrase "the smallest effective difference."

In Tuftee's books, "the smallest effective difference" is usually illustrated by starting with a bloated and ugly graphic and succesively getting rid of unnecessary ink, minimizing waste. The result is usually a beautiful and compact representation of the original data, with a higher "data-ink ratio."

I've often wondered about the possible results of the "clean up process" given a starting point that was not a bloated graphic, but already a clean one1. To which point can it be simplified? are there cases where we can delete even data-ink and still have a useful graphic? perhaps an even better graphic? In short, is there a case to be made for a negative smallest effective difference?

1. Playing with other properties of the graphic such as dimensions is one possible answer. This is illustrated in Tufte's discussions about sparklines. In this case I'm referring to further deletion of data past the obviously desired deletion of fluff.

Before jumping into these formulas it is important to make a disclaimer: Tuftee's points are heuristics using math terminology, not standalone formulas for quality. With the above in mind, lets phrase in pseudo-math terms the idea of the smallest effective difference as follows:

Data ink ratio = data ink / graphic ink (ink that conveys information vs total ink used to produce the graphic)

From this, one interpretation of the smallest effective difference could be:
graphic ink - data ink

This would seem to imply that the goal is a data ink ratio closest to 1.0, in other words, a smallest effective difference of 0. However consider a graphic that implies more data than it explicitly expresses:
data ink = explicit data + implied data

To express more data than that explicitly shown, the receipient must know an algorithm to extract such data from the original message. In other words, the reader must be able to infer the implied data. In traditional information theory, a classic example of compression is run-length encoding, where contiguous identical digits are implied by specifying how many times they repeat instead of writing them explicitly. e.g.
3.422222222231333333 is converted to
3.42{9}313{6}

The compressed format is shorter, although it requires the reader to know a convention. If we were to consider text as graphics we'd already have a first example of a graphic with a data ink ratio higher than one. Thankfully, we don't have to make such an extreme case to illustrate the idea: the blackjack table below is a more meaningful example.

The point of many graphics is to render new data clear to the reader. In such cases, using a "compressed" graphic may not be a good idea because first one would have to explain to the reader the conventions necessary to read the implied data. However, not all graphics are meant to explain new data. Memorization and quick confirmation previously known information is also helpful.

Here's a practical example, compressing the traditional table for Blackjack basic strategy to a set of smaller tables with many implied cells. Perhaps these tables will not be useful to a complete amateur, but everyone with a basic knowledge of the game I have tested them with has found them very useful in memorizing the rules completely, something they have failed to do with the traditional table, which shows explicitly 220 data points. I believe this is an effective example of a special type of "compressed graphics," that can serve as "beautiful mnemonics" rather than "beautiful explanations."




A traditional Blackjack Strategy table
vs A compressed/mnemonic table

[17] A guide to existentialist cinema

[15] Alfred Jarry and Edsger W. Dijkstra

to Schaffer El Dedos.

It is a common opinion, among those who have traveled the proverbial path of excess, that the palace of Wisdom can only resemble either an absinthe-filled whorehouse or a physics lab.

Perhaps less obvious is the equivalence of the two options —at least when real professionals are involved— in defense of which I present the following parallel between Libertine glory Alfred Jarry and CS hero Edsger W. Dijkstra, on the topic of Certainty:

Jarry - Discussing principles of "Pataphysics"

http://faustroll.lineaments.net/ (free in french) or Amazon (english)

If you let a coin fall and it falls, the next time it is just by an infinite coincidence that it will fall again the same way; hundreds of other coins on other hands will follow this pattern in an infinitely unimaginable fashion.

Dijkstra - From "A position paper on Fairness"

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1013.PDF

[...] With a perfectly fair roulette it is possible that each time he turns the roulette and throws the ball, the ball will end up at zero. Unlikely, but perfectly possible. [...] The dissatisfied customer can still try to sue the roulette manufacturer, not because he has been cheated by the latter but only on account of the very high probability that he has done so. In a case like that, the conscientious judge can give the roulette manufacturer only a probabilistic fine; whether or not it should be paid can be settled by the roulette in question.

Fabio Arciniegas A., Taipei Taiwan September 2009

So you say you LOVE "Inglourious Basterds"

Fabio Arciniegas A., San Diego California August 2009

[13] Technology and Sentimentality

To my friend, Mr. X.

Luis Buñuel was fond of saying he preferred sad endings in his social movies rather than happy ones so as to not rob the audience the anger the film inspires and with it the impulse to change the world outside the cinema: If the pretty girl who sells roses on the screen doesn't become a princess, but instead lives forty years of unjust pain, maybe we'll get out of the theater more concerned about the woman selling roses at the entrance.

Buñuel —like Fassbinder and Herzog— understood that the process of documenting the world is hurt when tainted by sentimentality.

By sentimentality I do not mean either an excess or misplacement of emotion. Herzog is very emotional about jungle animals and Fassbinder makes love declarations to whores. In the words of the master: "Who can judge when emotion is too much? People vary not only in the power to feel and express feeling but also in their imagination."

Instead, the problem with sentimentality is action. Sentimentality is feeling that paralyzes action. It is self-serving and a brand of bullshit.

The mechanics of sentimentality

Sentimentality works by dulling legitimate urges and providing feel-good, simple, and ineffective solutions.

A friend of mine often mentions how he hates "Prince Caspian" because after killing thousands of foot soldiers, they finally get to the top bad guy who made all the trouble and in a teary moment they spare him. It is a good example. Barzun also mentions how on "A Sentimental Journey" William James has the woman shedding "tears for the plights of the poor heroine on the stage while her coachman is freezing outside the theater. "

Examples abound online too: Feel bad about the killings in Rwanda? become a fan of our facebook group!

There is in the last example a positive element of dissemination and some people do use those online groups as a first step towards action. But for the most part it is a placebo and a self-promoting platform.

Consuming placebos or taking action (or not consuming anything at all) is an affair between each man and his conscience. Instead I want to talk about the issue of producing this sentimental content, in particular doing so to sell social positions related to technology.

The technology brand

Technology sentimentality starts from the conclusion a priori that technology (especially online, sharing, free) is essentially good and desirable and should be pursued and encouraged by everyone. It presents a world full of "success stories in sharing" so people are encouraged to accept, even rejoice in the assumed fact that we live in a "society of perfect information and sharing your value away online is the way of the future."

By painting this picture, pundits seduce people into non-critical thinking and obscure the most important aspects of the discussion; Worse, they recruit people not just for their personal brand but for interests beyond their scope and control. Given that those interest can have serious negative consequences, the technology sentimentalist may be doing a great disservice to its herd. We'll come back to this point later on, let's review now a compounding aspect to the issue,

Accelerating sentimentality through technology

Technology can be not only the focus of sentimentalism, but its delivery mechanism. Chronic online sentimentality occurs when commentators pushed by the need of a theme and pressed by the tools of social networks take a "positive" idea, such as "technology is a progressive and democratic force," and become their pundits online, reporting in snippets every successful example of the cause. This has some distinguishing features:

1. Because the format of social networks is fast and short and the piece of information is competing with so many others, the message is tailored to elicit a quick emotional response, not an intellectual one. It is garbled with status symbols and disjoint examples are mixed to maximize impact. In short, it is manipulative.

2. If the underlying veracity of the theme is challenged, so is the legitimacy and existence of the pundit. Therefore, the pundit's goal is to proselytize a conclusion, not to analyze a problem. Information "useful" for the cause is pushed through and "problematic" information is hidden. This is not new to propagandists, of course, just emphasized, accelerated online.

3. Because the goal is to attract as many followers as possible and expand the profile, association with other groups is mandatory. Because association with other "positive causes" is so simple and quick, the pundit rapidly becomes a fan of many causes that sound good or popular but are unrelated and the space in which he can disagree becomes smaller as the mixed interests become larger.

4. Because the medium is made of snippets and the audience is so broad, the message must be simplified, shortened, sanitized. Inspiring and Infantile.

In short, technology pundits tend to deal in sentimentalized information. To make it worse, their medium of choice pushes them to further idealize and simplify their conclusions.

The consequence is a very effective indoctrination, a feeling of "inspiration" on the masses and with it, non-critical thinking and paralysis towards the serious underlying questions.

A particularly troublesome case

There is one particular case of technology sentimentality that encompasses everything said above and worries me especially. It is selling the idea to people in developing countries that giving intellectual products away online is "good," "invitable," and they must "catch up."

The argument goes something like this:

"The future is sharing (a priori conclusion). Those who do not share and adapt to new technologies will be left behind (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Here are examples of how a few in the first world monetize social networks, peer to peer content, and free technologies (extraneous, aspirational example), here are samples of mavericks, innovators, pirates (symbols of status, cool) in our own community who benefit from the publicity and collaboration of social networks (discourse changes from money to love as needed).

Here is a gadget you don't know about (exoticism and status) in which you too can create content for free (let the others hold the means of production, you just pay your fee and put on your work). The future is great (sentimental, unsubstantiated claim) and although is not a perfect world (fundamental issues glossed over) there is hope in these technologies and the path is to 'catch up' and join the first world in sharing our products online! (back to a priori conclusion, and an inspirational message resembling more religious ecstasy than intellectual conclusion)."

It is effective propaganda and the audience loves it. Whether it is a good idea or not remains a hidden question.

The mechanics of selling it can be extremely sentimental. Here's a sample from a conference from one of my best friends and 15 year counterpart on this discussion: Mr. Pablo Arrieta. I don't doubt my friend's good intentions, in fact I vouch for them. This makes it all more worrisome, because it shows the messenger is as susceptible to the kool-aid as the audience (the caption reads: "Someone had an idea. To prevent it from becoming stale he posted it to the web. The idea became a movement and then it changed the world. The man who had it had a beautiful life, and everyone that shared to make the idea grow loved him forever")

This position bothers me because of its sentimentality and because of its audience. It can mislead capable people down a difficult and conflicted path.

So what would I do differently? In the spirit of Buñuel I'd suggest to end with uncomfortable questions. Here are some I'd ask a Colombian audience thinking of giving away their stuff for free:

• What is the proportion of your goals? to be cool with the new gadget, to play around while you make your real life elsewhere, to get free stuff, to make money, to make a profit by distributing others work, to belong to a group, or to expose your work without further expectation? Your logical position towards sharing may change dramatically depending on this answer.
• Are you a fan of sharing because of altruism or because you don't know how to hack/break into the market? Honestly, if you could do the same and get paid for it would you still share for free?
• If your work is so-so maybe you know you wouldn't make any money off it anyway. Maybe you don't care about money. But if your work is really good and you'd rather be paid to do it, have you explored fully your options? wouldn't your interests be best served by questioning the assumptions (your current location, for example) and learning how to monetize your work instead of assuming the world is about sharing?
  
• The name pirate sounds cool. But if you were really a pirate, wouldn't your interest be best served by stealing all you can and giving nothing away? Wouldn't you tell others to give things away but don't do so yourself?
• If you're a pure artist, live for your art only and already have some means for subsistence, you may share without further expectation. For you, leaving the monetization issue in the air is not a problem. I've met only a few of such artists, they are indeed untouchable. Have you met many? Are you one?
• Suppose you care about exposure. Do you honestly think getting 4,000 hits on a blog does the same for you as selling 4,000 books?
• A running assumption is that new media is the queen of exposure. It is certainly quicker, but do you think you'd get more chances of publishing a book to a national audience if you (a) win a local literature award, (b) submit academic papers to US conferences or (c) get 4,000 hits on your blog?
• Suppose you are producing intellectual content other than art and you want to eventually make money. Do you think google and those other examples from the US give away their knowledge for free? do they sell a product on the web or their brand in the stock market?
• Is the google game a feasible one in a place like Colombia or are you playing a different one? what good is to play the goals of one game within the rules of another?
• Do you control the means of production or just your labor?
• Suppose you want to take this to the next level and care about a group, like a developing country. Can It afford to invest the labor of its brightest on the sentimental promise that one day it'll be as open, cool, and progressive as the US is suppossed to be?

Fabio Arciniegas, San Diego California July 2009

1. "On Bullshit" Harry G. Frankfurt
2. "The House of Intellect" Jacquez Barzun
3. "An unspeakable betrayal - Selected Writings of Luis Buñuel" Luis Buñuel
4. "Begin here: the forgotten conditions of teaching and learning" Jacquez Barzun