Response 1: Sept 1

Type your name in the Subject box, plus any subject heading you want for your response. Type or cut-and-paste your response in the box below that and hit the "Add a Comment" button. Note: you may need to scroll down to post your response if a lot of people have already responded.

comments:

Charlotte Harris --charris3, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:53:16 -0400 reply
Pattern Recognition By William Gibson

I found the very beginning part of Pattern Recognition by William Gibson very confusing. To me it seemed like they were stating some facts as to where they were and then they changed after a couple of chapters it started making more sense and flowed better for me. I enjoyed a particular phrase from the book and that is what I am going to base my response on.

The phrase is said several times by Cayce and it is “He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.” The first time its mentioned is on page 34 and its after she sees a display of the Michelin Man. She then tells us that she has a phobic or an allergic reaction to logos and trademarks. She then tells Voytek that she says it as a mantra and tells him the history of how the phrase came about of “A friend of her father’s, an airline pilot, had told her, in her teens, of a colleague of his who had impacted a fuck, on climbout from Sioux City. The windscreen shattered and the inside of the cockpit became a hurricane. The plane landed safely, and the pilot had survived, and returned to flying with shards of glass lodged permanently within his left eye.” (34) She repeats the phrase to herself on page 36 as to making herself feel better or reassuring herself that she really was going to be ok. Its a feeling to be able to tell yourself In someway that you are going to be ok and then later on reassure yourself on that. The reason why I think she uses that Mantra of the “He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.” Is that the story of the pilot went through a traumatic event and ended up being ok its Cayce way of saying that something else can survive something a lot worse then she would be ok with just having seen that display of the Michelin Man or any logo or trademark.

Later on page 98-99 when she goes back to Damien’s place and finds a Michelin Man on the doorknob she says “he took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.” And keeps telling her self to breathe.

I think that her phobia with logos and trademarks is slightly unusual but that its now down to just a few like the Michelin Man. The clothing trademarks I think she still doesn’t like so she doesn’t get them but she can handle seeing them on someone else with out flipping out, and needing to tell herself to breathe. It’s also a way to say that she is starting to be ok with certain trademarks and logos. The reason why she is probably having the hardest time with the Michelin Man is that she tells us on page 34 “the Michelin Man was the first trademark to which she exhibited a phobic reaction she had been six.” Normally the first trademark you realize you are either allergic to or have a phobia with is going to be the hardest one to get rid off.

Response: Pattern Recognition --kamos, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:36:00 -0400 reply
Due partially to the fact that I read few scientific/futuristic style novels and am not up to date on every fashion designer, artist, and advertiser there is, Pattern Recognition started out as a somewhat difficult read. The plot finally became interesting to me when Cayce went to Tokyo and began her mission to find the creator of the footage. The whole concept of “the footage” and the way it was transmitted and discovered was something that really sparked my interest. The entire book really depends on the use of the internet as well as associated words and phrases which I personally found myself overlooking because of their normalcy in my every day life. These thoughts caused me to look back on something I had remembered reading previously on page 4 in which Cayce says, “It [the internet forum]? is a way now, approximately, of being at home. The forum has become one of the most consistent places in her life, like a familiar café that exists somehow outside of geography and beyond time zones.” Ideas like that one which Gibson brings to the table are interesting because 20 years ago readers would have struggled to grasp the meaning.

Cayce also describes, (on page 4) using the forum as being “like sitting in a pitch-dark cellar conversing with people at a distance of about fifteen feet.” I feel that in a way, because Cayce is so phobic to all things trendy and recognizable, the internet and her connection to the footage is her way of being just as anonymous as the clothes she wears. Although she has online friends that she talks with regularly, they have know idea who she really is or what limitations she faces in her daily life. In fact, there is one point in the book where she wonders what her friend Parkaboy does when he’s not involved with things online. In contradiction to this anonymity, when Cayce meets Boone, he knows about her because he claims to have “Googled” her. With this new information, my attention was drawn to the fact that while the internet can make us a face in the crowd, or someone else entirely, it also totally exposes us at the same time. This concept is parallel somewhat to what is happening in Cayce’s life outside of the internet. While she’s used to being almost overlooked and very private, eventually her apartment as well as her psyche have been broken into by Dorotea and her goons. This, I feel, changes Cayce for the better because it causes her to face her fears on a more serious level, rather than trying to avoid them.

Overall, the way the internet is used, and the way Gibson automatically assumes that his readers will know exactly what he is talking about, are crucial in terms of what this novel says about how the world works today. I feel that it sheds light on just how reliant many people are on technology, and how that can be both a good and bad thing.

Pattern Recognition Response...Lauren Gilkeson --lgilkeso, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:17:02 -0400 reply
After the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 the world as we knew it changed. In the days following that fateful morning, millions of Americans, along with the rest of the world, tuned in to various news broadcasts awaiting new information. Among the most awaited news bits stood the random tapes that Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network released at first claiming no responsibility and then making threats that chilled all Americans to the bone. In a sense the American public in general became “footageheads” much like Cayce Pollard and her footagehead friends. Our reason for watching these tapes was to see what crazy lies these people would throw at us and, in my opinion, each one of us watched hoping that maybe, just maybe we would be able to pinpoint where exactly this intricate group of people could be located. Cayce’s friends on the internet yearn for the next clip from this timeless movie that has yet to be established in full length. Each time a new clip is released, the members of Fetish:Footage:Forum all watch with hopes that they will be the one to figure out the time period and what exactly the purpose of these clips is. Past, future, and present are all words that tell of a time. On page 59 of the text, time becomes something that everyone takes for granted. Although in everyday life the past is something that is seen as having had happened multiple years ago, it is now evident that the past is the time period when I wrote that last sentence or had that last thought or last blinked my eyes. The ideal of the future quickly becomes the present and the present really never exists. The future is something that we, as students, are told to set goals for and to live for. If that is the case then are we not living for the next second? Time is a tricky thing that is quite contradictory of itself. The paragraphs on page 59 that discuss time are worded perfectly. In a sense they are saying that the past in looking forward to us and that the future is looking back on us waiting for us to catch up. The paragraphs also say that as we live day after day we create a new past. The past tomorrow will be different from the way the past looks from today. The obsession of this book is wild. The entire story is based on the obsessions of Cayce Pollard. Cayce is obsessed with the footage, with clothes, and with avoiding the labels of these clothes. Cayce’s job, as I understand it, is to find unique things and sell them to companies which in turn make these unique findings “mainstream”. So in essence the very companies (labels) that cause Cayce to have panic attacks are the same companies that are her source of income. Cayce is obsessed with creating mainstream “coolness” but at the same time is obsessed with avoiding this “coolness” and being unique by not allowing any label to be seen on her clothing. I wonder if this obsession is actually an obsession that William Gibson has either consciously or subconsciously. Perhaps Gibson is obsessed with creating a mold for literature but with also refusing to conform his own literature to that mold. Another thing that Cayce Pollard is written to be obsessed with is the mirror-world. This mirror-world is actually the world as we see it only through someone else’s eyes. Maybe this obsession is also one that belongs to Gibson. Is it possible that Gibson is obsessed with making everyone in the world see the world through someone else’s eyes. Many of the things Gibson describes in this mirror-world are similar to the things that I suppose he would say everyone else denotes as the “real” world. Maybe this whole mirror-world is just about opening the eyes of his readers to the possibility that everyone views small things such as coffee and coffee pots and televisions and computers differently.

Response:Pattern Recognition --Kgifford, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:29:26 -0400 reply
I enjoyed reading Pattern Recognition even though it is not something I usually read. The story line pulled me in so easily that I did not want to put the book down to do the rest of my boring homework. There were only minor things that bothered me about the whole thing and one part that made me think.

When I first started reading William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition it was difficult. Gibson incorporated so many details into the first few chapters of the book that it took a lot of concentration to understand what he was trying to say. As I continued to read either the details were put into the plot in a more understandable amount or I just got comfortable with Gibson’s writing style. Whatever the solution was, it convinced me to continue reading when I normally would have put it down and started a new book.

There was one phrase that I did not like in the book. It was “mirror-world” on pages 2, 5 and many other pages. As I was reading that term caused me to stop in the middle of the sentence to figure out what it meant. After I finally understood the meaning I had to stop and visualize what it was that Gibson was talking about. Gibson placed the term so frequently within the story that I felt that it lost its effect, especially after I read about the mirror-world milk. I still have not figured out what that was supposed to imply. The “mirror-world” phrase was too distracting from the story line so I started ignoring it and lost nothing in the text with out it.

The story depended on technology to pull all the plot themes together. I am not an expert on technology but I could understand a majority of what was going on in the plot. Gibson managed to explain everything in a way I could understand easy. The only exception was the T-city code that was a map. This was introduced in chapter 18 through, her posting friend, Parkaboy’s email. I did not understand what was going on when I got to that part. Even after I reread it, I still could not comprehend that piece of information.

After Cayce walked by three men looking into the trunk of a car, she ended up in a conversation with one of them. Most people would have crossed the street here so they could walk by without getting themselves into trouble. She does the opposite and ends up making friends with Voytek, one of the three men, and using his connections to help find the creator of the video footage. I think this is a wonderful way to show that Americans are so worried about staying alive that they may end up missing out on a lot of thing that could help them deal with everyday lives.

Even with the minor peeves that I had with the content over all Pattern Recognition was a great story. I am glad that it was assigned for this class. I never would have read the book if I had not been introduced to it in class.

Pattern Recognition Response:Jessica Bradley --jbradley, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:00:27 -0400 reply
When I began to read Gibson's style of writing I did not like it because I could not understand the dialect and the words used. But as I continued to read further I found that I enjoyed his descriptive details about places and things, especially his development of Cayce's character and personality. There were several issues that caught my attention that I thought were kind of strange such as Cayce's phobia/allergy of logos and redundant phrases and expressions that she uses. The particular expression which interested me most which Cayce says often is "mirror-world." When Cayce uses these words I can not help but relate this book back to the first articles we read in class by DeLillo? and Zizek. I think the articles were a helpful introduction to understanding Cayce's character in Pattern Recognition. It made me think about the world outside of the "American fishbowl" and understand why Cayce uses these words often when she is traveling outside of the U.S. to locations such as London and Tokyo, Japan. She first mentions the words at the end of chapter 1. Cayce is in London and makes a statement that people drink and smoke without thinking twice about the health risks. In addition to drinking and smoking, heroin was also mentioned to be cheaper in London on behalf of the large amounts brought in by Afghanistan, another place in the world obviously aware of the drug. I think drinking, smoking and other drugs are cultural habits found throughout the world. The difference is that various studies have been done in certain cultures to prove that these habits can cause major health risks, thus some people are not aware of these health problems. The second time Cayce uses "mirror-world" was for athletic shoes in the beginning of chapter 2 and refered to them as "trainers" to other people. She uses this expression in other situations as the chapters go on comparing the American culture with other cultures around the world that have the same objects but are represented in a different form of value and context. For instance she uses "mirror-world", especially in chapter 4, to refer to change/money, fruit, mornings, milk, a cab that looks like a Jetta car, street furniture, lager cans, white coffee in England compared to Starbuck's condensed milk and at the end of chapter 5 a telephone. I think it is important to note that these selected examples from the text describe the "mirror-world," the life Americans live in each day. Cayce's obsession with logos, brand names and certain terms can definitely be distinguished from the other terms used for the same particular product(s) or item(s) used by other cultures. This is comparable to the articles by DeLillo? and Zizek because both authors perceive America as singling itself away from other cultures and countries. Cayce, along with both authors, recognize this "mirror-world" that seems to only be perceived by the American culture. I find it ironic that the majority of the world seems to always be watching and looking into the "American fishbowl."

Jenna Froess --blondie2825, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:08:17 -0400 reply
This book is starting to get a little more interesting now that we are finding out more about the footage, the watermarking, the whole scenario with Keiko and Taki, especially with the turn of events with Dorotea.

The one passage or idea from the book that really interests me, though, is the technology that is used with the footage and the watermarkings. It is actually a little confusing and I am not sure I quite grasp the whole concept yet of what they are actually referring to. However, I am understanding that these secret codes are encrypted in this footage on the web that everyone is interested in. I feel that Voytek might play a key role in this as the book goes on because of his knowledge of calculators and certain technologies. Another interesting thingis Cayce's reference to "T-Bone." She describes the pattern of numbers (the 135 fragments) as a "T-Bone", then she refers to Tokyo itself as a "T-Bone City", and to her ibook as "the T-Bone." I don't know if later in the book if this will become significant or not. I think that we might find a way to break the code once Sigil Technologies is introduced more into the story. I like all of the advanced technologies that are being introduced into the story although they can be hard to follow. Along with these numbers and the footage there is a reference about Sigil Technologies and all of the angles they might use to look at the numbers, and how the numbers may be a map to yet another technology of some kind, and even Voytek and his high tech calculators. I think it is ironic, though, that Cayce herself is so simple, especially with her fashion, yet her life and the work she is involved in are completely opposite. Also, her dad (Win) is starting to play a bigger and bigger part as the story unfolds. I feel that him being in New York and the book making a reference to that a couple times along with the fact that there is the possibility that Cacye’s mother (even though Cayce thinks she is crazy) may be onto something with the audio tape of her father. It’s possible her father may have known something about these markings since we really do not know much else about him or what he did. Although that might be going out on a limb, right now it is hard to tell which direction the book is going to take us in terms of her father. As far as if the code will br cracked and the footage being discovered I think it is Cayce will crack it. She pays too much attention to little details which is obvious throughout the entire book (i.e. fashion and logos, physical attributes such as Bigend and his stetson and much attention she pays to his teeth, and Stonestreet and his wild hair and how his clothes are always meant to look slept in, etc.) There are definitely some interesting turns coming up in this book with the footage and what is going to happen with Dorotea and if we will find out what really happend to Cayce's father.

Pattern Recognition response > Miranda Gydesen --freshndaktchn, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:11:44 -0400 reply
I found the book so far very difficult to read, but I am biased as I strongly dislike science fiction novels and anything dealing with computers. Also, Gibson uses short sentences such as “Pouring boiling water.” This makes the book choppy and hard to follow. I mean you obviously pick up on the idea that when he doesn’t use complete sentences it’s because the character is doing something, but it does get quite annoying. The paragraph that stuck out the most to me in the first section of reading was on page 57. The paragraph is Bigend explaining both the past and the future. He says, “Our version of the past will interest the future to about the extent we’re interested in whatever past the Victorians believed in.” This idea hit me as being very relevant if not entirely to the novel itself. In thinking about Cayce’s jacket and being a Japanese product, I began to think about WWII. We as students now view WWII as a war. We know Pearl Harbour was attacked and we know when it was attacked. We have heard stories about the battles and the death tolls and the machinery created. As well as the rise of women in the workplace etc. But, imagine how it must have been to be in the war. To be a wife at home with two children not knowing if your husband was coming home. Technology today has greatly increased our ability to keep in touch with soldiers across seas, but back in 1941, news must not have been as readily available. Men were MIA and some died and could not be identified. The past for us includes the fall of the twin towers in NYC, but how many people in the future, say fifty years form now, will understand the impact it had on us today, in OUR present. Our gas prices for example are rising, and to us, it’s almost devastating. However, if the prices never drop, then people in the future, even the near future will not understand the sort of anguish we get out of rising gas prices. On the same note, to the effect we understand events such as WWII, those in the future will understand it even less than we do. As time continues, and other events are piled onto the history books, the events WE view as history get moved so far back down the line, that the future’s history will not include them. If it does include them it will only be to a minor extent. On the flip side of this argument, as technology advances, the methods of recording and storing information also advances. So, where we may only have hand written documents to remember a historical period, those in the future will have e-mail, magazines, movies, CD’s, pictures, books etc. So they may not care about our present as much as we do, but I doubt it will be completely forgotten or looked over.

Casey Tominack, "Pattern Recognition" response --ctominac, Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:39:02 -0400 reply
As I was reading William Gibson’s novel, “Pattern Recognition,” it occurred to me that the “mirror world” has a much deeper meaning than just a reference to other places in the world. In Chapter 6, Bigend claims, “we have no idea, now, of who or what the inhabitants of our future might be. In that sense we have no future. Not in the sense that our grandparents had a future, or thought they did. Fully imagined cultural futures were the luxury of another day, one in which ‘now’ was of some greater duration…(57).” Bigend continues to say that things “change so abruptly, so violently” and, as a result of this “volatile” present that we are living in, our future is nonexistent (57). Bigend’s reference to change relates to the change in cultures, the things that have been left behind, the “jet lag.” In my opinion, this passage seemed to portray a fear about the contemporary society that we live in today. As we all know, Starbucks, Pilates, and Google are all over the world. In addition, internet chat rooms have become a virtual community of their own, with people from all over the world conversing with one another. With such familiar places, easily accessible world-wide chat rooms, and global marketing, is there really the possibility of a “cultural future?”

I have noticed that even though Cayce finds “huge, triple-pronged” appliances in London and cars that “are reversed, left to right, inside,” she is finding the same things that she would in America. This is evidence of a diminishing feeling that people once experienced quite often, cultural shock. In my opinion, several cultures have lost their distinction as a result of the franchise obsessive, global marketing world that we live in today.

In addition, Cayce’s involvement with a film footage on the internet also to the lack of cultural shock today. I have found that no matter what we are doing, whether it is reading a novel, watching a film, or engaging in a conversation, there is a search for meaning involved. Blu Ant is a company based on images, and as we know, images, or artwork, most likely conveys a meaning. The meaning may not always be clear (as we see in Cayce’s search for the footage). As a matter of fact, it can be very similar to the “mirror world.” For example, we can look into other cultures, try to understand them and relate to them, but we are not always going to reach or discover them completely.

With reference to the quote at the beginning, I think it is fair to say that 9/11 has caused a new cultural shock to take place in the 21st century. It was a cultural shock that we did not ask for, but instead, one that came as a complete surprise, leaving behind a country that would never again be the same. So what I am ultimately trying to get to is that a “cultural future” is not something that we can ever count on. With the invention of global marketing, the internet, and other such advances, we have to just live by the scenarios of the present. As we all know, pushing too hard on a mirror will shatter it. Pushing too hard into the “mirror world” will result in a further loss of borders and distinctions among cultures.

Craig Joseph- Pattern Recognition --cjoseph1, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:20:08 -0400 reply
Like most others, I have found that Pattern Recognition is getting better and easier to understand as the pages turn. The way Gibson uses the Internet and the "mirror-world" together to create Cayce's world of cyber-paranoia containing footage, watermarks, and message boards is fascinating.

One common theme through Pattern Recognition, as well as the many other post-modern novels, is the idea of the simulacra. Briefly, the simulacra could be explained as a simulation of the orignial entity. The simulacrum is a copy of the original that mirror's it so closely that the original entity no longer matters. The most conspicuous examples of this are found through the brand names Cayce so despises: Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. As she says while at Harvey Nichol's, "This stuff is simulacra of simulacra of simulacra" (17). She's afraid of blending into this mirror-world containing nothing but simulacra of what once was original fashion (i.e., she feels her black Buzz Rickson's is original, untainted by soulless corporate propogation of image). This is why she refers to Tommy Hilfiger as the "null point, the black hole" (18). It's pure simulacra; if you ever tarnish any article of Tommy clothing, it can be replaced at a whim just by going to a Tommy store and going to the rack with thousands of shirts just like the one you lost. Tommy is the prime example of the mass produced label-riden fashion that is an allergy to Cayce's psyche.

But if Cayce so loathes the corporate fashion world that she feels is devoid of soul, how can she justify working for Blue Ant; the largest athletic shoe manufacturer in the world? I understand that she is a cool-hunter, looking for new trends that will be tomorrows sliced bread, who goes around giving her approval or dispproval for the same logo's that she is said to have a phobia for.. But I feel like her phobia is analagous to a sore in your mouth. You know if you stop tonguing the sore that it will heal, but regardless you conciously keep playing with it, grimacing at the pain of every lick but unable to stop. While she abhors the corporate world, she still works for them, tonguing her wound and perpetuating her phobia. And resisting to this corporate consumed soulless world in which she lives just makes her "allergic reactions" that much stronger.

So now to the mirror-world; the simulacra of the real. Cayce sees the mirror world as a global marketplace devoid of borders. Her wanting to escape the mirror world is much like her wanting to escape labels on a larger scale. She sees labels as deindividualizing people, much like the corporate mirror-world deindividualizes and globalizes culture. And one Tommy Hilfiger ensemble at a time enables the mirror-world to homogenize culture; perhaps Cayce's greatest fear. So she cuts the labels off all her clothing, and wears her self-proclaimed soulfilled Buzz Rickson, all in an attempt to de-homogenize herself from the mirror world.. But now the real question: is she really accomplishing anything, or just desperately trying to individualize herself in a world of clones?

Breanne Alioto - Pattern Recognition --bre4nne, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:46:54 -0400 reply
"He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots." This quote is one Cayce refers to very often throughout the novel. The first time the reader is introduced to this line is after Cayce has seen an image of the Michelin man. This short passage brought the reader to know about Cayce's phobia with trademarks and labels. I found this passage to be particularly interesting because it almost seems ironic to me that Cayce would have this phobia. Cayce is a coolhunter, her job is to look around and find original things to be sold to the masses in hopes of starting a popular trend. However, Cayce is against labels.

I personally think its pretty cool of her not to buy into the masses. I like how she rips the labels off her shirt, shes making a very bold statement by doing so. I also realised that Cayce knows alot about labels and brands. She is constantly judging people by their attire and the brands that they wear. She is also very proud of her Ricksons jacket. She is not bothered by the label her jacket has because as she explains it, there is a story behind its creation. It wasn't created to be given to the masses, it is one of a kind. She speaks more about brands and labels as she is walking through the mall. Which she claims ot hate going to because she is constantly surrounded by trends and brands. She refers specifically to Tommy Hilfiger because of the way he "stole" his way into the business. I can kind of see where Cayce is coming from in this passage. Tommy Hilfiger has built this huge clothing business, and even a plain t-shirt has such a markup because of demand for the brand. It is almost rediculous how much you can find yourself paying for a shirt with a Tommy Hilfiger emblem on it.

I found it to be quite interesting also when Cayce went to see Dorotea and she pulls out a picture of the Michelin man. Cayce, who is already not found of Dorotea starts having a phobia attack. It almost seems as if Dorotea knew about the Michelin man, although how I could not explain. I am excited to read on and find what other labels and brands Cayce will freak out about and the interesting people she will meet as she travels from country to country.

I also wanted to add that at first I really was confused as to where Gibson was going with this story and how he was going to make it interesting enough to hold my attention. But now, I find myself not being able to put down the book. I love the way he gives you such vivid descriptions and describes the scenes in such a specific way. Reading this book has almost made me want to read other novels by Gibson.

Steve Sinning: Response 1 --ssinning, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:50:29 -0400 reply
So far in the first sixteen chapters of Pattern Recognition, I still find the information about the Rickson very interesting. I believe this part of the novel sets up the rest of Cayce’s personality and fears. “It is easily the most expensive garment Cayce owns, and would be virtually impossible to replace,” writes Gibson on page 11 of his novel. As the novel continues, the reader learns that Cayce seems to have a fear of brand names. Gibson goes into great detail about Cayce’s feelings on Tommy and the Michelin Man. At first when I read this, I wondered why she would care so much about a jacket if she wasn’t caught up in the latest fashion trends. It wasn’t until I finished that thought when I actually said out loud to myself the words “fashion trends.” As it was pointed out in class, Cayce has no problem with wearing a Fruit of the Loom under shirt. Her Rickson jacket is, as Gibson describes it, “one of a kind.” He even mentions that it would be near impossible to replace. If she was wearing an American Eagle shirt, she could easily go by the exact same one at any American Eagle store at virtually any mall. It seems to me that Cayce’s fear isn’t in the actual brand names of the products, but rather in the perception that society has on the various popular fads. For example, not many people have a Rickson, but many people have plain white undershirts. Undershirts however, aren’t considered to be a fashion trend. In class the other day people seemed to agree that Cayce has a problem with brand names, but I believe her problem is with the constant changing of fads. Cayce as is evident by the Rickson, wants to be unique and feels like she can’t truly be unique if the rest of society is wearing and doing the same things that she is.

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --jlyons5, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:04:07 -0400 reply
Before this class, I had no idea who William Gibson was or anything about Pattern Recognition. When I first started to read Gibson’s novel, I was very impatient with the whole context of what was going on, because I didn’t know what was happening. I didn’t know anything about Cayce Pollard or this Damian character. Gibson mentions their age and occupations if you Googled each of their names. Also I would like to know more about their relationship to one another besides that they were friends. Without these details I was left wondering what I was reading and in what direction will the next page take the story. As the book progressed, a plot started to be revealed. Learning more about Cayce and her passions about her love and obsession for clothes and fashion, for the F:F:F and being a footagehead made the reading more interesting. When Cayce was given the mission of trying to find the creator of the footages by Bigand, reading became a steady ease. For response about the content of Pattern Recognition, I really like the uniqueness of the main character Cayce. A lot is reveal about Cayce as the story progresses. The first unique quality of Cayce I would like to address is her name. She explains to Voytec Biroshak that her name Cayce “is pronounce ‘Casey,’ but spelled like the last name of a man her mother named her after. The man being Edgar Cayce, the Sleeping Prophet of Virginia Beach; and she was named this because her mother is a Virginia eccentric,” (31). Another unique quality of Cayce is she has this phobia for labels. With her occupation some labels are more prominent then others but the reaction she has to the label is even more unique because she always says aloud “he got hit in the face with a duck going two hundred and fifty knots”. Why she says it aloud, I don’t know, but she says the saying to relieve the anxiety the label and her allergic reaction causes her by reminding her that one can overcome anything, even the unluckiest of things. The last unique quality I would like to address is Cayce’s attention to detail. Cayce always knows what type/brand clothes everybody she encounters is wearing. She is very particular about her clothes and every item she owns doesn’t have an exterior label. In addition to Cayce’s attention to detail, she asserts James Bond like detail when she feels the Damian’s flat was being exposed by unexpected visitors. Cayce’s detail to locking up Damian’s flat included “taking a single strand of her hair and spit-pasting it across the gap between the door and the frame and also putting powder on the underside of the doorknob” (71). I really like how the content was modern and had many references to modern day technology. This is the first novel that I have read that has ever mentioned the internet, chat forums, and had consistently had character to communicate via email. I also really like how many of their characters went by their user names or screen names.

Christopher Glover: Pattern Recognition --cglover, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:30:58 -0400 reply
I have found Pattern Recognition to be an interesting read thus far, mainly due to William Gibson’s style of writing. The way in which he intricately describes events boosts the imagination into seeing exactly what he is describing. Also, his phrasing throughout the book and his use of repetition to draw your mind further into the theory he is portraying leads me to personally feel like an invisible bystander witnessing the events take place.

One such phrase is his reference to the “mirror-world.” Throughout the book, the reader consistently finds Cayce referring to common objects as mirror-world objects. The strange three-pronged electrical outlet, streetlights, and even ordinary kitchen utensils, all these things Cayce prefers to relate to as a strange mirror-world image of the things she knows from her familiar American world. One particular passage from the text referring to her view of London comes on pg. 105 in chapter 11. Cayce is speaking to Boone Chu and he calls her out on this “mirror-world” phrase she has chosen to use. She simply refers to it as “the difference.” She goes on to make the point that it is different because it was made in a different place. Borders exist in the world, and these borders curb consistency and encourage individuality among nations and countries. This is one reason she doesn’t trust Bigend, because he wants to see borders gone and everyone humming to the same tune, or maybe just his tune. She states to Boone Chu, “No borders, pretty soon there’s no mirror to be on the other side of.”

I personally think that when Cayce sees these mirror-world objects, she isn’t just looking at an ordinary mirror. With the way I perceive her personality throughout the story, this is almost like looking into a circus funhouse mirror. These are things she recognizes, but they seem much distorted through their history and cultural background. While this seems to disturb her a little, I think that she truly takes comfort in these distorted viewpoints because it is reassuring to her that there is some individuality in the world. Everyone does not always step to the same beat, although it usually seems like they do. I also think that this explains her quirk for de-labeling her clothes despite how trendy they may be. She craves individualism, and further more she is ghastly afraid of conformity and trendy fashions. To see these little differences and to know that they exist without the use of logos and labels is extremely comforting in a way to her. Her perception of this mirror-world directly relates to the story as a whole for it defines what she feels towards commercialism and conformity, and further more it heightens the level of her fear towards the marketing of these internet movies she has come to be a part of because she will lose that individual connection she has made to them. These are things she loves, yet the common world and their desire to all be on the “bandwagon” will take away her personal connection to them because she has such a distraught fear of trend-setting. She is lost in a world of pictures which portray everyone identically, when ironically all she wants is a mirror to look into in order to see something refreshing and different.

Sam Cole --scole, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:33:13 -0400 reply
"Some people ingest a single peanut and their head swells like a basketball. When it happens to Cayce its her psyche. Tommy Hilfiger does it every time". I can not stand the charter Cayce Pollard it bothers me to imagine that there are people out there that are so concerned with the way other people dress. Its not that shes materialistic, if she was just a materialistic snob it would not bother me so much , but the way she looks down on the way other people dress, like when she just meets the Italian barman her first impression is that he has "brutally cropped" hair and compares his glasses to emoticons. Cayce thinks by tearing the labels off her close shes seperateing herself from the rest of mankind. She remindes me of this era of hipster "intellectauls" who sit infront of starbucks and complain about the problems in the world, who snub anyone who does not hold there same point of view. It seem as well that she is to good for other people she doesn't like to be around them and she does'nt like to socialize with them. For instence when she takes the elevator she thinks it is "miraculous" that it arrives empty and she does not have to share it with anyone else or when she emerges to the street from the cafe with Voytek she becomes dizzy because of the crowd.

All in all I think Gibson has done a good job at making me dislike Cayce Pollard. My dislike in Cayce does not signify my dislike in the book, but on the contrary it is why I enjoy the book. Looking at the world through her eyes had given me a different perspective.

Jamie Green --jamieallison, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:25:09 -0400 reply
When I began to read, Pattern Recognition, I was somewhat baffled. I was so confused about the constant shuffling of text which was taking place. As I got further into the text, I began to get used to William Gibson’s style of writing. He writes very choppy sentences and fragments the story, which was difficult to grasp at first. Once I got used to his writing the story began to make a little more sense to me, but not that much. A recurring phrase throughout the story which keeps coming up is, “He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.” When I first read this I had to go back reread it because I thought I was reading it wrong. Then after hearing the story that a friend of Cayce’s father told her it made a little more sense. As I read on I thought about the quote more and more and it actually began to add up. She uses this phrase when she feels overwhelmed as a calming device. Not only is this a calming device to her but it seems as if any problem she is facing, she remembers it could always be worse, like having a duck come through the windshield of a plane while going two hundred and fifty knots. I believe this is the reason her father’s friend told her this story, so when she is feeling overwhelmed or one of her phobias begins to act up she can think of this story and her problem will seem much smaller. Because, at the end of the story even though the man has glass permanently lodged into his eye, he returned to work. His returning to work is a representation than any problem can be overcome. Another thing about Cayce which baffles me is if she has such a “trademark and logo phobia,” then why would she make her career in fashion, where she is always around logos and things which apparently she cannot handle. Even if she is really good at cool hunting, it does not make sense to me that she would make her job to do the one thing in life which has troubled her so deeply. If something irked me and made me feel as uncomfortable as logos and trademarks made her, I do not care what amount of money I was being paid, I would never make a career out of it. It almost seems as if Cayce is bringing this upon herself. I would think if something troubled someone and affected their everyday life they would try their hardest to steer clear of it. The book mentions that Cayce has had this phobia since she was a young girl, so it is obvious that the phobia did not just come from working around all of it. I would somewhat understand if she had this job first and the phobia came about form the job, but it did not so I really do not understand why she puts herself in the position she does.

Will Good --wgood, Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:55:57 -0400 reply
A big part of this story was Cacye's phobia of logos. This was an ironic plot because her profession was fashion marketing. I think Gibson was making a point about how ridiculous Americas obsession with brand logos can be. Here is a women that is on the one hand bothered by logos, but on the other hand she is so obsessed with them that is all she can see. She sees how powerful they can be. She might have a phobia about logos but she may subconsciously respect them. In modern day, people are labeled by the labels they were. One person may be considered better than another based on what they wear. One shirt in a store might be the same as the shirt in the other store but if it has a certain logo, it is considered better and more expensive. Baldwin makes cayce's phobia seem like a sickness and that can be related to the real world and people needing to be trendy. I think it reflects how trends and logos can negatively affect society.

Charlotte Harris --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:54:51 -0400 reply
Charlotte: Yes, the phrase/mantra is curious. It's repeated over and over. Why does the phrase help her? I suppose one thing about it is that it's idiosyncratic, totally personal to Cayce. Also, it's taken from a story of survival. I'm wondering about the confusion at the beginning: is this a failure of the novel or is it part of the intended effect?

Response: Pattern Recognition --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:59:32 -0400 reply
Katie: I agree that the plot kind of sneaks up on us. I'm curious though - is it really a futuristic novel? I mean, yes it deals with the internet, but that's not especially futuristic (I mean, I'm sending this right now over the internet!). But it does feel up to date and glosy, high tech. I guess I'm wondering is this is characteristic of the current state of things? This goes along with that sense of the footage being more like home for her - you're right, it's an odd reversal, making internet space familiar, "real" space alien, etc. I suppose the question is whether the increase and shift to internet communication, and similar forms of communication (e.g. cell phones) is bad or good, or whether it can even be assessed in that way. There is definitely a sense of a "code," a new cultural knowledge that we all share, more or less, of the internet.

Pattern Recognition Response...Lauren Gilkeson --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:02:57 -0400 reply
Lauren: Yes, good point putting the footage in dialog with our watching TV, CNN, getting news over the web, etc. Think of the bin Laden tapes, or tapes of hostages and beheadings; think of all the recent news footage we receive. One sense of the real world and of others in that world comes to us through video footage, much of it over the internet. That paragraph on the future is complex. We might ask whether there are other notions of the future still at work today - the novel periodically exhibits a nostalgia for the past, and that might be an alternative view of the future. Think of this question of the future in terms of marketing and coolhunting: the future is manufactured for us by marketing firms.

Response:Pattern Recognition --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:08:49 -0400 reply
Kristina: The mirror-world is a great thing to focus on. It seems to me that it suggests a world exactly the same as "ours" (i.e. America) but slightly different - the objects mirrored are changed in some way. I think you're right that we make sense of things like this as readers, even if we're not sure exactly what they are. Good point about her going up and talking to Voytek - is this unlikely? does it say something about her? She seems to connect it to her sense of coolhunting, so maybe already she's recognized some pattern that she's focused on.

Pattern Recognition Response:Jessica Bradley --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:20:38 -0400 reply
Jessica: I see what you mean about his style. There is a kind of information overload, a saturation of detail and names. You can get stuck on that or ignore it. As readers, we're challenged to know all that he includes as information, but it's possible to read on without knowing, simply absorbing. I like the comparison between Cayce's observations on the "mirror-world" and the notion of an American sphere in the earlier essays. The mirror world is in some ways a more complicated relation, as you see the outside of the sphere in the distortion in the mirror, i.e. the ways in which things are different and don't exactly reflect you/us. Gibson smartly focuses on these differences at the level of objects, but they suggests larger differences in the way we organize and project our world. Certainly a good topic for an essay!

Jenna Froess --sbaldwin, Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:27:30 -0400 reply
Jenna: Yes, the watermarking and steganography is a little hard to grasp. But it means there are codes embedded in the image that allow people to track where the images go - by tracking the codes over the internet. One theme here is hidden information, codes hidden within things we take as real and solid (such as images and pictures). Good point about the mapping of the image onto Tokyo and onto her IBook?. There's the suggestion that they are all the "same." Well, in what way? Certainly they are made the same through Gibson's language and imagery. The similarity is also, perhaps, in the notion of hidden codes and complex organization. The quest for her father and the hope to break the codes are the hope that there is something "behind" or beneath this organization, some secret to be found. When she does find the secret, the sister and so on, it seems both more and less than expected. I mean, for a start, the sisters are largely making the footage on impulse, so there's no secret or conspiracy... So the question might be how this serecy and then revelation of not much of a seceret refelcts the current cultural conditions.

Pattern Recognition response > Miranda Gydesen --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:28:06 -0400 reply
Miranda: Of course, the novel isn't really science fiction is it? I mean, it's set in the present and nothing is improbable or futuristic; the only unexplainable thing is Cayce's phobia. Certainly it deals with computers a lot - the question might be, then, how much our current existence comes to feel science fiction like... Good point about the sentence structure - why does he do it that way? In a sense, short choppy sentences are easier to read: they are quick and don't require the extended commitment of long paragraphs, etc. But they do imply a particular view of the world and of objects. It's almost like a cinematic view: reducing everything to discrete frames and actions. What does this leave out, i.e. what world view did extended discourse/paragraphs suggest? Now, the paragraph on the future you focus on relates to this as well: there's the suggestiion that the characters in the novel no longer have the same sense of the past and future as other generations had; and in a sense, the contemporary sense of the future is a lack of future, a lack of expectations or at least of concrete direction for the present -- and then the question would be how this notion of the future can be found in the writing style. The short choppy sentences force everything into an immediate present, with no reflection, no memory, just action in the present.

Casey Tominack, "Pattern Recognition" response --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:40:57 -0400 reply
Casey: The mirror world is a great topic. With reference to Bigend's comment, one notion is that we now have nothing but mirrors, reflections, with no sense of past or future. With this is the sense of homogenization you point to; so, a notion of how global culture projects a total sense of the world. A sense, perhaps, that we look at the world and only see ourselves back (ourselves as individuals but also as Americans). But then there's the question of differences too. Cayce notices differences in each setting - London, Tokyo, Russia - local and historical differences. So, we could think of a tension between different types of mirroring. I think you're right that the footage is then a question, a question of how it will mirror, how it will be recuperated into the mirroring process.

Craig Joseph- Pattern Recognition --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:47:00 -0400 reply
Craig: Yes, good point about the way the novel gradually unfolds its complexity. The way it all fits together, though not quite graspable is fascinating. The simulacra is a great topic. (Again, in The Matrix we see Neo reading a theoretical text on simulacra.) Now, there seems to be a continuum of objects here: simulacra and then authentic objects, like the Buzz Rickson's; of course, later she finds that's replaceable too, so there's the question of whether anything is not a simulacra. The cool hunter would seem to seek out objects / patterns before they become part of a chain of circulating copies (simulacra). But Cayce is faced with the question (as are we) of whether anything is left like that, or if everything is already within the chain / net. I think your last question addresses this - I think the novel's answer is ambiguous.

Breanne Alioto - Pattern Recognition --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:55:17 -0400 reply
Breanne: The duck mantra is interesting. It differs from advertising/marketing speak in being personal, unique, idiosyncratic. It also tells a story (of survival). But it affects the body in a similar way as the advertising - it reverses the effect, but is similar in this. I agree with you that Cayce is pretty cool; she's doing her own thing, however messed up and painful, to try and find a place within a commodity society. I do agree that the novel sneaks up on you - the narrative is not laid out from the first. His other novels are excellent, though really fall in the science fiction genre. Neuromancer is the one to try.

Steve Sinning: Response 1 --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:02:45 -0400 reply
Steve: Yes, you're right that you could read her attitudes towards the Ricksons jacket, it's description, and what happens to it, as a way into the argument of the novel as a whole. The description of it focuses on the care, the handmade or at least crafted quality, the detail that alludes to specific technologies and times; her attitude contrasts to the Tommy and other simulacra. So, I agree, the jacket is contrasted to historical change and fad, very different from the trademarks that affect her. Then, late in the novel, the Rickson is replaced too and she meditates on that - it's the question of whether everything turns into a trademark.

Jennings (Jay) Lyons --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:16:47 -0400 reply
Jay: Yes, I agree the the plot and details are revealed on the go, so we're dropped right in on the characters rather than told the whole thing up front. Is this appropriate to the world of information flows represented in the novel? It is true that we learn a tremendous amount about Cayce. I find her sympathetic if quirky. I mean, you can see how she reacts, even if we don't totally understand it. The information and detail about characters, Cayce in particular, seems to reflect a world of information and detail, an world of the internet.

Christopher Glover: Pattern Recognition --sbaldwin, Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:39:02 -0400 reply
Chris: Yes, I agree. It's vivid and very clear - he provides just the right details for us to visualize the scene. There's also a lot of action. Nice point about the mirror world: it is simply "the difference." So, difference between America and other countries, and so on, but difference in general, as such; so, in a globalizing and generalizing world, this is the difference. This means we have mirroring but with a difference, so there's the sense of perturbations or disturbances in the pattern, as the way new meanings are made, emerging into patterns.

Sam Cole --sbaldwin, Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:58:05 -0400 reply
Sam: Too short for a response! Remember, at least 500 words. OK. Fair enough not to be able to stand her, though it's worth noting that she focuses on style because of her job... But what I get is that you don't like her materialism. Where does she come off as too good for others? Certainly she's friendly, meets people, e.g. Voytek, but you're objecting to the fact that she notices people's styles? I guess I'm wanting you to elaborate your response more, since I don't totally understand it (I mean, if someone is dizzy from a crowd, how is that snobbery?).

Jamie Green --sbaldwin, Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:22:13 -0400 reply
Jamie: Yes, I agree the novel moves fast. What do you mean by constant shuffling, though? I'd be interested to hear an example. It seems that the story is fairly linear, but you may mean the pace in which it moves or the pace in which references are brought in? Choppy sentences and fragments: why does he write this way? I mean, what's the goal, what effect is he trying to achieve? (And, by contrast, what is the effect of long sentences and extended paragraphs/passages?) It is interesting to focus on the duck quote - notice how this is her way of dealing with sensory overload (with her allergy). Can you relate this to the sentence structure you mentioned? I wonder how that choppiness is like the overload that leads to her allergy? With the job and the phobia: of course, her job isn't directly exposing her to logos, but they are all around, so she does expose herself to what threatens her; she lives in a toxic environment. Of course we all do - from secondhand smoke to fast food to plastics. ),

Will Good --sbaldwin, Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:26:56 -0400 reply
Will: This is too short for a response! Remember, at least 500 words. There is an irony to Cayce's talents. Now, certainly logo-obsession is part of the point. But why make her the central character and fairly sympathetic? This suggests, at least, that the point is not simply that logos are bad... what point is Gibson making about logos? Certainly there is value associated with logos, but you need to develop your argument about what this replaces, i.e. what other values we might have for individuals and objects.

Cayce's Phobia --ryrivard, Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:01:10 -0400 reply
Cayce's logo-phobia may not be as strange as it seems. Cayce gets her first visceral reaction to the Michelin Man. Why the Michelin Man?

The Michelin Man is, if you look at him, a man made of tires. What is this man of tires selling? Tires to men. He is selling himself.

Metaphysically, it's a cannibalization.

Cayce, I’d suppose, picked up on this and took it several steps further: The Michelin Man isn’t even selling tires per se but a brand. Brands aren’t about selling simply apples, they’re about Tropicana Oranges: The actual object is no longer the significant object, the brand becomes more significant: Polo becomes more significant than the polo; McDonald?’s becomes more significant than the hamburger; Coke becomes more significant than soda; the LV logo more significant than the bag: It’s marketing as a new likeability; marketing as likeability, marketing as loss of authenticity or marketing as the new authenticity.

Girls who carry – or carried, maybe it was last season, fuck if I know, I just remember having to deal with a lot of conversations about handbags from girls, try and sit with a girl and she’s groping her handbag and talking it up and one girl I knew took a trip to New York, New York just to get the new one off Fifth Avenue, and another one spent all of journalism class on eBay dicking around biding on purses, etc., wtf. – anyway, Girls who carry Louis Vutton or Whatever handbags, and even those with the fakes, are subject to the pressures of logo that transcends likeability and even the false authenticity of marketing. Even the girls with the fake handbags – that paid about $15,000 less, as I understand it – who are buying into the brand, even when it’s faked.

When I played baseball, back in the day, something along these lines happened. I overheard the benched third-basemen’s mother talking – it was just when Nike hit and we all had those black mesh shorts and Nike soccer socks up to our ears, and Paco pants down to our waste when we weren’t wearing those Nike mesh shorts – and she had made & sewn a Nike logo into her son’s clothes because she didn’t want to spent and extra $whatever on “just some stupid” logo. I remember it because it was so depressing and vivid an example of poverty and the blindingly unnecessary inadequacy some people have to feel over the most arbitrary bullshit. And I felt bad, standing there, probably in Nike somethingoranother ™. Here, we have it again, what makes me sick, what makes Cayce sick.

These overt & dubious status symbols have little to do with comfort or quality and everything to do with conformity. Take the knock-off vendors in the streets of D.C., New York and L.A.; people are buying brands not because of the quality but brand. If the point isn’t clear, consider the girls with the knock-off purses, or the people with the knock-off Polo shirts, or the fake Rolexes – an argument can be made for the fine Italian tanners, or the stylings of Mr. Lauren, or the Swedes’ taste in timekeeping. But people are buying stuff that isn’t even “simulacra of simulacra of simulacra” but fake simulacra of simulacra of simulacra.