First of all, you're asking terrific questions, Rich. Thank you for putting so much thought into your role as this month's moderator! (And no, I'm not just saying that because, well, you know. ;)

As to your question, I think it's apparent that we do, indeed, create the kind of cyclical, self-feeding dynamics that you've pointed to in the book. Certainly, we see it in politics, in the symbiotic relationship between elected officials and special interest groups. While this is an overstatement of the situation, it sometimes seems, much to our chagrin, like the two exist only for each other, leaving the voters responsible for putting their elected officials into office feeling left out of the loop, without a decisive voice in matters of public policy. Again, like I said, that's an exaggeration and a gross generalization; but I think it probably rings true for many of us, depending on our set of experiences and how personally involved we may or may not be in the political process.

That's only one example; I'll leave other examples to other people who want to comment.

But I will add that what strikes me as perhaps one of the most pertinent factors in this debate is not necessarily the existence of such self-feeding dynamics, but the perception of them -- the very real sense that they do exist, and that they are powerful beyond our ability to control. To my thinking, that is the more pervasive and, probably, more dangerous kind of self-feeding dynamic that threatens the vitality of our culture.

For instance, to carry my original example further, it seems obvious that the perception of not having a voice in political matters is what keeps voters from going to the polls, and what accounts for decreasing numbers of them to be actively involved in the political process (seemingly, at least) with each successive election year.

At the same time, though, you can look at it all as a double-edged sword: individuals may feel disenfranchised from the political system, while industry may experience great economic gains because of the favoritism they curry with elected officials. Yet, because it's individuals who comprise the workforce in industry, individuals will, surely, to some extent, benefit from industry's economic windfall, too. So it's not at all clear-cut. The system, such as it is, is complex, inherently unfair, and biased on behalf of those with the most strategic alliances. But, hey, it's an example of sorts, and I think that's what you were going for...

Did I address the question you asked, Rich? Or am I off in my own little world out here? Help! I'm adrift and about to drown in a sea of my own complete and utter bullshit!

jeff | July 23, 2002 5:40 PM

I second Jeff's statement that Rich is doing a great job of putting a lot of thought into being this month's moderator. He's doing a much better job at it than I did.

As for the Wedge, I'm still confused. If it represents the world of the proletariat, why did McNihil have to go to the Adder clome for whatever surgery was needed so he could enter the Wedge? And why would Harrisch not be able to see him once the adjustments were made? And what was with the Ghostbusters II-like gel that surrounded the End Zone Hotel? (Rich, help me out here. I get most of the technobabble since it's explained in the text. It's the connection between the science and the world it inhabits that I don't understand.)

As far as us (humans, 21st century, this dimension) ever falling victim to a scheme like this, my answer would have to be yes for a little bit but no in the end.

My example would have to be Enron. Before the accounting coverup was brought to light, lots of people bought into Enron as being this miraculous, money-making, giant corporation. In order to perpetuate the myth and keep the profits going for its investors, the company kept covering up their losses by employing their "creative" accounting practices. However, the whole thing collapsed in on itself as soon as the truth was uncovered.

This situation also reminds me of that really bad Keanu Reeves movie, Johnny Mnemonic. People were infected with a disease called the black shakes. A pharmaceutical company had the cure, but kept it hidden because short-term treatment was more profitable. That place also collapsed once the truth got out. Yes, I know this example comes from a crappy movie but it's the only other example I could think of.

So. Even if DZ had been successful in infecting the Wedge with its home-grown virus, someone would have eventually found a cure. TOAW may have worked initially, but there's no way DZ could have sustained it for any significant amount of time. McNihil's victory, I thought, was a minor one, unknown to anyone but himself, Harrisch, and November. The ending would have been much more explosive (and interesting) if it had signified the downfall of DZ.

mary | July 23, 2002 10:14 PM

Aha, clarifications as to the whys and wherefores rather than the 'whats,' eh, Mary? I'll try to take those up tomorrow. And 'connection' indeed. Jeez, the mouth on that woman. ;-)

(Oh, and I did some backreading on the Wedge. That whole 'proletariat' thing was some bleedover from a long-ago read of 1984 or some such thing. The Wedge seems to be a sort of "infra"-red-light district; a physical part of the US-West-Coast Gloss megacity that's so risky or dangerous or something [despite McNihil's relative walk in the park there] that people only visit by mechanical proxy in the prowlers, which have in turn developed their own Rice-vampire-esque subculture in the absence of actual humans. More damnably vague storytelling-around-the-issue.)

Johnny Mnemonic. Gawd, what a travesty of an effects movie, especially considering the promising nature of the Gibson short story that supposedly inspired it.

...And in any event, I'm with Mary on the question, if it wasn't obvious from my phrasing of it. People will let themselves be screwed only so far before they kick the bastards out. Happened in the USSR, happened at the Boston Tea Party, happened at the Bastille, happens to a greater or lesser extent every election season.

That's one of the big differences IMO between perception and reality of problems. Plenty of us perceive there's no hope, but those who don't give up wind up with greater influence (in the next election, say) due to the smaller pool of participants.

Or something like that. :-D

-Rich

Rich | July 23, 2002 11:12 PM

Oh, and Jeff, I issued you a bit of a friendly challenge in the comments two articles back, in case you didn't see it. :-D

-Rich

Rich | July 23, 2002 11:22 PM

I did read your follow-up to my "I hate this book!" comment last night, Rich, and I just left my follow-up to it on that page this morning. I also bloviated a bit (bloviate? me?) about Jeter's use of techno-talk -- which you, correctly, I think, describe above as "fairly opaque" -- in that post. ;)

jeff | July 24, 2002 10:04 AM

Now this explanation of the Wedge makes sense. I wish that the author had made it easier for the reader to pick up this tidbit of information from reading the book.

mary | July 24, 2002 9:11 PM

Here is a question, is there any surprise that the author would use this plot device? I think it makes for excellent social criticism...especially in light of some of the corporate shakedowns going on.

We do like to hope for teh best, that great success only comes from scrupulous behavior. But sometimes it does not. Not always, but sometimes. We benefit from a lot of crooked behavior in this world.

Do you think the author is trying to show th efolly of trying to escape that reality? Or do you think he is just asking us to "see it clearly?"

tripp | July 24, 2002 10:13 PM