IVing IV 'indict a bean burrito', p. 277

[alice wellintown]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:00 AM, alice wellintown wrote:
>
>> Who is driving the conversaton? If the objective is sex, it's all
>> foreplay and Penny takes the initiative here.
>
> The objective is information, sealed files that Doc gets a look at.
> Nothing sealed about what Penny gets, just an eye witness account.

Information. Yes. Cheap information.



>>
>> Larry is, after all, not
>> like them boyz up in the treehouse at the office so she can, once he
>> shows her his and she shows him hers, invite him to her place for the
>> basics: food and sex and weed and human comfort. What has Larry
>> learned about women? It's 1970, he's learned that its not 1950 and
>> that women are G-persons too. He stills steps on his dick when he
>> engages in conversations with females. He's a knight; he looks for
>> clues, but he doesn't listen. Penny, a career gal, is also shooting in
>> the dark here because she is not privy to the boyz privy conversations
>> so she doesn't know what "We've suspect, but can't prove ..." because
>> she not in the We. Of course, we could describe this situation as
>> "something shitty they won't do..." but it's actually something shitty
>> Penny will do and has done, to Larry. While it's clear that the John
>> Jacob Astors get away with murder while the forgers of mortgage
>> documents end up in the Tombs, this is not endemic to Nixon Reagan
>> Bush people but the American way.
>
> Of course it goes way back in history. But it is theoretically essential to
> the contract outlined in the constitution and the breaking of the contract
> declared in the Declaration of Independence that justice and government be
> accountable to the governed, and this story is set in the 70s , with the
> murders , abuses and secrets particular to that time.  The law is supposed
> to have a higher purpose than catching deranged sociopaths like Manson and
> using them to placate public outrage about  the massive criminality of the
> Vietnam War and the post New deal political takeover of corporations.
>  I find the relationship to be fundamentally symmetrical because Larry makes
> it so. Penny is the betrayer, but Doc let's it go and puts things on even
> ground. He is not fundamentally driven by revenge, or hurt feelings , or
> stupidity either. And contrary to your underlying contention, he is the one
> who initiated this meeting and how much control can this hiccuping, running
> to the bathroom  lawyer have?
>>
>> Life, as Bob Dylan sez, is a Jet
>> Plane, it moves too fast, love is so simple to quote a phrase. We've
>> known this all along. Larry's learning it these days.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is a very well reasoned argument and that Doc may be
>>> misreading
>>> the situation as I did. But is there also a sense, or at least a
>>> possibility
>>> that Doc is seeing the situation with excellent clarity on a karmic
>>> level.
>>> Maybe looking for truth/justice and liberation is a reenactment of
>>> Quixote's
>>> madness.  But is it that simple?
>>> The best Penny can do is be a successful agent of the Nixon Reagan vision
>>> of
>>> justice, that is, to treat the minor criminals as though they were the
>>>  major criminals and treat the major criminals as though they were gods
>>> to
>>> be appeased with human sacrifices.
>>> Doc is acting as the agent of something he only partly understands but he
>>> is
>>> calling it karma and he seems to be using that as an internal measure
>>> instead of money/success/status. He is in fact  another of Pynchon's
>>> karmic
>>> adjustors.
>>> Also, It is hard to see the bargains Doc makes as unequal. He may be
>>> steering this conversation as much as Penny is, away from true
>>> confessions
>>> and emotional blackmail toward things more enjoyable for both : the
>>> exchange
>>> of useful information and friendly, mutually desired sexual pleasure.
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:25 PM, alice wellintown wrote:
>>>
>>>> The conversation begins with two Junior G-Persons talking about what
>>>> one gets out of exploiting the other. The answer the text provides,
>>>> not only in this scene or for these two alone but for professionals
>>>> who step on one another to get a better footing on the late-capitalist
>>>> ladder is, meaningless perquisites and petty comforts, not to mention
>>>> the envy of those who are a few rungs below. Penny sez, "Maybe you
>>>> don't want to know." Tannan (not the great literary critic but the
>>>> great linguist who has written several books on discourse at the work
>>>> place and conversations between males and females) would argue that
>>>> Larry is not listening to what Penny is saying. She is saying, "Do you
>>>> want to know?"  But Larry doesn't listen. To make matters worse, he
>>>> does what males usually do in such conversations, he treats her
>>>> discourse like a problem or puzzle to be solved" "Let me guess ..."
>>>> and of course his conjecture and, to make matters worse, his solution,
>>>> is not communication or support. Larry steps on her lines. Realizing
>>>> that she is not in a conversation between to G-Persons, she lets him
>>>> cannonball into the empty pool. She gets what she wants by pretending
>>>> to engage in discourse. Larry thinks she needs protection; she's in a
>>>> bind. She is, after all, a woman. But she is clever. She knows what
>>>> she wants. She knows how to gets what she wants. Poor Larry. If he
>>>> would only listen he might understand women and how they use language,
>>>> but he 's a knight on a quest.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> alice writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can't be sure that Penny is in a
>>>>>> pinch. Larry is reading her
>>>>>> wrinkles and earings here but she doesn't say enough to
>>>>>> support the
>>>>>> claim that she is being squeezed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, you missed this, Alice...when he stated the truth is when
>>>>> she touched his hand. Tenderly......she was understood without
>>>>> words......
>>>>> what could lead to love, but won't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, since Larry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> doesn't let her
>>>>>> finish her statements, and because he assumes the, "I'll
>>>>>> protect you
>>>>>> position" here, I read it as Larry's misreading her yet
>>>>>> again. Larry
>>>>>> doesn't seem to understand that,  As modern Hamlet
>>>>>> sez, "Ambition, thy
>>>>>> name is woman."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p. 277 a classic PI novel scene wherein the PI and
>>>>>>> an insider dialogue it out over information. I say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> decently done
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as Doc tries to find out why the Feds were in Vegas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and, showing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> his cynical smartness, asks Penny what she is getting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> out of it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and already knows They have something on her, she
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wasn't wanting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something from them. So, her betrayal was not just
>>>>>>
>>>>>> malignancy but
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some kind of self-protection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p 277 Penny: a 'world of heartache' does seem to echo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'world of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pain' from Lebowski, yes? Or just a general way of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> expression?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>