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

[Mark Kohut]

We have explored the unreliable narrator quality of Doc in our read. I do not think you can just assert it now and want it to cover anything Doc says. Most of what he says is "reliable" as we read the text. 

The merging with an effaced narrator, from Benny in V. on, is what is done here. 

I disagree with much of your reading of Doc, as our dialogue shows. I disagree with much of what gets put down below. To me, he is not 'bitter' over Shasta, he is still a bit lovesick, he cared, wanted forever but it din't happen. Life and love in it often.

Others see him as bitter? 

Here's my latest puzzle regarding your viewpoint(s): Below you argue for such seamless irony, such a near-perfecdtion of saying one thing while creating a believable character saying another, yet, you have found this book a pretty total failure. 


--- On Thu, 12/3/09, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: IVing IV 'indict a bean burrito', p. 277
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 8:09 PM
> I'm not splitting
> hairs.   There is a deliberately constructed,
> self
> conscious distance between the implied author of the text
> (P) and the
> narrator; it is a distance that renders Larry's view
> unreliable and
> affords all manner of opportunities for P to employ irony
> and other
> ambiguities. I'm not pulling any rugs out here or wishing
> to revisit
> the "critic with the most ironic reading wins" discussion,
> but
> conflating the implied author or worse, the author, and
> the
> protagonist-narrator of a parodic and ironic postmodern
> text only
> muddies the waters.  Larry is not the implied author
> and he clearly
> does not embody or represent the implied author's norms.
> The statement
> about love that Larry makes, is foolish and naive. The
> implied author
> is niether of these. Larry is burnt out; he doesn't even
> know what
> went down and he can't remember half of what he does know.
> Besides,
> his bitterness over Shasta skews his view of love. And, he
> lacks the
> historical auhtority that the author keeps at a distance
> from him and
> shares with the reader. We know what Larry don't. That's a
> kind of
> irony. Also, we know that when Larry says something, the
> implied
> author often menas something else, often the opposite. More
> irony,
> more distance. That P can create that distance and irony
> with such
> seemless prose and dialogue is one of the reasons he is
> recognized as
> a great writer.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Alice sez:
> > I read the statement as
> > Larry telling us something about Larry and how he sees
> things.
> >
> > Virtually the same questions apply.
> >
> > --- On Thu, 12/3/09, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: IVing IV 'indict a bean burrito', p.
> 277
> >> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> >> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 6:25 PM
> >> I don't read the statement as P
> >> telling and not showing the reader,
> >> not that I have any problem with authors telling
> as opposed
> >> to showing
> >> or believe one method better or whatever, but I
> read the
> >> statement as
> >> Larry telling us something about Larry and how he
> sees
> >> things. We've
> >> come a long way since 1970, in terms of language
> and its
> >> use to
> >> dominate, but changing things like body language,
> because
> >> we're not as
> >> conscious of it as we are of verbal language and
> how our
> >> attitudes are
> >> affected by words, has not changed much. So males
> still
> >> dominate with
> >> looks and body movement, tone of voice, the number
> and kind
> >> of words
> >> (curse words are very powerful and males get to
> use them
> >> and females
> >> don't), the volume of conversations and the like.
> And males
> >> dominate
> >> in sexual foreplay and in all heterosexual
> >> activities.  Penny is
> >> trying; she's not gonna put on no Manson wig for
> Larry. But
> >> the risk,
> >> again, to the female in the patriarch is
> em[hasized again
> >> and again in
> >> this work. Penny's attraction to the vertical
> >> egalitarianism in
> >> Manson, could put her in a pink prison and could
> put a
> >> world of hurt
> >> on The NOW. She could lose her job for leaving
> that file on
> >> her desk.
> >> She could lose what little she has gained and we
> know she
> >> works hard
> >> for her money and is paid less than the boyz in
> the
> >> Treehouse. And,
> >> those boyz ain't living off a salary they earn
> alone, but
> >> off
> >> ..."overtime pay."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I don't buy that Doc is some kind of
> sensitive role
> >> model - he's at
> >> > the business end of plenty of unrequested
> fellatio but
> >> the hysterical
> >> > tone surrounding pussy eating in IV, and the
> fact he
> >> has to be
> >> > prompted to it (by Luz)... and his former
> subscription
> >> to Teen Nymphos
> >> > or whatever it was called... and the way so
> many women
> >> are
> >> > cartoonishly available to screw him...
> >> >
> >> > It all seems distinctly at odds with that
> peculiar
> >> early line -
> >> > "Anyone with any claim to hipness 'loved'
> everybody,
> >> not to mention
> >> > other useful applications, like hustling
> people into
> >> sex activities
> >> > they might not, given the choice, much care
> to engage
> >> in."
> >> >
> >> > Where does this notion disappear to after
> page 5?
> >> Never gets picked up again.
> >> >
> >> > Yet it's a rare example of tell-don't-show in
> P's
> >> work. It's an
> >> > argument regarding the sexual revolution that
> jars.
> >> >
> >> > There have been plenty of more
> straightforward
> >> arguments along these
> >> > lines - Linda Grant's terrific "Sexing the
> Millennium"
> >> reckons that
> >> > the sexual revolution was like most
> revolutions,
> >> finally reasserting a
> >> > new power structure just as limiting as the
> old:
> >> >
> >> > It "had turned out to be a history of radical
> ideas
> >> repackaged for the
> >> > mass market... If anyone had benefited, it
> was often
> >> asserted, it was
> >> > men. Where before there had existed a
> restraining
> >> morality that put
> >> > wives, mothers, virgins, and children
> off-limits, a
> >> double-standard
> >> > that could work in women's favour, now all
> women were
> >> fair game."
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM, alice
> wellintown
> >> > <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> The same gesture--looking at
> another---can
> >> indicate deference and
> >> >> submission. P certainly knew this long
> before
> >> feminists published
> >> >> studies on the gaze(s). That females look
> away or
> >> lower or avert their
> >> >> gaze when a male looks at them, as
> submissive
> >> animals do, is science.
> >> >> But, human context is complex. Moreover,
> if we add
> >> speaking and
> >> >> listening to the mix, to the context
> (where, when,
> >> the power
> >> >> relationships--education, employment,
> age, level
> >> of expertise) and to
> >> >> gazing,  we complicate things
> considerably.
> >> >>
> >> >> P is writing with these things, stage
> direction
> >> descriptions. Is it working?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Michael
> Bailey
> >> >> <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> oh Mark, perish forbid (as my
> grandmother used
> >> to say:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>  Might P be hinting that, like
> Frenesi,
> >> women (many women) in the new America of
> relationships that
> >> is beginning here, WANT submission?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'll buy that maybe he's hinting that
> men like
> >> Zoyd, whose best shot at
> >> >>> non-domineering relationships somehow
> misses
> >> the hoop
> >> >>> (maybe distracted by all those shoes
> squeaking
> >> on the floor)
> >> >>> and who see the person to whom they
> directed
> >> the not-Mesmeric-enough passes
> >> >>> apparently looking in other guys for
> that
> >> quality they deliberately excluded,
> >> >>> will occasionally wonder if that
> isn't the
> >> key...but they can't
> >> >>> bring themselves to regress that
> much...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> - "The doctor said give him jug band
> music; it
> >> seems to make him feel
> >> >>> just fine!"
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>