IVIV (13) scene one question

[rich]

Yes, Bigfoot's 'badness' slowly reveals itself, but much still remains
opaque. Not that I seek to defend Bigfoot, it's just he remains an
enigma. As does Doc, to an extent. and as does Mickey Wolfmann,
totally. And then there's the aptly named Coy, usw.
__________

one thing that really differentiates Doc from Zoyd is that Doc killed
somebody--Puck is murdered by Doc; at least w/ Adrian one could point
to self-defense but thinking legally here it does beg the question
about Doc's past--we're given the goofy, at times genial, laid back
hipster but there's the skip tracer past, the aforementioned run ins
w/ Puck and Adrian, etc.
I'm not sure there are answers to these questions.
In noir, you know the PI's are badasses, who've done some shitty
things but their behavior doesn't come across as jarring as it does
with Doc--guess we are programmed not to think of Pynchon's
protagonists this way--if not total good guys, at least folks you can
root for in some way--Slothrop, DL, Dixon, Lew, etc.

On 11/6/09, John Carvill <johncarvill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/11/6 David Morris
>> Both you and John have good points about Bigfoot.  Doc is generally a
>> live and let live kinda guy, even regarding Bigfoot.  And we can
>> accept this as OK for most of the book because we don't see Bigfoot
>> being really bad until the end.  But then, even after Doc has done so
>> much for him, Bigfoot sets up Doc to be busted or worse with that big
>> stash.  That's when we really see Bigfoot's evil nature.
>
> Yes, Bigfoot's 'badness' slowly reveals itself, but much still remains
> opaque. Not that I seek to defend Bigfoot, it's just he remains an
> enigma. As does Doc, to an extent. and as does Mickey Wolfmann,
> totally. And then there's the aptly named Coy, usw.
>
> If IV reminds us of VL, and Doc reminds us of Zoyd, then of course
> Bigfoot's relationship with Doc recalls Hector's with Zoyd. My
> impressions is that Zoyd's feelings towards Hector were less
> ambiguous, more straight-forwardly hostile. He hated Hector, in a
> general sense, as a representative of the Enemy, the Man, Them; but
> also in a more specific, he done me wrong kind of way. Despite all
> that, he had a grudging respect for Hector, even sympathy for him.
> Although Doc seems to have a history with Bigfoot which involves the
> Swede kicking Doc's door in, he also has a grudging respect for him,
> and likes to joke around with him, taking the piss out of Bigfoot's
> square sensibiities. But it seems a more ambiguous relationship than
> Zoyd & Hector, as if Doc is more inclined to think kindly of Bigfoot
> than Zoyd was of Hector. I don't really have textual examples, that's
> just my feeling. Bigfoot's setting Doc up (almost certainly at the
> end, and maybe all the way through) somehow, for me, doesn't quite
> puncture that sense of ambiguity.
>
> Balancing all this out on the other side is what we 'know' about Doc's
> past. Do we count what we seem to learn in the promo video as part of
> Doc's back story? To answer 'yes' to that question seems as
> problematic as answering 'no'. If we do include it, then we accept
> that Doc used to work with 'the cops', doing some quite dodgy work.
> Maybe Bigfoot was one of those cops?
>
> Always I have in mind the fact that Bigfoot is so obviously named,
> particularly when you combine that name with Wolfmann (Wolf Man), plus
> Lemuria, Mount Shasta, etc. All those names are connected in
> Californian folk mythology. What does it all mean? Does it all mean
> anything?
>
> That's the puzzle of this book. Normally, we might spend our time
> pondering what Pynchon's hidden 'meaning' might be. Here we're left
> wondering if there is any meaning at all, or is what this book seems
> to be on the surface all there really is? Not that that is by any
> means bad, I love the book.
>