IVIV (13) scene one question

[Robin Landseadel]

On Nov 7, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Michael Bailey wrote:

> Robin Landseadel wrote:
>> John Bailey wrote:
>>
>>> Doc doesn't exactly have any sleepless, bedsheet-clutching nights
>>> after killing two people.

>> There's scenes of unbridled violence committed by "Them" in  
>> Pynchon's other
>> books but never before by one of the schlemiels—it's as though the  
>> author is
>> breaking the contract with his readers in this scene.

> Frank in AtD does much, much worse violence.

I don't see Frank as one of Pynchon's schlemiels—please refresh my  
memory as to his particular crimes.

> as to Gaia, the steady state sought by this entity takes in
> myriad fluctuations of its constituents, including all sorts
> of supercedings of individual life forms by fair means or foul...
> so I don't think she looks askance at killing per se.

I know what I'm saying can be easily confused—I'll cop to being  
oftimes incoherent. Yes,—Gaia would not look askance at killing, it's  
part of the cycles of nature.

> ...the old-time 'ligion Pynchon mentions in the Sloth essay
> is rigorous enough to oppose Doc's violence, though....
>
> Doc's violence at the crucial moment is similar to such moments
> in much of the detective fiction I've read, and movies like Johnny
> Mnemonic where I'm inclined to rejoice when he cuts the yakuza
> guy's  head off with his own detachable thumb monomolecular weapon...
> hoist on his own petard, hurrah!

Right, and I also feel that way. It's just that I'm noting how it  
manages to be disturbing insofar as Doc seems to be comparatively easy- 
going for so much of the story, so easy for me to identify with. When  
he finally erupts, it comes as a shock. Philip Marlowe is not so easy- 
going, Sam Spade is not easy-going—I expect brutality from Mike  
Hammer, but not Doc.

> Puck is up to his eyeballs in the junk traffic and a killer
> who'd do the deed on Doc in a heartbeat if he weren't so essentially
> heartless in the first place.

	"nature red in tooth and claw"

. . . and of course Puck was planning on offing Doc.

> I'm as pacifistic a person as any, and try to keep regular on my
> donations to forusa.org, and I've already mentioned my secret desire
> for Doc to become a  pacifist too and spend his days in a different
> manner, but within the context of the story I have no problem at all
> with his actions.

It's in a Noir where the rules are—"everything is corrupted, to a  
greater or lesser extant." The more you think of it, the more perfect  
the title "Inherent Vice" becomes for a Noir.

> It's like, I revere the people who sought CO status even in WWII,
> but when I read about the Battle of the Bulge, I'm glad the winners  
> won,
> and have indeed rejoiced at killing's details in those contexts.
> I accept uncomplainingly a certain amount of purgatory for those  
> feelings,
> but at this stage in my development I can't deny them convincingly,
> even to myself.

And Puck, elemental force that he be, still is is an imp, a nuisance,  
AND a natural force. Because us Hippies, Ex-Hippies, Pacifists and  
other generally thoughtful types like to think of "Nature Good/ 
Opposing Nature Bad" when confronted by a force of nature that is bad— 
at least as far as we're concerned—we're sorta shell-shocked. Puck's  
Nazi tattoos further identify him with "Them".

But I'm looking for symbolism here, attempting to find out why the  
scene still comes as a such shock to me.