IVIV (13) scene one question. AFTERWORD

[Mark Kohut]

There is only rereading---Nabokov.

Just after posting this long post I noticed this in the text, d'oh!: Doc "without bothering to clear the air from the spike" drove it into Puck's neck...

Hey, all I know about such stuff is what I see in the movies but wouldn't an airball very likely kill Puck, as some seemed to already know?????

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: IVIV (13) scene one question
> To: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>, "John Bailey" <sundayjb at gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 10:44 AM
> 
> 
> John Bailey writes:
> 
> > It is odd. We don't know that Puck is
> > dead, but a few pages later we
> > get "In theory he knew he'd just killed two
> people..."
> > 
> > Don't really know what to make of that.
> 
> I agree with Rich and others who think aspects of this
> whole encounter are very important for some of "Inherent
> Vice"'s deeper, let's call it "moral' meanings---with a
> title like IV, we can, ya think?
> 
> Yes, it is odd but I read it this way: Doc does not know
> whether Puck is dead. He did not think he was when he shot
> him up. He used Puck's own heroin--and just drew 'some of
> it' into the syringe, so there is no reason for Doc to think
> that it was an overdosing amount. 
> 
> His 'in theory' line comes after Adrian shouts about 'what
> he did to Puck'....Adrian, seeing bloodied Puck comatose,
> seems to think he is dead, at least. Maybe Adrian 'knows'
> this, but we don't know.
> 
> So, after hearing that and after shooting Adrian, Doc
> thinks that it is possible that he has killed two people,
> but he does not know for sure about either one, with the
> text indicating that about Adrian, "dead enough" after
> seeming to come back to life, so uncertainty still rules in
> the police or P.I. mind. "In theory, it is possible, etc.]
> 
> Peter Petto writes: 
> So there is some inherent vice in all of us, [and more] 
> 
> and I think that leads us back to some crucial words in the
> text about Doc's actions, which rich first alluded to: "then
> going down after him [Puck], giving in to a fury Doc
> understood would provide the balance he needed to coast
> through this, grabbing Puck's head
> and continuing to beat it almost silently against the
> marble doorsill till everything was too slippery with
> blood"...p.327
> 
> Let's parse a bit: "fury' would 'provide the balance" he
> needed????  Puck is a real bad guy, as Rich has noted,
> [he also noted Bigfoot's manipulative bad guyness which I
> cited without acknowledging him] but it takes so much anger
> for Doc to 'kill (or almost kill?) like this? So, is such
> 'fury' THE  example of Doc's inherent vice? Anyone's
> inherent vice in trying to escape from evil? IS evil like
> Puck's and Adrian's an inherent vice in IV that "needs" a
> furious reaction against?  Is this a meaning to the
> phrase 'provide the balance"? Doc's fury is needed to
> overthrow evil guys' inherent evil? 
> 
>  Could knocking Puck out have been enough to escape from,
> as often is enough in other noirs---yet, I think that other
> P.I.s often get too violent in escaping is another genre
> staple, anyone?, anyone? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Why the "in theory"? They may as well be dead so for
> all
> > intents and
> > purposes he is a killer, even if they turn out to be
> > alive?
> > 
> > Might fit with the description of Prussia not as
> being
> > dead, but "dead enough".
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Uh...if Doc was intending a lethal overdose after
> a
> > beating of felt fury, why did he "handcuff Puck in
> case he
> > came to" ?...p.327
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 11/6/09, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: IVIV (13) scene one question
> > >> To: "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> > >> Cc: "John Carvill" <johncarvill at gmail.com>,
> > pynchon-l at waste.org
> > >> Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 4:12 PM
> > >> I agree and its not like I don't
> > >> understand why--in a stricter sense,
> > >> Puck is knocked out and handcuffed when Doc
> gives
> > him an
> > >> apparent
> > >> OD--even if you're doing it to the most evil
> > person on
> > >> earth, it's
> > >> still technically murder
> > >>
> > >> I can't imagine another mainly sympathetic
> > Pynchon
> > >> character ever
> > >> doing something like this but as has been
> noted
> > Pynchon is
> > >> working in
> > >> another vein (insert pun here)
> > >>
> > >> Rich
> > >>
> > >> On 11/6/09, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > I'd not call Doc's killing of Puck
> murder. 
> > When
> > >> one is trying to
> > >> > escape from someone who's about to kill
> you
> > and from
> > >> the person who
> > >> > ordered your killing, just about
> anything is
> > fair.
> > >> >
> > >> >> 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.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
>