IVIV (12): Mental Institutions and the noir genre

[Robin Landseadel]

But he does tie the whole story together—he's "Lebowski's rug" for  
this novel. Whatever else the Wolfmann may or may not be he serves to  
link the subplots together.
On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:26 PM, David Morris wrote:

> In the context of the whole book, Mikey really does become only
> incidental to the storey:  Is he a "MacGuffin?"  He goes from being an
> evil-developer philandering environmental scourge to an abducted,
> saint-hearted do-gooder to a brain-washed new-moneyed evil-developer
> again.
> all without our ever meeting him.  And Shasta's character is almost
> equally not there.  So examining Doc's lack of concern for finding
> Mickey should come as no shock.  It was never a part of his mission.
> And Mickey was never a character we cared about much either.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Doc's discovery that a goon is wearing Mickey's Shasta-porn tie  
>> seems almost incidental to the Chryskylodon visit.  He could have  
>> run into the goon and tie elsewhere, with the identical emotional  
>> reaction.  It's an odd reaction.  He does glean from it that Mickey  
>> is probably on the premises (or has at least passed through), but  
>> it doesn't incite any need in Doc to search for him or even ask Coy  
>> whether he's seen him.  Instead, he focusses on the idea that  
>> Shasta couldn't have meant much to Mickey if he let her porn pic  
>> fall into someone else's hands.  He seems almost hurt for Shasta.   
>> Mickey's sending her to a specialist porn-tie painter to have her  
>> portrait done is a relative act of love.  Losing the tie, or,  
>> worse, giving it away, is an act of betrayal.  Would he be more  
>> likely to look for Mickey if he thought he genuinely loved Shasta?
>