IVIV (12): Mental Institutions and the noir genre

[rich]

Stanley Elkin would be pleased--his novel of the same name involves
adultery, drugs, smuggling and a very Pynchonian named anti-hero
called Bobbo Druff

rich

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> 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?
>
>