IVIV, more lost innocence. Is IV a Paradise Lost? p.38

[kelber at mindspring.com]

Just finished watching a truly dreadful movie version of Farewell, My Lovely (1975) with Robert Mitchum as Marlowe.  The flick pointedly veered off the book's plot, to no apparent advantage [aside from some gratuitous nudie scenes].  Damned if they didn't add a  "kute kid" for "Marlowe" to twinkle at and bond with.  Short of having the protagonist hug a puppy or rescue a kitty, it's the cheapest trick in the book to make the protag instantly likable.

So what's Pynchon doing, having Doc twinkling at Amethyst?  I don't think it's for the schlocky endearment effect.  Could be he's specifically parodying the gratuitous cute crap in this very movie (doesn't he mention Mitchum's eyes in IV, or am I misremembering?).  But I still think it's a deliberate insertion of the Family Theme.  As I think "Alice" mentioned in a prior post, Charles Manson's family is in the book as much as Coy's.  They're the mirror images of each other:  druggie and his family make bad; druggie and his family make good.  So while the scenes with Coy's family come across as icky and sentimental taken by themselves, they're fleshed out into something like social commentary when Charlie's family is tossed into the mix.  Unless you're Reagan et al, family is a two-faced concept:  retreating into the loving shelter of the family vs. fighting to get away from the claustrophobic hell that family is.

Still, in TRP's past 4 books, family seems to tip more towards the positive.  Either way (positive or positive-negative), there's something pessimistic about the Family Theme.  It suggests that Pynchon (like Slothrop) has given up trying to make sense of IT or THEM.  When the world is this impossible to define (much less control or influence), when Doc can't even figure out who or what he's working for anymore, the Family is a crossroads worth dissolving into.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>Sent: Sep 7, 2009 10:37 PM
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: IVIV, more lost innocence. Is IV a Paradise Lost? p.38
>
>Tore Rye Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Hold it just a second! Doc works many different cases, and in some of
>> the cases I would certainly agree with Shasta that Doc in some sense
>> works for 'them' (the criminals); as when he returns mad Japonica to
>> her dad, for instance. Looking back on his career, Doc does indeed find
>> a "piss-poor record, not too different after all, he guessed, from the
>> interests Coy had been working for." But the case of Coy is different
>> than Doc's usual cases; it's a more personal case, and you can't just
>> lump it together with those other cases that have Doc questioning whom
>> he really works for.
>
>Agreed. As I noted, it's no longer a question of Who he is working
>for, bit What he is working for.
>If he is not working on spec or for commission or for tips, and of
>course he does solicit all of these for his work on the Coy & Hope
>case so his motives  are not as pure as he would like to believe or
>not remember, what is he working for?
>
>Remember, we are not reading a mystery novel. That Brown Review was
>nearly as wrong as Robin's reading. These kinds of readings as Grant,
>in his Introduction to the V. Companion (online) and McHale make
>clear, are stubborn misreadings. We are reading a Pynchon novel or
>Postmodernist American Romance that, in part, parodies the detective
>novel. The clues and the quests multiply as the grail fractures. Like
>Dorothy, Larry can never be sure if he is chasing clues or being
>chased. When is he just bait and not smart enough or sober enough to
>realize it? When is his involvement, despite his good or bad
>intentions, is hurting others or himself? Shasta saves Coy's life.
>That's how a postmodern novel plots. Those who try to do good often do
>harm. Those who try to do harm may save. A deal with the devil may be
>more Romantic than some moral high road.
>
>> The usual bad guys don't really benefit from Doc's interference here.
>> Those who really benefit are Coy, Hope and Amethyst. This may be construed
>> as a facile, sentimental and schmaltzy subplot, but still: Coy, Hope and
>> Amethyst are the ones who benefit in this particular instance.
>
>See above. And, Larry is working for Larry. That's who is is working
>for. What is he working for? Larry. Coy is Larry's Secret Sharer, his
>Double, his guilty Double at a distance doped into total slavery.
>Larry is working to set himself free. But there is no freedom in 20IV,
>even less than in 1984. This, because in this novel characters are
>slaves and want to be. They lock themselves up and get themselves
>locked up, sometimes with nothing but paranoia and a TV set. Zombies
>are not all that different from Thanatoids. And, S&M is still the
>force that binds. There are a few exceptions. Larry is not one of
>them. Sorry. That little girl Coy sees who pints in the window and
>says, look mom, books. That's a very important little scene.
>
>
>> I would still say that Doc is acting out of sentimental motives here, and
>> I think the tone in the scenes with innocent Amethyst underscores this.
>
>Babies and Dogs, hungry, listless, neglected, even healthy, happy ...
>sell anything on TV. Don't be fooled by the kid.
>
>>
>> If I were to point to a less noble motive, it would be that by saving Coy,
>> Doc also tries to save himself. It could be construed as his attempt at
>> distancing himself vicariously from those forces he otherwise has a hard
>> time distancing himself from: "You figure this is why I'm going crazy trying
>> to figure a way to help Coy cut loose of these people?" (314)
>
>We're getting warmer. ;--0 Not condescending ...just playing ....
>
>
>>
>> The important thing is that Doc is not really helping "these people" in this
>> case. He is helping Coy, probably out of some stew of motives, where I would
>> argue that kindness and concern for Amethyst are very important ingredients.
>> And the only 'selfish' motive I can possibly see in this is a desire to also
>> save himself, to amend that piss-poor record.
>
>It's too late for that. And besides, he's not that kind of character.
>You give him far tooo much credit. What is he so hung up with? Why
>this need to put a family back together? Is he some kind of Reagan? Or
>did he get those family values from the Tube?