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

[Mark Kohut]

I think it still matters very much in IV that the family is not Doc's. 

That the family is so obviously a 'once was lost and now is saved' one.

Manson's family is not even a family, except by self & society-labeling. It is not Manson's family in IV, it is the Manson 'cult', the murders, the impending trial of the individuals.

I do not see how it/they can be 'sentimental' and pessimistic at base. 





--- On Tue, 9/8/09, kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: kelber at mindspring.com <kelber at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: IVIV, more lost innocence. Is IV a Paradise Lost? p.38
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 12:01 AM
> 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?
> 
>