We have discussed in class multiple times that Pynchon enjoys making fun of our need to analyze and find meaning where none exists. I think one of the prime examples of this is in his naming of the characters.
The main character, Oedipa, is one such example. Obviously, the first thing we think of when we see this name is of the play by Sophocles, Oedipus Rex. Pynchon further alludes to this connection when Oedipa goes to see The Courier's Tragedy in chapter 4. Pynchon wants the reader to make this connection--he wants us to try to find meaning where there is none. Oedipa's story, her character, her thoughts have no connection to the Greek play and yet that is the first place our minds jump.
Furthering the name-play is Oedipa's therapist/doctor, Dr. Hilarious. We see that he is aptly named in the first chapter with his conversation with Oedipa. Not only does he wake her up in the middle of the night, he doesn't seem to even treat her like a doctor who believes in her condition saying when Oedipa mentions that she's having a hallucination, "Don't describe it . . . Well. Was there anything else you wanted to talk about" (8). It is as though Pynchon is making fun of this 'quack' doctor by giving him such a ridiculous name. And this of course encourages the reader to make a connection where there is none.
Other such names that Pynchon uses to make fun of the absurd nature to find meaning is found with the meeting of Mike Fallopian, Randolph Dribblette, and Stanley Koteks. All three of these character's names allude to something that has absolutely no relation with the plot or what is happening with the story--yet they encourage the reader to attempt to make connection. Mike Fallopian perhaps alluding to Oedipa being trapped into her gender role of suburban house wife. Randolph Dribblette referring to the dribbles of information he spills that connects Oedipa to a sort of paranoi. Stanley Koteks with a certain brand of feminine products not exactly known for their absorbent qualities.
The connections between these names mean nothing and Pynchon is teasing the reader--taunting them, asking them to try to connect the dots.
I found Pynchon’s use of names extremely interesting and had planned to write about the topic myself, however, since it has already been discussed I will instead only add to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Pynchon named his character’s with the intention of building parallels between the names and the actions of the characters ; Oedipa, of course goes on here quest just as Oedipus Rex does, and Dr. Hilarious seems just as crazy as his name would have one believe. I am sure that it is also true that Pynchon found enjoyment in knowing that students such as ourselves would be picking apart and over-analyzing the meaning of his choice in names when there most likely wasn’t much meaning at all.
Or perhaps maybe there was.
I have to wonder if Pynchon used the names of his characters to parallel the readers to Oedipa, because like her we find ourselves over-analyzing, over-thinking and searching for meaning and understanding where there most likely isn’t anything to understand. Oedipa is constantly searching for clues and connections and like her; readers (especially it seems English students) just can’t help but to constantly search for and make connections. Yes, clearly Pynchon want’s the reader to make connections, he wants us to search for hidden meanings, but in the end we come up with only an idea and not an absolute truth about what these names really mean just as Oedipa has only a theory and no real proof by the end of her quest.
So yes I would agree that Pynchon was indeed teasing his readers but perhaps he had reasons for wanting them to draw lines and make connections because by doing so we can’t really blame Oedipa for searching for meaning that may not be there when we ourselves can’t help but do the same thing.
I think both of you are on to something with the names. It's interesting that you both pick up on the possibility of Pynchon's critique of a desire to find clues and make connections. You might further extend this reading by thinking about whether or not the "connection" the text asks us to make centers on the realization that objective "reality" or "truth" doesn't exist.
ReplyDelete