Monday, January 30, 2012

Old Age vs. Youth in White Noise


The first section of Don DeLillo’s White Noise repeatedly juxtaposes descriptions of youth and old age, associating youth with understanding of culture and old age with disorientation.   One direct comparison occurs in terms of posture.  Babette teaches a class on correct posture to “old folks” twice a week to help them “improve their posture” (DeLillo 27).  In contrast, Jack describes the positions of the students in the library as “various kinds of ungainly posture,” to the point that they are “fetal, splayed, knock-kneed, arched, square-knotted, sometimes almost upside-down” (DeLillo 41).  Jack says however, that in their ridiculous, sprawled posture, the students are speaking the “language of economic class…in one of its allowable outward forms” (DeLillo 41).  He is implying that the young students are in tune with the wordless language of their culture and express themselves through their posture.  In contrast, then, the older population – which strives for a rigid, upright posture – is implied to be out of tune with their culture and unable to adequately express themselves. Murray explains to Jack that this is because “people get brain fade” as they age and “[forget] how to listen and look as children” (DeLillo 67).  Indeed, as Jack gets progressively closer to old age, he realizes that “more and more [he] hears languages that [he] can not identify much less understand” (DeLillo 40), further proving that in the world of White Noise the youth understand cultural expression better than the adults. 
The feeling of cultural disorientation the elderly develop can be a both hindrance and an asset, however.  When the elderly Treadwell couple gets lost at the mall, for example, they don’t ask for help because “the vastness and strangeness of the place…made them feel helpless and adrift” (DeLillo 59).  In this instance their distance from contemporary culture was life threatening.  Yet, Jack notices that in their cultural confusion, “the elderly seem exempt from the fever of eating” that seems to grip the younger generation (DeLillo 14).  While the younger people are “obese” and sloppy – “baggy-pantsed, short-legged, [and] waddling” (DeLillo 14) – the elderly are “slim and healthy looking” with “the women carefully groomed” and “the men purposeful and well-dressed” (DeLillo 14).  Clearly, the aged population has distanced itself from the undesirable effects of the Blacksmith consumeristic culture – overeating and sloppiness – as well as from the more positive effects of being able to function and communicate in the world around them.  As the novel continues on into the Airborne Toxic Event, I am interested to see who will survive the disaster better: the culturally-aware youth, or the more culturally-immune elderly.  

Saturday, January 28, 2012

White Noise - Don DeLillo


While reading Don DeLillo’s White Noise the one facet of the narrative which struck me in particular was the role that Jack and Babette’s children play in their lives, especially Heinrich.  We have already discussed in class how Jack chose Heinrich’s name to emphasize the strong hegemonic masculinity of old Germany, and how this and other instances in the novel point to Jack’s masculine insecurity and his attempts to regain a dominant role through the creation of his professorial persona J.A.K. Gladney.  But the elements of Heinrich’s character that most interest me are his many opinionated yet philosophical lectures which he bestows upon his father.
Heinrich’s elaborate game of chess with an imprisoned murderer via the postal service might seem odd at first, but it proves a peculiar level of maturity for someone who has just entered adolescence.  When questioned regarding his chess partner’s murder(s), he answers calmly that he murdered “six people” (44).  He then goes on to philosophize on the psychology underlying his actions.  Heinrich asks, “How do you know whether something is really what you want to do or just some kind of nerve impulse in the brain?” (45).  He calls into question the entire history of human thought, going much deeper than his father will.
Perhaps the most stirring lecture that Heinrich gives to his father is when they are driving through the rain and he questions his father’s blind acceptance of the fact that it is raining.  He explains, “There’s no past, present or future outside our own mind” (23).  He continues, “What good is my truth?  My truth means nothing” (23).  Heinrich hypothesizes that the only “reality” which exists is that within our own minds, and that this “truth” cannot be trusted for it is of our own invention.  He challenges his father, “You see the sun moving across the sky.  But is it the sun moving across the sky or is the earth turning?” (24).  Jack dismisses Heinrich’s analogy.  Although Jack is fascinated by his son, he fails to take his musings seriously.  He feels an intense connection to his son, but he does not treat him as an equal.  Jack emotes, “I find I love him with animal desperation, a need to take him under my coat and crush him to my chest, keep him there, protect him” (25).  What he fails to realize is that Heinrich is the one protecting him.
The irony present within the relationship between Jack and Heinrich is that Heinrich is a much better lecturer than his father.  Jack’s ridiculous professorial style is displayed in his lecture battle with Murray.  Jack emphasizes the mediocrity of instruction himself when he exclaims, “It’s amazing how many people are teachers these days…There is a teacher for every person.  Everyone I know is either a teacher or a student.  What do you think it means?” (55).  I think it means that there is whole lot of “teaching” going on and not a whole lot of doing.  Heinrich is able to grasp this concept much better than his father, and this is why we receive such insecure and contradictory narration from Jack.
Heinrich warns his father, “Whatever relaxes you is dangerous.  If you don’t know that, I might as well be talking to the wall” (101).  He cannot fathom his father’s inability to comprehend that which he views as very basic.  Further irony is derived from the fact that Jack gives Heinrich his name in the hopes that he would become a strong and powerful man (much like Hitler), but Jack’s expertise of Hitler Studies (ridiculous in and of itself) is undermined by the fact that he does not even know German.  He christens his son in order to draw upon a strong and masculine Germanic history of which he cannot speak.  I believe that with this construction of their father/son relationship DeLillo is questioning both the ideals of masculinity and academia (which go hand-in-hand).  I look forward to where his narrative will take us, and how instruction and the role of children are valued.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Russian Nesting Doll

As we talked about in class, The Crying of Lot 49 is a novel that parallels Oedipa’s search for meaning within her life with the reader’s search for meaning within the novel itself. One important way in which Oedipa searches for meaning within her monotonous life is to relate it to aspects of the media. There are several notable occasions in which the plot progression is ingrained in some aspect of the media, and the actual plot progression can only be explained and understood through the lens of the media. The first example of this is during her tryst with Metzger. Not only is their entire love affair played out alongside one of Metzger’s movies, in which he is Baby Igor, but “The Paranoids” provide a soundtrack to their love-making that is so influential and involved that their twosome becomes a group affair. Oedipa’s feelings during her time with Metzger is explained as a, “sexual crescendo in progress” (42), and during the love making Oedipa is focused more on counting the number of guitars within the band than the person she is sleeping with, though ironically, moments earlier she was too drunk to even realize that she was having sex, “She awoke at last to find herself getting laid” (42).

In order for the reader to interpret this scene, the reader also has to interpret the Baby Igor film and “The Paranoids” music, which just contributes to the image of the slowly unraveling yarn ball that was mentioned in class. Though, in this situation and the other situations in which plot is set up alongside aspects of the media: The Courier’s Tragedy, and Mucho’s interview of Oedipa for his radio show immediately following her interactions with the crazed Dr. Hilarious; a mental image of a Russian Nesting Doll might just be more appropriate. Thinking about this novel as a small doll within a bigger doll within a bigger doll reflects the deconstructionist movement during which this postmodern novel was written. Something can only be explained in terms of something else, eventually resulting in the inability to explain anything at all.

Rachel Jordan

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Oedipa and attention (or inattention) to her name

When I first started reading "The Crying of Lot 49," the first thing I noticed as a theme or hint to subject matter within the novel was nothing other than Oedipa's name and the referential qualities it had to the Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex.

Oedipus, as one of the most iconic tragic heroes (and one of the first) to ever come across literature and storytelling within ancient worlds. Any reference to Oedipus and his story almost seemed like a cop-out, or an overstepped boundary in comparing a woman with such a non-subtle adaptation of the protagonist's name. After gaining a sense of Pynchon's dry-humored style and the ways in which he contorted modern literature into a game of symbols and expected outcomes, it became clear that Oedipa's name was purposefully gimmicky. 

I imagine Pynchon wanted invasive, over-analyzing readers like me to look at Oedipa and say, Oh she's a tragic hero. I bet she's going to kill her dad, or lose all her status, or gouge out her eyes. The obviousness of it, however, would have been too, well, obvious.

As the novel started out, I was beginning to gain the sense of Oedipa's paranoia as a mirrored construction of the reader's paranoia, as we're looking for meaning, hoping to grasp an important theme out of a mundane detail, or throwing ourselves in the wrong direction with no one else to stop us. The dramatic irony within her actions was one of few comparisons I saw to Oedipus the King. The audience's anticipation of Oedipa's doom, as well as our own doom, was an intended outcome to her name.

What does not match up is her denouement. There is no climax nor realization within the tragic hero in which she realizes every mistake she has made thus far, and then plummets into her doom. The nonresolute ending of "The Crying of Lot 49" is supposed to be unsatisfactory in contrast to Oedipus Rex. In Greek tragedy, that witness of everything tumbling down on the hero may not be pleasant for an audience, but at least the satisfaction of everything being ruined after all that anticipation would be fulfilled. Pynchon's rejection of that resolution pokes at the author further, just as he has the whole novel.

To end with the comparison between Oedipa's journeys and a "tunnel" of truth, the symbol is an embodiment of the reader and Oedipa as well. Where we stumble through the darkness with no hint of an outside world, nor no guarantee of an end, we carry on through the novel as a tunnel promises an end, conventionally, just as Oedipus Rex promises tragedy. What's unfortunate about a tunnel is that where our preconceived notions about tunnels (and comparatively, novels), yield an end to the darkness. Though, there is no real way knowing. The reality lies within the darkness, not the light at the end, which is unavailable to us.

Francisco Tirado

The Crying of Lot 49 Post


Megan Rippey

While reading Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, I considered many of the topics that we discussed in class.  One of the most striking narratives comes as Oedipa describes her tower of entrapment.  This tower serves as reason for the reader to believe that she is on a quest for meaning, just as we are on a (vain) quest for meaning within the text. While meaning may not necessarily be as easy to come by as one might like, there is certainly merit to many of the themes that are repeated throughout the work as a whole.  I was often struck by Oedipa’s paranoia, and the representation of activism in comparison to the middle-age housewife’s passivity.

While Oedipa displays symptoms of paranoia countless times, we only see a handful of examples of the occurrence of paranoia in others.  One important character who experiences paranoia is Dr. Hilarius.  Hilarius chooses to bare arms and actively hide in order to defend himself from the omnipresent “them”.  Oedipa, however; takes a passive approach to the fabrications which result from her paranoia.  She reasons with herself and often times discredits her intuition.  The distinction between the two characters’ paranoia directly correlates to Pynchon’s commentary on gender roles and the passive white, middle-class, heterosexual, woman.  I believe that through taking an active role in his paranoia, Hilarius has a more blatant, and therefore, more manageable identified state of paranoia within the confines of normative society.  Oedipa, who passively falls deeper into her general state of paranoia, is not as able to actively conform to society’s notions of paranoia, which only isolates her further. 

As we discussed the representations of race throughout the course of the novel, especially seen in Winthrop Tremaine’s dialogue, I began to think of the youth of America during the 1960s.  As I reread the passage, I think about Oedpia’s lack of reaction to Tremaine’s language.  With further consideration, I think that Pynchon effectively demonstrates youth in revolt (demonstrations, protests, etc.) and the passivity of the white, middle-class, middle-aged individuals.  While characters such as Oedipa may have strongly disagreed with the status quo, they made little attempt to do anything to change it.

The Housewife and Her Demons


Underneath the plot of Crying of Lot 49, consisting of Oedipa and her futile search for meaning in her life, lies a piece of social history.  Written in 1965, this story is a comment on the standard of living for two radically different sides of the social spectrum: the stereotypical suburban housewife, and the far-out, wide-thinking crowd whose minds were, shall we say, “enhanced” at the time.  Although the story follows Oedipa on what ends up being a fruitless search, her desire to break away from her routine life is achieved.  She meets many forward-thinking people, which in comparison to her static mindset being a suburban housewife, are revolutionary in their views and interpretations of their tripped-out world.
Both sides of the feminist spectrum are also examined in this novel; again, the suburban, white, middle class housewife at the far left, and the radical, bra-burning, action-taking feminist on the far right.  We don’t ever see this active a feminist character in this story, but amongst the culture in which the story was written, it is implied through the language that Oedipa is not one of these radical women.  In fact, she seems as if she wants to be more aggressive in taking a stand for herself and for others’ rights, but is too meek and sheltered to actually take action, which is poked at by satire in the story.  For example, when she talks to Winner, the man who mass produces swastika armbands for teenagers, he drops the “n-bomb” several times, and Oedipa isn’t even sure if she should have wanted to call him a name or hit him with something, she just walks away, becoming her same passive self that she started out as wanting to escape from.  This story is essentially, among other things, a satire of the feminist movement that was happening in the 1960’s, and as we discussed in class, it is unclear whether or not Thomas Pynchon is actually a feminist or not.  He simply states that Oedipa is not one of those women to break the mold of housewife suburbia.

Pick Some Words. Them, We Can Talk About

            Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 emphasizes the importance of words throughout its pages, however never is its message more spelled out than on page 124. In discussing “the historical Wharfinger,” Bortz and his grad students point out that Wharfinger, Shakespeare, Marx, and Jesus are all “‘dead [so] What’s left?’” to which Oedipa answers “‘Words.’”
            This struck me for the reason that I am a writer and I can only hope that one day I leave behind a legacy of words, but also because truly, no matter the person, Bortz is right. The last trace left of a person is often the words on their tombstone, or else the words of their will or obituary. To contrast those physical markers left to keep record of someone, the essence of a person can only be memorialized through spoken word, through the stories told and memories shared by those who knew the deceased. Those words, varied from telling to telling and person to person, become a part of a person’s legacy just as much if not more than anything they ever said in life.
            Fallopian’s line on page 138, “‘Has it ever occurred to you, Oedipa, that somebody’s putting you on?’” addresses the risk of giving words such power to shape the perceptions of a person or a situation. Words can be deceiving, and can be altered. The advice which Oedipa is given, to “‘write down what [she] can’t deny…but then write down what [she’s] only speculated, assumed [to] see what [she’s] got’” (138) suggests that it is possible to sort out which words are original and which are altered.
Sometimes the altered words hold more resonance than the originals. Looking at a pop culture example, the phrase “I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto” was never actually said in The Wizard of Oz. The actual phrase is “Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more.” In this case not much is lost in adopting the altered phrase, but in the case of the Tristero line in The Courier’s Tragedy, the altered couplet completely alters Oedipa’s understanding of the play.

The Failed Escape of the Suburban Housewife


At the beginning of the novel, we are presented with a stereotypical image of the average housewife through Oedipa’s mundane routine : “One summer afternoon Mrs Oedipa Mass came home from a Tupperware party[...]” (1) It is within this opening line that Pynchon first displays this satirical relationship with his protagonist. This long and not particularly gripping, opening passage with its lack of punctuation could certainly signify the mundane, tedious and continuous routine of the suburban housewife, a stereotype that Oedipa seems to live up to.

This outdated image of the suburban housewife is continued by the comparison Oedipa makes between her own life and her relationship with Pierce and the image of Rapuznel: “[...]In the central painting of a triptych, titled “Bordando el Manto Treestre,” were a number of frail girls with heart-shaped faces, huge eyes, spun-gold hair, prisoners in the top room of a circular tower[...]seeking hopelessly to fill the void[...]Oedipa had stood in front of the painting and cried” (11) It can be argued that it is as if society has left Oedipa living a life she is not content with, living the lifestyle of a woman that does not fit her desires. Oedpia has has two options: To leave this ivory tower that a manmade society has created for her and to explore her identity or to continue living the facade that does not fulfil her. Of course Oedpia does not fit into the lifestyles she encounters whilst slumming it in San Francisco.

This longing for independence and escape from her day to day routine is contradicted by Pynchon for the very fact that her life is somewhat controlled by the importance of men in her life and is always seeking approval from a man, not to forget that Oedipa has not reached any personal resolution or clarity by the end of the novel. 

 At first, Pynchon’s handling of Oedipa annoyed me greatly, the satire appeared to be somewhat antagonistic, but it is with further depth and understanding that we have established collectively that Pynchon is presenting satirically, every essence of what a woman should not be through Oedipa’s character.  

A Quest for Meaning? No, just a WASTE of time


As discussed in class, readers encounter many difficulties while reading and interpreting the novel. As Oedipa quests to discover the secret to the WASTE system, readers attempt to decipher the clues in the text. When we are introduced to the Peter Pinguid Society, the already muddled details enter into an even more confusing spiral.
Pynchon loves to give superfluous details to events that seem extremely irrelevant to the story. The first battle between America and Russia that “the ripples from those two splashes spread, and grew, and today engulf us all,” appears to be an event that may influence the rest of the narrative. Indirectly, it may, but I am more annoyed by it’s long explanation. However, I do appreciate the parallel between the reader trying to understand the significance of this event and Oedipa trying to understand the events and clues that appear throughout the story.
I also appreciate that Pynchon is probably just poking fun at English majors who will sit around for years analyzing his work. The uncertain ending frustrates me, an English major, to no end because it has no resolution. For over 150 pages, I attempt to catch and compile clues that will maybe, possibly lead me to the answer of this giant riddle, and all I am left with is an auction of a stamp collection. Like Inverarity sends Oedipa all over to follow so-called clues, Pynchon sends his reader along to experience similar frustrations.
If I could create my own parallel, I would associate the WASTE system with the waste of my time in trying to solve an unsolvable riddle. I feel for Oedipa because my quest for understanding was just as difficult, uncertain, and frustrating as hers. I had to fight to comprehend long and occasionally improperly punctuated sentences just to understand the plot. Meanwhile, Oedipa took long, erratic trips to follow clues that may have been a game to her ex-lover, anyway. Upon finishing the novel, I can just picture Pynchon sitting back, twiddling his thumbs, and laughing at everyone trying to make meaning out of his novel.

The Crying of Lot 49 (Thomas Pynchon)

When I first began reading this novel, I struggled to form a basic structure of the story and find meaning in the information provided to the reader.  Meanwhile, the main character Oedipa shares a similar struggle that seems fueled by her paranoia.  As human beings we strive to find purpose in our lives, something the reader witnesses Oedipa trying to find throughout the strange series of events in the story.  However, Pynchon seems to paint the story in a way that can be interpreted as everything is coincidence or part of a larger conspiracy. It's as if Pynchon knows the reader cannot help but try and make meaning out of the confusion of the story and wants to make that near impossible.

Likewise, Oedipa is unable to form a connection or basic truth to the series of events unfolding around her; feeding her paranoia and frustration.  From the beginning of the story, it is evident that Oedipa analyzes things frequently, from her distrust of the pills Dr. Hilarius prescribes her to her attempt at recalling anything unusual about her last interactions with Pierce.  Her overanalysis of situations then turns into a more paranoid feeling when she is with Metzger, "Either he made up the whole things, Oedipa thought suddenly, or he bribed the engineer over at the local station to run this, it's all part of a plot, an elaborate, seduction, plot. O Metzger," (Pynchon 20). She clearly distrusts those around her and is very self-centered in her approach to the events of her life. However, Pynchon shows Oedipa is not the only character who struggles with paranoia. Metzger comments, "I live inside my looks and I'm never sure. The possibility haunts me," (Pynchon 18). While his paranoia is not near the level of Oedipa, the reader does see characters such as Miles and his band ironically called The Paranoids, Mike Fallopian who is part of a right-wing, anti-government organization, Manny Di Presso who becomes paranoid when he realizes "the kids" have overheard him, and Dr. Halarius who loses it completely and starts shooting at people he believes are after him; all of whom struggle with their own analysis of life events that leads to a connection of paranoia.  These multiple instances of paranoia further leads the reader to a state of confusion because if everyone is paranoid it leads one to wonder if maybe everyone is on to something...

Through Pynchon's use of paranoia in a variety of characters and situations, he almost mocks how people search to find meaning in things he seems to suggest hold no purpose or truth to be found. This belief is best summed up in Randolph Driblette's comment, "You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth. Wharfinger supplied words and a yarn. I gave them life. That's it," (Pynchon 63). In other words, Pynchon has made it near impossible for the reader to make meaning without giving into Oedipa's paranoia and belief in a larger conspiracy, forcing them to instead chalk it up to coincidence.

Pynchon's Satire: Crying of Lot 49

Throughout the novel The Crying of Lot 49 the author makes subtle and then outright statements as to the idiotic tendency for readers to try and find meaning out of everything they read. The first time I saw this I was a bit taken aback because I hadn't really seen it before and saw it as a moment of weak writing by Pynchon: the metafiction. After having finished the book though, and talking about it in class, it is easy to see how he incorporated this writing technique into the novel and the main character Oedipa. While the reader is aware of the fiction that takes place within the story, Oedipa is also aware of the "fiction" that surrounds her in her life due to the delusions and paranoia. I think this is a brilliant move by Pynchon, as he is constantly relating Oedipa to the reader, knowing that the reader will be trying to make meaning out of something that he states has no meaning. As the reader goes through the book, Pynchon makes references to the idiocy of trying to make meaning out of everything that one perceives, and yet the reader continues to try and make sense out of this fantasy world that has no apparent meaning. Oedipa is aware of the fact that not everything she perceives is reality, yet still allows herself to find meaning in things that she knows could just be a figment of her imagination. I find it very humorous that Pynchon knew the reader well enough to be able to have this continuous laugh throughout the book as the reader tries to find meaning.

One point that was brought up in class today that I think also relates to how Pynchon is "playing with the reader" is how Oedipa's journey throughout the novel revolves around a mystery that has no significance to it at all. She found the first clue on a bathroom stall... and the rest of the clues seem so far-fetched that only someone making meaning out of nothing (Oedipa) could piece them together. 

My initial thought when reading this book was that I wouldn't understand most of what was going on and that Pynchon was using this novel as a means to make fun of people who didn't understand his higher thinking. After class discussions and more reading, I now see he makes fun of everyone who tries to find meaning from the fragments of life that we all perceive in our own way. Pynchon's truth is a lack of truth but does that mean he doesn't believe that anything as any real meaning?... Food for thought

Pynchon's Collision with Meaning

Near the middle of The Crying of Lot 49, after watching the performance of The Courier’s Tragedy, our heroine(?) Oedipa encounters the director of the play, Randolph Driblette, who tells her: “I’m the projector at the planetarium, all the closed little universe visible in the circle of that stage is coming out of my mouth, eyes, sometimes other orifices also” (62). This is the same kind of playful act Pynchon performs when he projects us, the readers, into the closed system of the world he has created. In this world he, like Pierce Inverarity to Oedipa, has agency to pull and tug readers in whatever direction he so chooses. Pynchon seems to use this ability, this freedom, with absolute glee. With this kind of overlordship of the narrative, he discards normal elements like continuity, coherency, and resolution and replaces them with pastiche, allusion to real and fictional cultural phenomena, and a general playfulness and close alliance to humor. All of this in an effort to reach a state of “pulsing stelliferous Meaning” (64). That kind of phrasing, taken along with the overall cartoony feeling of the narrative (Oedipa’s sexcapade with Metzger, Dr. Hilarius going insane, the poor imitation of The Beatles with The Paranoids), makes me think that what Pynchon is really trying to do with Lot 49 is collide himself, through his characters, with this strange entity called Meaning and attempt to prove to himself and to the reader that it doesn’t really exist. Like the other master narratives presented in the book, Meaning is just another construction waiting to be deconstructed by a Pynchon who is perceptive and contrarian to ways of creating meaning.

Lot 49 presents master narratives such as religion, science, gender, and history as avenues through which meaning can be created. People can move toward this end point of meaning by subscribing to the “truths” these narratives teach. This is where entropy fits into the book. Entropy states that energy of an isolated system (like this very book) tends to move in a particular direction, eventually culminating in a “heat death” in which the universe will cease being able to sustain life or movement. In Lot 49 entropy metaphorically takes the form of Oedipa as she moves through the narrative in search of a supposed end point, the discovery of meaning. Tristero takes the place of a combination of all master narratives: “as if the more [Oedipa] collected the more would come to her, until everything she saw, smelled, dreamed, remembered, would somehow come to be woven into The Tristero” (64). Tristero becomes the end point of Oedipa’s narrative arc and it becomes her sole motivation. Here Pynchon pulls his trick—in becoming invested in Oedipa’s quest for meaning, we too start to believe that Tristero (and, thus, master narratives in general) has some deep secret to tell us, that it weaves some path the end of which will be life-fulfilling. Along with Oedipa, we slowly come to realize that the whole game might be rigged. What if everything that happened was planned, controlled by Pierce to give Oedipa something, anything, in the world to do? Will we spin in endless, meaningless circles awaiting the heat death of the universe? Maxwell’s demon may be able to sort out things into binary systems, but then what—where do the atoms go from there? The false story of meaning—and then order—that master narratives tell us is simply an act of dressing up chaos in a suit, a little less ugly to look at.

Pynchon-- Feminist?


Could Thomas Pynchon be considered a feminist writer?

                When I first asked myself this question my answer was simple, hell no!  After reading his negative portrayal of Oedipa as this pathetic tragic hero with her incessant failure in every realm of this novel, I thought to myself, this man must hate women.  Pynchon’s hatred of women can be traced to Oedipa’s character’s inability to make any new steps in her quest without the input of a male, and her feeling of insignificance in situations where her sexuality is irrelevant; “Despair came over her, as it will when nobody around has any sexual relevance to you” (Pynchon 94).  Furthermore, at least three of the males she encounters in the novel have either sexually propositioned her or have some sexual history with her (i.e. Mucho Maas, Metzger and Nefastis).  I continued to feel this way throughout the text until I took a step back and examined the satirical nature of the narrative.  In doing so I realized that Pynchon is not so much writing a social critique of women in general, rather Pynchon is mocking the lifestyle of the white suburban housewife.  Following that train of thought I was able to develop an argument which supports Thomas Pynchon as being a feminist.  Undoubtedly, Oedipa is portrayed as this pathetic joke throughout the novel, but one must remember her characterization is as the epitome as a white suburban housewife in the ’60 (sans children).  In making fun of Oedipa, Pynchon is in fact showing what a mockery the female “housewife” prototype is.  The novel as a whole can be looked at as almost a cautionary tale to women, saying that if you continue to mindlessly follow the societal gender roles of the 60s than your life will be just as pointless as the roundabout droll of this plot.  The reoccurring theme within this text is that nothing means anything; therefore, with the central focus of the plot being a 60s housewife, the life of a housewife in 1960s white suburbia is an endless circle of pointlessness, confusion and overall disappointment—all in all a life in which nothing means anything.

Satire on religion?


One of the topics that we touched on briefly in class discussion is the idea of Pynchon making fun of different ways that people search for meaning where there essentially is nothing. This could take the form of literary criticism, or in a much more controversial place: religion.

Religion is a sensitive topic, and it is not my intention to offend anyone or downplay personal beliefs. However I think that there are some solid parallels that can be drawn, and that it is extremely likely that Pynchon was pointing to religion as a search for meaning. In the novel, Oedipa represents the average human being. She is “lost” and does not know where to turn or what to do with her life, equating herself to Rapunzel being locked away in a tower because of this feeling of helplessness. She comes to the conclusion that she should attempt to find something for herself.

The biggest comparison to me comes from Oedipa’s obsession with the play The Courier’s Tragedy. She takes notice of the smallest details and stores them away in her mind, hanging onto them and absolutely determined to make something out of them, or find a hidden meaning that was left behind for her. She goes as far as she can to follow the trail of this play, getting her hands on the book that the script was taken from and then going even farther back to its original roots before realizing that none of them are the same. They have all been adapted, changed in some way to suit someone else’s taste and because of this things have been added into the script that do not carry any meaning at all.

Perhaps this is a way that Pynchon expressed his own views about religion. The only thing that keeps Oedipa going on her search for meaning in all of these things is her own faith and strong belief, even when others tell her that there is nothing there to be found. Pynchon could be mocking the idea of religion and suggesting that those who believe in it are foolish because of their continuous search for meaning in nothing and things that have been changed and adapted over the years, or he could be saying something else entirely about the idea of faith. In a way, it’s up to the reader to decide. 

Oedipa's Fate

It is appropriate that Pynchon does not offer a resolution at the end of The Crying of Lot 49 because if he had, it would have undermined the rest of the novel.  We discussed extensively strategies of meaning making in the novel and ways in which Oedipa tries to find meaning in her world.  It is a world that seems to be both extremely chaotic but highly constructed at the same time.  Though it may be a futile search, I do think that Oedipa’s name is significant throughout the novel.  I found the comment in class today about dramatic irony to be interesting.  Though Pynchon does subvert our expectations, there are still important contributions that the main character’s name brings to the book.  Rather than making connections through the plot lines, I thought of Oedipus Rex and his role as a character who was locked into his fate.  Even though Oedipus is given away by his parents to avoid the disastrous fate that had been prophesied, he fulfills it anyways.  I think this is really significant because in spite of difficulties in linking Oedipa’s story with that of her namesake, she too is a character who lacks the agency to avoid the destiny that is expected of her as a white, middle-class, American, heterosexual woman.  She is trapped in her tower and unsuccessful in any attempt to escape.  However, this inability to break boundaries has a strong parallel to the way people understand society in the post-modern world.  There is an awareness of social constraints, influences, and issues but they remain extremely difficult to change or work around.  I think the passage about Oedipa’s encounter with Winthrop Tramaine that we discussed in class today is a good example of this.  Though she is offended by his racism, she lacks the ability to stand up for herself and her beliefs.  Despite wanting to change something about herself, Oedipa lacks the ability to do so and therefore, things remain the same for her.  If Pynchon had tied the ends up nicely, it would not have fit with the rest of the novel.  Oedipa’s continuous struggle may seem bleak but I think there is hope in the fact that Oedipa remains searching instead of coming to any false conclusions.  Pynchon’s focus on Oedipa shows that she is aware of a sense of dissatisfaction which places her outside of the norm and makes her a model for a person who is uninterested in the oppressive nature of mid 20th century constraints in America.  While Oedipa may or may not fulfill her fate in the end, she is at least willing to move forward.  The novel ends with Oedipa sitting alone, bravely facing her future as Loren Passerine shuts out the sun and begins the auction which might give her answers and might not. 

Fantasy and Coping with the Middles


I’m interested in how fantasy relates to the construction of reality (or that which stands in for it) in the novel. In the postmodern world, is the invention or creation of a fantasy in which to live viable, even necessary, for the individual to order and make sense of the world which surrounds him or her? Or is the real simply all an elaborate hoax, concentric circles within concentric circles, inescapable labyrinths of artifice? It is of note that fantasy is associated specifically with male characters: Dr. Hilarious and Mucho Maas in particular. For Dr. Hilarious, a fantasy is somehow linked to stability, and is something to be cherished, held onto—he warns Oedipa not to “let the Freudians coax it away or the pharmacists poison it out,” for if fantasy is lost one begins “to go over by that much to the others…[to] begin to cease to be” (113). This conception of fantasy places it in an antagonistic relation with once stable signifiers of the real (psychologists, pharmacists, etc.), or those who we identify as typically assisting an individual suffering from mental illness. Additionally, fantasy is described in terms that give it an organic, living quality—something which could be susceptible to poison.
            But what of Mucho Maas? Mucho, we learn, has been prescribed LSD by Dr. Hilarious, who has begun to include suburban husbands in his study (this certainly seems to throw into question Hilarious’ previous statements). Mucho’s identity is disintegrating, becoming general; his supervisor at the radio station characterizes him as “full of people…a walking assembly of man” (115). Mucho’s fantasy is of a different character than Hilarious’, however. Mucho, rather than envisioning himself the target of a vast conspiracy, simply believes he can visualize universal harmony and the general unification of things, especially as it is expressed in music. Mucho’s revelations serve only to alienate him from Oedipa, herself struggling to differentiate between coincidence, fantasy, and the deep connections which appear to be present between instances naturally unrelated. Who is right? There is no easy answer, or, for that matter, any answer at all. However, that which is to be navigated is characterized in the final pages of the novel. Oedipa, again dislocated, wandering on a train track (she so often seems to be moving in transient spaces: freeways, hotels, a rental car) muses on that which so troubles, the perennial condition which serves as the ignition of fantasy: “[the] excluded middles; they were bad shit; to be avoided” (150). These middles are, however, what we must traffic in, forcing us, it seems, into fantasy, paranoia, or something which remains indefinite, amorphous.

Oedipa and Other Women

Today I noticed that towards the end of The Crying of Lot 49 Oedipa has more and more interactions with other woman. And these women are presented as being sane and logical, unlike the men.

We first see women (with the exception of Oedipa) being the reliable, responsible ones early in the novel; however, it's very subtle. "The trip out was uneventful except for two or three collisions the Paranoids almost had owing to Serge, the driver, not being able to see through his hair. He was persuaded to hand over the wheel to one of the girls. (40)" Here we see a woman, other than Oedipa, take control even if it's just by taking the wheel of the Paranoid's convertible. It's safe to assume that the girl that replaces Serge is his girlfriend, who later runs away with Metzger. By doing so, she may be presenting herself as an "Oedipa in training." - a woman who has a nasty habit of searching for truth in the wrong places.

The next major encounter Oedipa has with another woman occurs when she visits Dr. Hilarius while he's having a meltdown. The nurse, Helga Blamm, responds to the situation logically, unlike Oedipa who wishes to see Dr. Hilarius. In this scene, we also see how oblivious Oedipa is. Helga says, "'Too many nutty broads, that's what did it. Kinneret is full of nothing but. He couldn't cope. (109)" Oedipa replies, "Maybe I could find out what it is. Maybe I'd be less of a threat for him. (109)" Obviously Helga isn't in a position of power like Serge's girlfriend but at least she's able to recognize the chaotic environment she live in.

Lastly, the woman that seems most sane in the book is Emory Bortz's wife Grace. Grace's sanity and power is drawn from her humor. However, she's not funny like Oedipa is funny. Oedipa is fun to laugh at. Grace is fun to laugh with - "'Maxine, why don't you throw that at your brother, he's more mobile than I am...Oh, God. Have you ever met an infanticide? Come on over, it may be your only chance. (122)" It's a dark, gruesome joke, yes, but it was constructed by Grace herself. A woman like Oedipa wouldn't be clever enough to think of something like that.

It seems that Pynchon's goal with including these women was to show how truly strange Oedipa is. Like we agreed in class, I think her journey is a great "what not to do story" and these other woman, particularly Grace Bortz, are included to make that even more obvious.

The Value of Meaning-Making (or Lack Thereof)

As established in class, it seems as though one of the major issues Pynchon is dealing with in The Crying of Lot 49 is our search for meaning in the world around us, specifically within literature. Throughout the novel Oedipa is on a quest for a meaning in her life; this quest is mirrored in the reader’s expectation that the novel itself will provide them with sorts of answers. But within the text, Pynchon suggests that that sort of meaning and that sort of concluding statement do not exist.

Oedipa’s quest for meaning is centered on the Trystero and along her journey she encounters the director Driblette, someone she thinks can provide her with direction. His response, however, is not quite what Oedipa is hoping for: “You can put together clues, develop a thesis, or several…You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth” (62). Rather than giving Oedipa the direction in her quest that she is looking for, he suggests that what she is doing is worthless and could all end up being for no reason. Through this character, Pynchon seems to be saying that we, as readers, should not read into things so much, look for a specific answer.

This critique seems to specifically apply to literature and literary studies. We discussed this in class, but we did not spend a whole lot of time talking about the irony of the fact that Pynchon is making this point in a novel. I find this especially funny as well as frustrating because of how complicated and, at times, convoluted The Crying of Lot 49 is. It’s like he’s saying, “I know you’re going to try and find a connection between what you’re reading and your life, so I’m going to make this as unclear and nonsensical as possible.” Today in class a point was made about Pynchon being an engineer and therefore a very logical person who would not necessarily believe in a search for meaning. This to me speaks more to his personality than it does to the “truth” of his work. Just because he does not see the point in searching for meaning in literature, does not mean that there isn’t any. But I can see value in his perspective on “meaning-making”: It seems to me that what Pynchon is saying is not that there is not meaning in life, but that in searching for that meaning we tend to miss the bigger picture, life as an experience.

-Sydney Weaver

Mistakes in Making Meaning


Throughout The Crying of Lot 49, the narration follows Oedipa’s futile attempts at finding meaning in her life. She is depicted as a white suburban housewife who regularly tends her garden, attends Tupperware parties, and prepares dinner for her husband. Although her life seems “typical” of suburban housewives, Oedipa experiences frequent psychotic episodes and hallucinations. After being named executor of her ex-boyfriend’s estate, she recalls viewing a painting of young girls trapped in a tower and “Oedipa, perverse, had stood in front of the painting and cried” (11). This sudden outburst of emotion illuminates Oedipa’s ability to connect with the girls trapped in the tower. She herself feels trapped in her own tower, unable to gain enough understanding and agency to be free. Her lack of agency is also explained by the narrator when he lists her life options: “she may fall back on superstition, or take up a useful hobby like embroidery, or go mad, or marry a disc jockey” (12).  The narrator recognizes that her only option in life is passivity. No option presented involves Oedipa gaining agency and finding some sort of “truth” in her life. This listing of Oedipa’s options of insignificant pursuits is an example of the narrator’s underlying satirical tone. If the narrator treats her quest in a serious manner but has this underlying tone, how is the reader supposed to view Oedipa in her quest to find meaning?  The reader could either parallel the experience of searching for meaning in this piece of literature to Oedipa’s experience of searching for meaning in her life or view her as an example of how not to look for meaning and how not to partake in useless endeavors.
                In the end of the novel, Oedipa is sitting at the crying of lot 49 waiting for a mysterious bidder to appear. Her actions throughout the novel have not given her any capacity to gain agency. Although she has come so close to discovering who the bidder is and all the clues are coming together, she still is unable to discover anything important. Her entire quest has basically led to nothing and Oedipa is unable to make meaning in this world. This failure of Oedipa’s can again be connected to the reader’s failure in finding a connective meaning in this novel, but it is more likely that Oedipa’s failure illuminates the fact that she is a poor quester.  The presentation of Oedipa through the narration shows her quest as similar to the readers, but the reader should take note of her failures and not make the same mistakes in making meaning.