Plot Controlled

While I was reading the Crying of Lot 49 wiki  I found an interesting review here. In this article it was said that the characters in Pynchon's novels (including The Crying of Lot 49) are eventually trapped in the plot they helped build. With this I realized that Oedipa was indeed trapped on the conspiracy she had created. Even after all the people that stated the play meant nothing (from an actor within the play). Even after being told this Oedipa continues her search for meaning in words and symbols that might not have any. Then, Oedipa meets with Bortz who was very knowledgeable about the Courier's Tragedy. He explained that what she saw wasn't the actual play but a version of it in which the reference or coincidence with the word Trystero was added. In the end, Oedipa realizes that Trystero was a parallel mailing system that existed with Thrun and Taxis which eventually won the mailing monopoly.

Even if that Trystero phrase in the play was a reference to the mailing system why bother? Why did Oedipa have to go to such lengths, traveling all over California, to find about a mailing conspiracy that didn't really matter? It is even possible that the W.A.S.T.E system might be slightly relevant since its people fighting against the state's monopoly over mail but why does Trystero matter? Why does that line in the play matter? I think that this is part of the way the book breaks down. Oedipa realizes that the Trystero conspiracy might be a joke made by Pierce which adds to the feeling of absence of meaning. Finally, Oedipa ends waiting for the Crying of lot 49 to find a person which might lead to more questions than answers. This whole plot is simply part of Oedipa being trapped in an endless plot that will take her from questions to more questions without a definite answer. This explanation that is given in the review of the book in the NYT takes the whole ending of the book and makes it into a single sentence. Although this ending is Pynchon making fun of himself and the book, it could also be portraying our constant search for answers which inevitably takes us to more questions. The ending of the book could be a way to make fun at how absurd that concept is.

The Collapse Begins

As the book nears its end we see how the realism that exists in the book suddenly begins to vanish. The few signs that at the beginning could be interpreted as a coincidence created by Oedipa's mind who desperately sought to find the truth about a conspiracy which didn't exist. Eventually these clues start to appear in increasing frequency until they overwhelm Oedipa. There is a point which indicates when the apparently normal mystery story starts to breakdown on itself. This is stated in here: "Either Trystero did exist, in its own right, or it was being presumed, perhaps fantasized by Oedipa, so hung up on and interpenetrated with the dead man's estate. Here in San Francisco away from all tangible assets of that estate, there might still be a chance of getting the whole thing to go away and disintegrate quietly. She had only to drift tonight, at random, and watch nothing happen, to be convinced it was purely nervous, a little something for her shrink to fix". (88) This quote is essential for the start of the book's breakdown. The first part states the possibility that Oedipa is the source to all these conspiracies and nothing that has happened so far is real. The second part states the condition that she requires for the unreality of all the previous events relating the mail conspiracy to be confirmed. Shorty after she is taken to a bar and talks to a man that introduces her to a society similar to A.A. that deals with love instead and tries to cure its members of that addiction. That would have been the last point where what we see can be interpreted as some form of reality, after that, everything in the book changes.

When Oedipa starts to see the post-horn everywhere and discovers all the W.A.S.T.E mailing system she no longer appears to be in contact with reality. The things the sees from that moment on are like a tour through a mad and irrational mind trying to find a conspiracy by searching for symbols which mean nothing and might not even be there. It is also shocking how lightly she is taking her mental state. She has created a conspiracy out of symbols and words which mean nothing (since it has been said several times to her) about a secret mail system that goes against the U.S mail system simply because is the government's monopoly. Making a conspiracy from symbols which you are told mean nothing and basing it on irrational foundations isn't just "a little something for her shrink to fix". (88) Oedipa has gone mad (or maybe was mad from the beginning), she realizes this but doesn't take it like the serious issue it is. This could be a way to portray the absurdity that exists in our world. Many times there are huge problems we take lightly and only later do we realize their importance.

The Sensitives

In chapter 4 of The Crying of Lot 49 there was a machine which could theoretically create eternal motion which theoretically is impossible. This machine only works when activated by "special" people who are called "sensitives". Supposedly these are the only ones that can make that machine work. This made me reflect on an ideal of the U.S constitution (and the ideal of many other constitutions) which is: "all men are created equal". If everyone is created equal why would there be sensitives which can do what others can't when we are supposedly created equal?

It is unlikely (but possible) that this book was criticizing this by showing some that aren't equal to others. Still, this made me think that in reality nobody is equal. We are different and have unfair advantages on some things over others. Some might be smarter while others are better at sports etc. Some might even be predisposition to live longer than others and that is an unfair advantage. Because these unfair advantages exist some people will inevitably have better opportunities than others and therefore equality at any level is impossible. Since this book is a satire to the society at the time it could be trying to show us that this principle of equality is wrong simple because it is impossible for all to be equal to one another. This books purpose is merely to describe then it doesn't give us an alternative on how to change this but I am certain there must be a possibility. The only model in which the damage of such a thing could be minimized is by making a society in which these unfair advantages aren't as critical as they are today. This is (clearly) no more than an impossible ideal because the society that we live in today has existed as it is for a long time and will most likely remain as it is.

In turn, this reminded me of The Selfish Gene which showed a very clear view on evolution and natural selection. Indifferent of whether we should be altruistic or not, natural selection will always favor those with an unfair advantage. Even if we were to base a society on nature's rules (which are the most effective and most likely to succeed in the long term) those with an unfair advantage will take over and equality is something that will be achieved by the sacrifice of those who do not possess the gene that gives them that unfair advantage. Could it be that Pynchon is simple leaving that hint of inequality in his novel to show us that it is a constant we can't ever erase?

A Cold War Satire

As I read through the book I found a paragraph that caught me and refused to let go. This occurred when Oedipa and Metzger are at The Scope talking to Mike Fallopian talking about the Peter Pinguid Society. He was telling the story of how the society began in the times of the Civil War. Its name was inspired on the first casualty of the Russia vs. U.S conflict. This is the quotation: "But that was the very first military confrontation between Russia and America. Attack, retaliation, both projectiles deep-sixed forever and the pacific rolls on. But the ripples from those two splashes spread, and grew and today engulf us all." (36) This is probably another of the author's satirical comments to the society that was around him. This book was written and published during the Cold War and this is (most likely) a reference to it. I believe that he tries to make fun of government propaganda in which Russia and the U.S are enemies and that the U.S are the good guys. It is absurd how and practically impossible than a period from the 1940's to 1900's could possibly be affected by a confrontation that occurred during the civil war that had no major impact and isn't widely known. It is especially comical how neither of the ships received any damage but it is still a mayor historical event to those of the Peter Pinguid Society.

Also, the name of the society is a joke. Peter Pinguid according to Mike Fallopian didn't go through any serious punishment but was able to live well the rest of his life simply getting rich. He wasn't truly a martyr (although according to the society he had to go over the grave punishment of sacrificing his code of honor) but a man that was able to live a decent life as a land speculator. The way Thomas Pynchon takes an insignificant person and blows him out of proportion in order to make a society based on what he thought can be interpreted as an element of his satire. These comments on the society that surrounded Pynchon at the time the book was written are consistent through the book and I expect to see more as I read on.

Understand

As I read through chapter two I found what might have been a metaphore to something very important. When Oedipa and Metzger are playing that game in which Oedipa will take off one piece of clothing for every question Metzger answers. But there is a catch. Oedipa had gone to the bathroom and dressed herself with as many layers of clothing as she could. Thus, this is what happened : "Oedipa removed a bracelet. So it went: the succession of film fragments on the tube, the progressive removal of clothing that seemed to bring her no nearer nudity . . ." (28) I saw this as a metaphor for how complex people are. This reminded of a quote from Neon Genesis Evangelion which said this: "No one can understand completely another person, it is already difficult enough understanding yourself, maybe that is why life is so interesting" (Evangelion) This two quotes are have a very similar meaning and could be even be used to explain one another.

In the Crying Of Lot 49 we try to get all the jokes and satire that happens while also trying to understand why the characters behave in such a way. Maybe that is also part of the game the author gives us, maybe not all that is there can be understood or has a meaning. This could be a way to describe how in life we try to give meaning to things that truly don't have any.

You could also see this to a more human level and it could mean (like in Evangelion) that you never truly know somebody, others will remain a mystery to us specially since many of the things we do are inexplicable to ourselves. We will always remain ignorant of true reasons behind people's actions. Still, the final part of the quote from Evangelion (which isn't said but is explicit in The Crying Of Lot 49) is that our curiosity and hunger for knowledge pushes further. We don't understand everything, but because of this there will always be something to surprise us and make us wonder.Thanks to that inability to understand and explain everything we are given a purpose. We see this in the Book as Oedipa tries to understand the conspiracy that is (or not since it might just be a hallucination) occurring around her but very possibly she will never be able to do so. In the end when we can't explain something, we should follow the example of the book and describe it, we should take pleasure from living it even if we can't comprehend what is happening completely.

The Barrier Of Reality

As I began reading the book Crying Of Lot 49 I was interested on how the division of reality and dreams dissapears. We see an example of this here: "Oedipa stood in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, spoke the name of god, tried to feel as drunk as possible. But this did not work. She though of a hotel room in Mazatlan . . ." (1) Here, we see a rapid change of scenes and actions in a matter of seconds. In that moment she changes from reality to a memorie or even just a hallucination. If you are fully concentrated on the reading (like I was) you are dragged into this completly new place for no apparent reason: that confused me. This rapid changing of focus and the a sudden change in the settting distort the vision you have on the place where Oedipa is. I think that this playful way in which the author changes the setting is a game he attempts to engage the reader in. By making it hard to picture the situation the author makes the reading more interesting and it makes this book stand out. The way in which the sitaution shifts is probably a way to interest the ready.
The way in which the author distorts our image of reality is probably there to also make us understand that it isn't something you can't truly understand completly. Maybe this is a way the author challenges us to read this book and understand it. Thanks to all of this I have been interested greatly in the book.