First published in 1965, The Crying of Lot 49 is the second novel by American author Thomas Pynchon. The novel follows Oedipa Mass, a young Californian housewife, after she unexpectedly finds herself named the executrix of the estate of Californian real estate mogul, and ex-boyfriend, Pierce Inverarity. In reflecting on their history together, Oedipa recalls how her travels with Pierce helped her acknowledge, but not overcome, the poignant feeling that she was being held paralyzed and isolated from the world (and others) within a staid, middle-class existence by some invisible and nefarious external force. Moreover Oedipa struggles to understand why Pierce would name her the executor of his will considering her deep ignorance of finance, law, real estate, and who he was as a person (by virtue of her isolation). Despite these reservations, Oedipa accepts the dubious honor, traveling down into San Narciso, the Southern Californian city at the heart of Pierce’s extensive holdings. A series of improbable coincidences lead her to begin investigating a potential conspiracy centred on an underground communication network called The Tristero. As Oedipa delves deeper into the investigation she begins to question her own sanity. The mounting evidence affirming the Tristero’s existence, like the prevalent sightings of its emblem, a muted version of a post horn, is inextricably tied to Pierce’s estate holdings. Thus, Oedipa has to confront her growing sense paranoia that suggests the whole investigation is either a figment of her imagination, or (far worse) a manipulative ruse being imposed upon her by some unknown external entity (Pierce? The Tristero itself?). Pynchon uses Oedipa’s quest across San Narciso in search of the Tristero to artic...
Pynchon designed The Crying of Lot 49 so that there would be two levels of observation: that of the characters such as our own Oedipa Maas, whose world is limited to the text, and that of the reader, who looks at the world from outside it but who is also affected by his relationship to that world.3 Both the reader and the characters have the same problems observing the chaos around them. The protagonist in The Crying of Lot 49, Oedipa Mass, like Pynchon's audience, is forced to either involve herself in the deciphering of clues or not participate at all.4
Oedipa’s peers are concerned that the death of Oedipa’s ex husband, Pierce Inverarity, has caused Oedipa to exhibit signs of mental illness. Mike Fallopian mentioned that a chain of events involving “tristero” and “W.A.S.T.E.”, has led Oedipa to believe in a conspiracy involving a feud between two communication systems the Tristeros, and the Thurn and Taxis. According to Fallopian, the alleged conspiracy is likely “all a hoax, something Inverarity set up before he died”. Oedipa cannot distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Her highly analytical nature has caused her to fall into a state of deep psychosis.
Whether a person’s life is something experienced authentically, or factually written down as literature, there are more complexities faced then there are simplicities on a daily basis. This multifariousness causes constant bewilderment and hesitation before any sort of important decision a person must make in his or her life. When it comes to characters of the written words, as soon sensations of ambiguity, uncertainty, and paranoia form, the outlook and actions of these characters are what usually result in regrettable decisions and added anxiety for both that character as well as the reader. Examples of these themes affecting characters in the world of fiction are found in the novel The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon, and the play Glengarry Glen Ross written by David Mamet. Throughout both of these texts, characters such as Oedipa Maas who allows these emotions to guide her in her journey of self discovery, and Shelly Levene who is so overcome with these emotions that they become his downfall. For both of these characters, these constant emotional themes are what guide their most impulsive actions, which can generally also become regrettable decisions. Even though it is a distinguishing factor of human beings, when these characters are portrayed in print, it somehow seems to affect the reader more, because they are able to see the fictional repercussions, and also know how they could have been avoided.
...r know to where Rabbit runs or who buys the stamps at the auction. The similar endings of these novels along with being published within five years of each other suggests the time period, the 1960s, during which these books were written, had a comparable influence on Pynchon and Updike. The sixties were a decade of change and uproar; uncertainty definitely played a large role in people’s everyday lives and it seems that this uncertainty found its way into the literature of the time. Parallels to the differences in Rabbit and Oedipa’s reactions can be seen in the sixties as well. Similar to Rabbit, escapism through the iconic “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” was prevalent. Although the endings of these two novels are quite unsatisfying, both Pynchon and Updike are telling us much more than we think as the influences of the time period are reflected in their style.
In this book review I represent and analyze the three themes I found the most significant in the novel.
However, consumed by his desire to seek knowledge, Oedipus ironically ignores all of the signs that point toward the truth. One such instance is when he is speaking to Jocasta, and she mentions how “[Oedipus is] doomed / – may [he] never fathom who [he is]!” (Sophocles, 1173-1174). Regardless of how closely related and similar both his and Laius’s predictions from the Oracle of Delphi are, Oedipus ignores the absolute truth. Another such instance is when Jocasta mentions how Laius had been “killed by strangers,/ thieves, at a place where three roads meet” (Sophocles 789-790). Although Oedipus recognizes that he had also killed a man at a crossroads, he refuses to believe the truth. Mr. Weil mentions how, despite most scholars believing Oedipus journeys from ignorance to knowledge, “his ignorance is self-willed. Oedipus has been told the truth and he has refused to recognize it-or even test it” (Weil). Anyone can see the validity of this statement once all of the hints and comments of Oedipus’s heritage are presented. He is consistently given the opportunity to accept the truth but he rejects any possibility. “The play is a tragedy not of divine fate but of human knowing”
In the novel there are motives and themes evident throughout. The central conflict in the novel is between two who battle their feelings that exist within all human beings, by the way of living b...
The situation in which Oedipus has been placed in is one that is an exceptionally graphic and terrible example of a common occurrence in everyone’s lives. I have personally found that while I may have recurring fears about the unknown, fears such as what the future holds, what others around me think, what grade I will make on this paper, or how my final exams will end up, these are perfectly rational fears. Oedipus has a perfectly rational fear of not knowing who killed the King because the plague has set on his city. This fear is heightened even more when Tiresias, the blind prophet, accuses Oedipus of killing the king and also begins hinting at other terrible things that Oedipus is has done...
contact the reader has with people in the book is in the passage in which the