The Crying of Lot 49

[rob91]

*Some spoilers will follow*

This was my first book of Pynchon's, and for the most part I was impressed. I think he's brilliant as a writer, able to manipulate language and present some provoking material. I had a problem with the end, however, beginning with the last 10-15 pages or so. As he begins speculating more and more on Oedipa's situation, he seems to lay it all out so cleanly, even providing us will all possible solutions to the Trystero mystery each seemingly as valid as the other. It felt deliberately ambiguous, like he was trying too hard to convey the vagueness of knowledge and the idea that multiple realities can simultaneously exist. For me, it sucked a lot of the interest out as he doesn't give you much to speculate upon.

I'm guessing I'm in the minority on this, but let me know what you all think.

[xaqxit]

Does he really not give you that much? Okay so maybe the ending isn't as great as it could be, but it's basically there to remind you what it's all about if it didn't hit you (I think). To me it seems like the book is one so full of allusions and things that can seemingly conncet. Each reader comes to the book with a different body of knowledge, and they will make different connections. Whether the connections they make were intended by Pynchon, in fact whether (m)any possible connections were intended, always seem to remain unclear, the book takes on a life in the reader's own mind as echoed by the sense of paranoia that comes through the book.

I think the ending still leaves the novel as an open text. I don't think the fun of the book lies in figuring out which of the possible theories at the ending hold true, I think the fun is in all the micro elements and ideas that may or may not have emerged in your mind, which will probaby be different than the ones I had, or another had, when reading it.

At the same time, I really see where you're coming from.


It felt deliberately ambiguous, like he was trying too hard to convey the vagueness of knowledge and the idea that multiple realities can simultaneously exist.

Maybe, but in my experience, books like these are more about the (triteness alert!) journey than the destination (/triteness... hopefully). It's really hard to end any book it seems, especially one like this one. Maybe it gives you less to wonder about the points you brought up, but more to ponder on elsewhere. If anything, maybe it's a final hint on what to think about when you reread it (which I haven't done yet).

[willq9]

To be honest, I never felt terribly curious about the literal implications of the Tristero (sp?) mystery. To me, the book was about a giddily flamboyant prose style and the inertia that paranoia and an over-abundance of information can induce. I had a blast following Oedipa's increasingly warped state of mind as she tried to cope with the bizarre range of characters and events thrown at her. A solution to the mystery would have diffused the effect of the book. I'm happier with Oedipa in limbo.

[rob91]

I had a blast following Oedipa's increasingly warped state of mind as she tried to cope with the bizarre range of characters and events thrown at her. A solution to the mystery would have diffused the effect of the book. I'm happier with Oedipa in limbo.

I felt similarly, and I'm not looking for a conclusion to the mystery. My problem with the ending is that he lays out the ambiguity of the mystery too clearly, and in turn this diffuses a good deal of the book's interest.

[willq9]

I felt similarly, and I'm not looking for a conclusion to the mystery. My problem with the ending is that he lays out the ambiguity of the mystery too clearly, and in turn this diffuses a good deal of the book's interest.

You're a more careful reader than I am, then, because I really felt out at sea when it came to the possible, literal solutions to the mystery. Sure I remember the "practical joke" possibility, but did you really have a clear, functional picture of how the Tristero operated? Even possibly? Because I sure didn't. Maybe I need to give it a re-read.

[rob91]

You're a more careful reader than I am, then, because I really felt out at sea when it came to the possible, literal solutions to the mystery. Sure I remember the "practical joke" possibility, but did you really have a clear, functional picture of how the Tristero operated? Even possibly? Because I sure didn't. Maybe I need to give it a re-read.

No, I didn't get any "literal solutions" to the mystery. I don't know which version you have, but in mine, on pg 141 is where he lays some of it out: "Those, now that she was looking at them, she saw to be the alternatives. Those symmetrical four." It reads not like a full-on description of the Trystero, but more a summary of what we already know. He elaborates on this some more before the ending.

I also disliked the abrupt ending, right in the middle of the auction. Everything seemed to be building up, then, as opposed to a climax and resolution he just ends it. Now, I'm not looking for anything clean cut nor any easy answers (I much prefer an open ending), but to me, it just seems he does the opposite of what another writer would do - offering us nothing instead of a resolution. I think there's better ways this could be done...unless I am missing something about it?

I have also begun to think that he may be parodying postmodern literature as a whole here, with an ending that to a ridiculous degree offers no clear solutions or defined meaning. Pynchon is almost too eager to tell us that these multiple solutions/reality exist.

And just to clarify to what I was saying earlier (about Pynchon mapping it out too clearly), I don't believe Pynchon gave us one clear solution but rather multiple solutions which he mapped out a little too neatly, which had the affect (for me, at least) of making his attempt at ambiguity a bit obvious.

But, maybe I'm picking at nothing here and I just need to give it another look. Part of why I started the thread was to gain some more perspective, so thanks for that.

[xaqxit]

It's very likely he is parodying post-modern litearture. Though I'm pretty sure a parody of post-modernism can still easily be classified as a type of post-modernism. Then again I think introducing a multiplicity of states at the end ties in with the entropy theme quite well. After all entropy is really a measure (of the natural logarithm) of the number of states something can be in. Recognizing the multiplicity of states and the uncertainty of what state something is in is a very "entropic" concept. I kind of agree with the both of you, it's hard to disagree with anything regarding this book... it's so...

(see what i did there ending my post abruptly as i was building up to my ending? oh crap! now I revealed exactly what i was doing there)

[rob91]

It's very likely he is parodying post-modern litearture. Though I'm pretty sure a parody of post-modernism can still easily be classified as a type of post-modernism. Then again I think introducing a multiplicity of states at the end ties in with the entropy theme quite well. After all entropy is really a measure (of the natural logarithm) of the number of states something can be in. Recognizing the multiplicity of states and the uncertainty of what state something is in is a very "entropic" concept. I kind of agree with the both of you, it's hard to disagree with anything regarding this book... it's so...

(see what i did there ending my post abruptly as i was building up to my ending? oh crap! now I revealed exactly what i was doing there)

I like that interpretation.

[tudwell]

Oh my God, I really need to reread this book. I didn't get any of that stuff the first time I read it. Guess that's what I get reading Pynchon at sixteen. So much stuff went way over my head.