Crying ch.6
The Crying of Lot 49 is a lot like an insane roller coaster that goes upside down, twirls around, and dives off several peaks before doing it all over again. By the time the reader reaches the end of the roller coaster, they want off the ride. You turn to the ride operator to unfasten your belt, but he just smirks and sends you off on the roller coaster again, and again, and he never lets you off the ride. Night falls, the park closes, and the ride operator goes home, but you're still on the ride and it's still going strong. You never get to leave.
Crying definitely challenges the concept of what exactly a mystery story is. If one requires a concrete ending where the conflict is completely solved and all is clear, then this book does not fit the bill. However, that would be unfair to the novel, considering the fact that the ending is purposefully ambiguous. The book is full of unknowns (which are a staple of mystery stories) and it would be far too easy to become irritated at the lack of a concrete ending, but a concrete ending would not fit the style of the book at all. By the end, both Oedipa and the reader are stuck wondering if they had just become paranoid and that the entire thing was merely a practical joke, or if they had actually stumbled across a deep, grand conspiracy.
From the start of the book, nothing seems real for the reader. We meet characters with ridiculous names like Oedipa and Mucho Maas, Mike Fallopian, and Dr. Hilarius (who feeds his patients acid) which makes it difficult to tell what exactly is happening. The characters interact in strange ways, and on top of that, Pynchon sprinkles obscure references throughout the story, half of which are real, and the other half are crafted by him. The reader is forced to deal with odd concepts that they hope will somehow become relevant, like bone charcoal, The Courier's Tragedy, and the WASTE system, but by the finale, not everything is clear. Many characters go insane/die, the reader figures out why the title of the book is what it is, learns what Tristero is, learns what WASTE stands for, and that's about it.
Honestly it would probably be far less satisfying to have a concrete ending. If the mysterious buyer turned out to be Pierce and the whole thing was just a practical joke, I would feel like Pynchon cheated me out of $10 and wasted my time. If the buyer is somebody else that can provide more info, it would also be dissatisfying. It would be comparable to the ride abruptly stopping, it wouldn't feel right.
Crying definitely challenges the concept of what exactly a mystery story is. If one requires a concrete ending where the conflict is completely solved and all is clear, then this book does not fit the bill. However, that would be unfair to the novel, considering the fact that the ending is purposefully ambiguous. The book is full of unknowns (which are a staple of mystery stories) and it would be far too easy to become irritated at the lack of a concrete ending, but a concrete ending would not fit the style of the book at all. By the end, both Oedipa and the reader are stuck wondering if they had just become paranoid and that the entire thing was merely a practical joke, or if they had actually stumbled across a deep, grand conspiracy.
From the start of the book, nothing seems real for the reader. We meet characters with ridiculous names like Oedipa and Mucho Maas, Mike Fallopian, and Dr. Hilarius (who feeds his patients acid) which makes it difficult to tell what exactly is happening. The characters interact in strange ways, and on top of that, Pynchon sprinkles obscure references throughout the story, half of which are real, and the other half are crafted by him. The reader is forced to deal with odd concepts that they hope will somehow become relevant, like bone charcoal, The Courier's Tragedy, and the WASTE system, but by the finale, not everything is clear. Many characters go insane/die, the reader figures out why the title of the book is what it is, learns what Tristero is, learns what WASTE stands for, and that's about it.
Honestly it would probably be far less satisfying to have a concrete ending. If the mysterious buyer turned out to be Pierce and the whole thing was just a practical joke, I would feel like Pynchon cheated me out of $10 and wasted my time. If the buyer is somebody else that can provide more info, it would also be dissatisfying. It would be comparable to the ride abruptly stopping, it wouldn't feel right.
I appreciate your allegory between this novel and a roller coaster ride, and I definitely think it encapsulates the sensations and emotions (and frustrations) of reading this novel. I personally think that this lack of concrete ending is best for the novel, because it seems like the mystery portion of the novel is second to the development of Oedipa as a character. By having all these random allusions and red herrings, Pynchon ensures that the reader can identify very well with Oedipa and feel the imminent sense of hopelessness and confusion she experiences as she tries to solve this mystery.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analogy to the roller coaster ride and I felt like it was pretty accurate to the way I felt. I like how you point out that nothing seems real because that definitely added to the confusion that we feel while reading the story. Though I do personally wish the book had a concrete ending, I understand your point that a concrete ending is not necessarily the best type of ending for this kind of book. Though the ending wasn't great, I did enjoy some parts of the book and I'm not really sure if I still don't actually feel cheated out from the ending...
ReplyDeleteThis analogy is too accurate. I see where you're coming from and how it wouldn't make sense for this book to have a concrete ending but it sure would clear some things up.
ReplyDelete