Crying of Lot 49 ch. 3-4
So this may be the single weirdest book I've read in my life. I have no idea what's happening but I am emotionally invested, but at the same time discouraged from getting tied too far in because it is so weird.
Normally in my posts I like to focus on certain passages or symbols but for this one I'm just going to take a breather and rant so as to try to help myself understand what is even going on because I don't know.
I can not get over the fact that Pynchon made up his own play within a book. And all the things he made up for the sake of this book. Every time I get to another unknown element and google it and it just comes up with Lot 49 and not an actual real life thing I want to chuck the book across the room because this man. He must have had to build a bulletin board and use thumb tacks and string like police investigations are always shown to have to keep his world straight.
But what's worse than the imaginary references are the ones that are real. Though some of these are helpful for the setting (real cities in California, Tom Swift), it mostly just creeps me out that real life can also be a part of his story. Like the Thurn and Taxis mail service actually existed, that freaks me out.
It is rather impressive how he's created his own world inside a world that actual exists, and tied the two together with real cultural references just to remind readers that he's still somewhat grounded in a reality similar to the 1960s. It also made me happy that he references Cornell because he went here and same.
Another thing that irks me about this book is the writing style. Pynchon seems to break a lot of conventions with some of his sentences that just flow on and on and don't seem to be complete. It makes the book seem more conversational and casual, which may be the goal, wanting to put readers in Oedipa's head.
Also anything involving names. Those were for sure carefully chosen and probably contain lots of foreshadowing and would be clearer if I put in the mental effort to figure it out. This book man. Way to ruffle the feathers.
Normally in my posts I like to focus on certain passages or symbols but for this one I'm just going to take a breather and rant so as to try to help myself understand what is even going on because I don't know.
I can not get over the fact that Pynchon made up his own play within a book. And all the things he made up for the sake of this book. Every time I get to another unknown element and google it and it just comes up with Lot 49 and not an actual real life thing I want to chuck the book across the room because this man. He must have had to build a bulletin board and use thumb tacks and string like police investigations are always shown to have to keep his world straight.
But what's worse than the imaginary references are the ones that are real. Though some of these are helpful for the setting (real cities in California, Tom Swift), it mostly just creeps me out that real life can also be a part of his story. Like the Thurn and Taxis mail service actually existed, that freaks me out.
It is rather impressive how he's created his own world inside a world that actual exists, and tied the two together with real cultural references just to remind readers that he's still somewhat grounded in a reality similar to the 1960s. It also made me happy that he references Cornell because he went here and same.
Another thing that irks me about this book is the writing style. Pynchon seems to break a lot of conventions with some of his sentences that just flow on and on and don't seem to be complete. It makes the book seem more conversational and casual, which may be the goal, wanting to put readers in Oedipa's head.
Also anything involving names. Those were for sure carefully chosen and probably contain lots of foreshadowing and would be clearer if I put in the mental effort to figure it out. This book man. Way to ruffle the feathers.
I agree with you! Even though the words itself are simple and understandable, I still have no clue what's going on. Pynchon does reference a lot of real life things in his book, but changes the names around so it's a little difficult to make the connections and figure out what it is that he's referring to.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that this book has very weird and verbose sentences that do not always make a whole lot of sense. Regarding your comment that Pynchon is trying to make the book conversation and place the reader in Oedipa's head, I am not sure that he is trying to make this book conversational. If he were, then he would be employing much more stream-of-conscious in his monologues; I think that the purpose of all these details and weird structures is to make the reader feel confused. In order to develop the mystery, he uses all these details to mislead readers and force them to be unsure of what is important and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteWow, this post was too relatable. First of all, I want to know how long Pynchon spent writing this book. His references are so WEIRD. He clearly had way too much time on his hands. The Cornell references always cheer me up too. But this man is out of his mind. So I don't know how I feel about an insane Cornell alumnus. I really hate the whole stream of consciousness writing!!!!! It reminds me of Slaughterhouse Five and I HATED THAT BOOK!
ReplyDelete