Crying of Lot 49 chapter 6

The Crying of Lot 49 challenges what we commonly consider to be a mystery. Normally, there's some big question that must be answered, and by the end through interpretation of evidence, the reader is granted with the release of the solution. Yet, Pynchon breaks this mold, and abruptly ends the novel without true closure. Many questions still remain, such as if Tristero really exists, or is just one of Pierce’s ploys. It may be somewhat unsatisfying, but I believe this was the best way for Pynchon to end the novel. The entire novel was a confusing mess of story lines and characters, and the entire time I was waiting to finally understand how they all are tied together. In the end, a lot of these story lines don’t matter anymore and we aren’t given a solid answer. Perhaps Pynchon is alluding towards the fact that the actual answer doesn’t matter, but what does is Oedipa’s personal journey. Does every story have to have a concrete conclusion? Part of what makes this story so unique is its conclusion, or lack of, rather.

Despite the conclusions stark contrast to everything else we’ve read in this class, The Crying of Lot 49 can still be classified as a mystery. A mystery does not require a solution. Like in real life, many mysteries go unsolved, and The Crying of Lot 49 is a reflection of that. The unifying characteristic of all mysteries is finding missing information. Mystery stories have a problem or lack of information that the character seeks to solve or understand. Whether it be the answer to a philosophical question or the identity of a killer, they all have some missing information that the character(s) seek.

What makes a mystery story a mystery then in my opinion is how the lack of information or problem is the main driver of the plot. In the case of The Crying of Lot 49, discovering the meaning of what Tristero and the W.A.S.T.E. symbol drives the plot. In Piers Plowman, discovering what it means to be a good person drives the plot. In The Murders in the Rue Morgue, finding out who the killer is drives the plot. This still leaves the definition to be very open ended, which is why many stories can be defined as mysteries.

In many ways, The Crying of Lot 49 can be compared to Piers Plowman. For both, there is a heavy emphasis on character interaction and dialogue through which the main character seeks to solve the mystery. Oedipa still relies on physical evidence, but the characters she interacts with play a very large role in the story. Also, both challenged what my personal interpretation of a mystery was. Piers Plowman aided me in understanding that a mystery can be a religious or philosophical truth. The Crying of Lot 49 taught me that a mystery does not necessarily have to be solved within a story.