Crying of Lot 49 Ending
According to the definition of mystery that we have discussed in class, I'd say that The Crying of Lot 49 is definitely a mystery. Although unlike in most mystery novels, we never learn what exactly Tristero is, it is still a mystery. Pynchon uses the same methods as Doyle, as Oedipa has to piece clues together and embark on a journey to get more information from witnesses. However, The Crying of Lot 49 does read a bit more like Piers Plowman; even though the words are in modern English, it is still very difficult to decipher what exactly is going on. Like in Piers Plowman, this novel has an extremely large cast of characters, and these characters come and go frequently in the novel which makes it very hard to keep up with. Also, in both books, there are constant references to things and concepts that occur in reality, but it is clear that in these books the characters exist in some alternate reality. If Piers Plowman can be considered a mystery novel, then The Crying of Lot 49 can definitely be considered a mystery novel.
The ending was kind of frustrating, because there was no resolution, but I think it was for the best as Pynchon was probably trying to convey some kind of message. By not giving us an ending, Pynchon forces us to take a closer look at the characters and their surroundings, and so, I think the real mystery of the story isn't Tristero, but Oedipa. Throughout the whole story, we're not sure if Oedipa is on drugs or not, because she herself has a hard time determining what's real and what's not. Also, we never fully understand what's going on in her mind. Early on, she reveals that she's unsatisfied, that she wants more in life, the she wants to escape. But throughout the novel, we never learn what exactly it is that Oedipa is trying to escape from. We know that she thought Pierce could help her escape, but then she asks herself, "what did she so desire escape from?" (Pynchon 11). That question is never answered, and so Oedipa is a mystery in and of herself.
I am also really glad that at least he finally revealed the meaning of the title, because I would have been really mad if he didn't tie up at least one loose end. I thought it was a little cheesy though, because I feel liek that's a trope that's been done before. Although it was written quite a while ago, so it might have been a novel thing back in Pynchon's day. Overall, despite not understanding half of it, I did enjoy it.
The ending was kind of frustrating, because there was no resolution, but I think it was for the best as Pynchon was probably trying to convey some kind of message. By not giving us an ending, Pynchon forces us to take a closer look at the characters and their surroundings, and so, I think the real mystery of the story isn't Tristero, but Oedipa. Throughout the whole story, we're not sure if Oedipa is on drugs or not, because she herself has a hard time determining what's real and what's not. Also, we never fully understand what's going on in her mind. Early on, she reveals that she's unsatisfied, that she wants more in life, the she wants to escape. But throughout the novel, we never learn what exactly it is that Oedipa is trying to escape from. We know that she thought Pierce could help her escape, but then she asks herself, "what did she so desire escape from?" (Pynchon 11). That question is never answered, and so Oedipa is a mystery in and of herself.
I am also really glad that at least he finally revealed the meaning of the title, because I would have been really mad if he didn't tie up at least one loose end. I thought it was a little cheesy though, because I feel liek that's a trope that's been done before. Although it was written quite a while ago, so it might have been a novel thing back in Pynchon's day. Overall, despite not understanding half of it, I did enjoy it.
Comments
Post a Comment