Crying of Lot 49
In order to go back to the question regarding "the mystery in the story," I went onto the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of the word "mystery" as we did in the start of the semester. I scrolled past all of the religious definitions of the word to find the definition that I thought fit best: "A hidden or secret thing; something inexplicable or beyond human comprehension; a person or thing evoking awe or wonder but not well known or understood; an enigma"(Oxford English Dictionary). This definition immediately made me think of Oedipa's insane journey throughout this novel.
There were so many times during this book when I though to myself "I think she might be getting close to the answer". Honestly, I never really knew what exactly she was looking for, but sometimes it seemed like she was just about to find it. On the other hand, though, there were also so many times where I thought to myself "she's not gonna find the answer, she should just give up before she goes insane". This contributed to the aspect of the mystery in the story for me; the definition talks about something "beyond human comprehension" and something "not well known or understood" which exactly explains Oedipa's search for something to make sense of Trystero and Inverarity's involvement with it. The biggest mystery in the story of all is the ending. When reading a story that I would consider to be a mystery, I automatically and subconsciously expect for the problem to be solved by the end. However, Pynchon purposely ends the story with so many loose ends. This choice to end the story at a point where it seems as though Oedipa is directly on the cusp of discovering the truth creates a huge sense of unknowing and uncertainty that the definition of mystery that I found directly talks about. Overall, I definitely think that this story qualifies as a mystery because of its lack of explanation and clarifications.
There were so many times during this book when I though to myself "I think she might be getting close to the answer". Honestly, I never really knew what exactly she was looking for, but sometimes it seemed like she was just about to find it. On the other hand, though, there were also so many times where I thought to myself "she's not gonna find the answer, she should just give up before she goes insane". This contributed to the aspect of the mystery in the story for me; the definition talks about something "beyond human comprehension" and something "not well known or understood" which exactly explains Oedipa's search for something to make sense of Trystero and Inverarity's involvement with it. The biggest mystery in the story of all is the ending. When reading a story that I would consider to be a mystery, I automatically and subconsciously expect for the problem to be solved by the end. However, Pynchon purposely ends the story with so many loose ends. This choice to end the story at a point where it seems as though Oedipa is directly on the cusp of discovering the truth creates a huge sense of unknowing and uncertainty that the definition of mystery that I found directly talks about. Overall, I definitely think that this story qualifies as a mystery because of its lack of explanation and clarifications.
I agree with you, because the story itself is a mystery--the only thing that is different from other mystery novels it that the mystery is never solved. Do you think maybe Pynchon did this knowingly, maybe as a sort of satirical commentary on the mystery genre?
ReplyDeleteNice use of the Oxford English Dictionary. Also, glad I'm not the only one who got confused as to what exactly she was looking for throughout the novel. I mean, I really don't know what the purpose behind of all this searching is, but Oedipa seems so determined so it's fine. I hope she eventually figures out the meaning behind Tristero and is satisfied. Reading YK's comment above, I had not at all thought of the book as being satirical commentary on the mystery genre but that totally works and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Pynchon intended.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to see that another person had trouble following the chain of events. Although closer reading would have been a remedy for this I think it was possible to gather enough to make relevant arguments. I think there are satirical elements to the poem that could be seen as Pynchon purposely making things difficult to understand. He did this to make a point that was so difficult to understand, I still don't understand it.
ReplyDelete