Reading 1001 discussion

Discussions for The Crying of Lot 49 - Thomas Pynchon.

Thomas Pynchon is the author of V., THE CRYING OF LOT 49, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW, SLOW LEARNER, a collection of short stories, VINELAND, MASON AND DIXON, AGAINST THE DAY and, most recently, BLEEDING EDGE. He received the National Book Award for GRAVITY'S RAINBOW in 1974.

Born May 1937, 80 y/o American Author. Pynchon is notoriously reclusive; few photographs of him have been published, and rumors about his location and identity have circulated since the 1960s. (Where in the world is Thomas Pynchon?)

Thomas C. Foster, English Professor at the University of Michigan-Flint starts with this novel when discussing late twentieth century novel. He describes it as the greatest quest novel and he states "the real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge."

1. Who is our quester? What about her name, what does that tell us about her?

2. A place to go? A quest has to have a place to go? Where is our quester going?

3. A stated reason to go there. What is the reason for our questors going there?

4. Challenges and trials. Who does she meet, when does she go and what challenges does she take on?

5. What is the real reason to go?

6. What about the stated goal, what happens to it? Why might it have faded? Why did the author leave it unresolved?

7. So how did you experience The Crying of Lot 49?


I might add more questions later, but this is to get us started.

I finished this today but it is the kind of book that probably needs a couple of times through it but then the author tells us to not read too much into it.

More questions.
1. The book is set in the sixties. Is Pynchon's female character an example of negative image of female (housewife attending tupperware party) or is Oedipa a type of female liberation? Is she out of her element in her task or is she equal to the task?

2. This book is full of 60s culture. Which ones can you identify?
How about the Paranoias?

1. The quester is Oedipa Maas. Her names hearkens back to Oedipus the protagonist of Oedipus Rex, the play by Sophocles. In a prophesy, his father is told that he will be killed by his son, so the baby is banished. He is adopted and is told in a prophesy himself that he will kill his father and marry his mother. Which he does. How this relates to the Oedipa of our story I have not worked out.
2. Our quester seems to be going around in circles. She is convinced, by signs she sees all over the place, that there is a conspiracy. But she is simultaneously sure that all these signs are an elaborate hoax.
3. I thought that Oedipa wanted to sort out why she was asked to be an executor of a past boyfriend's estate, but she then began to find a code to a massive conspiracy and she became obsessed with sorting it out.
4. She delves into the meaning of things and their connections to each other and along the way all the people she meets come to some kind of harm.
5. I am not sure that Pynchon really explains a real reason. Oedipa is searching for meaning, but her research does not provide answers.
6.I can't think what Kristel is referring to when she talks about the stated goal and how it has faded.
7. I listened to an Audible version narrated by George Wilson. To begin with I thought, this is fun, it is a satire of American culture but I couldn't quite work out what all the punning names stood for. Then I got cross with the narrator because I didn't like his pronunciation of certain words, and I became more and more puzzled by where the book was going. Some of his descriptions were laugh-out-loud funny, but there was always a certain distance from the characters, at least I did not get caught up in their various demises! I admired his erudition and wish I had found a print version (the Audible one was the only version I could find) so I could re-read sections and check out if what I had heard was for real. In the end I just listened and enjoyed it.
I felt that Oedipa relied on being a young, attractive female to extract information from other characters. I don't think she was particularly competent, but I am not sure that this was especially a product of being thought up in the 60's. There were references to the Beatles. It was funny that the Paranoias were pretending to be British. The 60's were about Cool Britannia. She and her husband also used a psychiatrist, a very 60's U.S. phenomenon. The feeling of a counter-culture being alive and well and possibly menacing was part of the zeitgeist of the 60's. Oh, and, of course, the Tupperware party where there was too much booze in the dessert.

Pip wrote: "1. The quester is Oedipa Maas. Her names hearkens back to Oedipus the protagonist of Oedipus Rex, the play by Sophocles. In a prophesy, his father is told that he will be killed by his son, so the ..."


I think you did get what I was alluding too. Oedipa starts out with the quest of her role as executrix and then loses that object and gets caught up in the conspiracy and then lets go of that as well. There is no resolution.

I also listened to the audio. I didn’t notice any mispronunciation, hmm, maybe I didn’t pay attention.

God... this book is awful for me. I hate satire. And I hate books with so little resolution. The only other book I have hated this much in the last year is Humboldt's Gift!

I have only just started this book. I shouldn’t have read the comments yet. Kelly’s comment in particular. Well, at least it is not a long book.

Gail wrote: "I have only just started this book. I shouldn’t have read the comments yet. Kelly’s comment in particular. Well, at least it is not a long book."

Sorry Gail. I have seen really good reviews so don't worry about my comments. It is just one person's opinion.

I am a third of the way through, and so far I am with you, Kelly.

Kristel, the reader didn't mispronounce words, he just read them in an accent I don't like. One word was patent, I no longer remember any others, so it wasn't important.

1) Oedipal Maas sets out on a quest to understand why she was made co-executor to an estate. Immediately we realize it will be a satire on western civilization and an echo of the great story of Oedipus Rex with his many trials and tribulations. 2) However, she is not a particularly good questor (or co-executor), as she constantly seems to get side tracked and to “demur” from the hard questions. 3) Ultimately she becomes consumed with a perceived conspiracy that is impacting the postal system which is presumably a stand in for modern communication and the commercialization of life. 4) She goes thru many interesting episodes in which she generally speaking loses all the people she knows as they change or are killed or kill themselves. She is not even convinced there is a conspiracy. She may just have lost her mind. 5) The author appears to be a real tease in that he alludes to many delightful puzzles and twists but ultimately Oedipa doesn’t resolve anything and the author doesn’t resolve anything and I was left only feeling just teased. 7) I enjoyed some moments and appreciated some wit but generally speaking I did not think this book was even a good satire or an interesting reflection of the times or a language delight. It was almost like the author was experimenting with me, the reader, and then kind of gave up, pushing the modernist assumption that nothing needed to be resolved.
I can’t say that I enjoyed the book although I have enjoyed other books by him.

The sentence above was “... nothing needed to be resolved”. Goodreads did an interesting edit...even un-resolving the comments on the book.

I’m going to start with the final question, how did you experience this book.

I hated it. I gave it 2 stars but only because a few things made me laugh but otherwise I found it a miserable experience to read. I found most of it to be nonsensical although I did pick up on some pieces and I get that it was a satire of 1960s America but beyond that, I didn’t understand the point.

Pip’s responses actually helped me understand some of it a bit better (and for that I’m thankful). It took me 10-12 days to read this short novella bc every time I tried to read it, I fell asleep. Much of the humor i found infantile (the radio show acronym, KCUF), the word play, etc. plus I found the main female character to be very annoying and as someone mentioned above using sex/sexuality to achieve goals which I found rather sad. The first sexual relationship really bothered me, she kept saying “no” and he kept insisting. Was it supposed to be funny that the drunker she got, the more willing she became to have sex with him? That did not sit well with me.

Anyway, i found the book tedious and rather pointless.

This book made little sense to me, so it is hard to answer these questions.

1. Who is our quester? What about her name, what does that tell us about her?

Oedipa Maas. Her name ties into the book Oedipus Rex with its character of the same name. I have never read Oedipus Rex, so it is hard for me to make the comparisons. I did see some similarities to the plot of The Odyssey.

2. A place to go? A quest has to have a place to go? Where is our quester going?

I'm not sure she really even knows where she is going. From a figurative sense, I think she is trying to find meaning and purpose in her life.

3. A stated reason to go there. What is the reason for our questors going there?

She has been named as the executor on a former lover's will. She sets out to fulfill her obligation and discovers a postal conspiracy along the way.

4. Challenges and trials. Who does she meet, when does she go and what challenges does she take on?

She meets a bunch of people (mainly men) who have suffered different misfortunes. One of her biggest challenges is that everything seems to be just out of her reach and she questions whether or not the conspiracy is all in her head.

5. What is the real reason to go?

As I said in question 2, I think she is trying to find meaning in her life. There is a sense of disorder and chaos in the book, as well as alienation. Much of this has to do with the social changes of the time and Oedipa's use of drugs (I think).

6. What about the stated goal, what happens to it? Why might it have faded? Why did the author leave it unresolved?

I don't know why it is unresolved. I found this frustrating. The whole book didn't make a lot of sense to me, to be honest.

7. So how did you experience The Crying of Lot 49?

2.5 stars. Not my thing. I appreciated some of the humor and the quality of writing, but this is not the type of book I enjoy reading. I also found some of the humor and puns to be misleading. I can see how others might consider it a brilliant and entertaining book, though. Overall, it made me feel as though I was repeatedly not comprehending things that should have been obvious for the reader to understand.

Jen wrote: "I’m going to start with the final question, how did you experience this book.

I hated it. I gave it 2 stars but only because a few things made me laugh but otherwise I found it a miserable experie..."

I kept hoping her portrayal and the sex parts were because it was written in the 60’s and by a man...so I kept hoping all the sex pressure and oh well attitude on her part, was part of the free love, drinking and drugs vibe of that time period.

Plus it probably helped that from the beginning when we got their corny names and he worked at a radio station I started picturing them as the stars of WKRP with her as a bubbly bimbo type Loni Anderson and Mucho Mass (Mr Many a lot) as a slick swarmy disk jockey...Johnny Fever I believe it was....although by the end he might have been more Les Nessman.

So yea, now I realized I set the whole book in my head more in the late 60’s or 70’s because of those intro scenes with the sex, closet sex so the kids wouldn’t sneak in, etc.

1. Who is our quester? What about her name, what does that tell us about her?
Many of the names in this one had references to other things.. but our quester was Oedipa, which has illusions back to the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex. My guess...his parents believed a prophecy about him, and their reactions to that made it a fulfilled prophecy. If they had ignored it, it would have never come to pass. So I’m thinking it alludes to the fact that it is all a set-up, and she can only be driven crazy because she believes and follows it down the rabbit hole so to speak, if she had ignored it, it wouldn’t have touched her.

2. A place to go? A quest has to have a place to go? Where is our quester going?
She’s trying to get rid of the responsibility her ex-lover stuck her with, but by making her executor of his will, he is able to pull her back into his spear of influence basically against her will. Otherwise to a city full of narcissists, if we’re to take any clue from its name. Or full of Narcotics, possibly both?

3. A stated reason to go there. What is the reason for our questors going there?
To execute the will.

4. Challenges and trials. Who does she meet, when does she go and what challenges does she take on?
She meet a lot of strange characters and all of them give her just a tiny tidbit to lead her further down a conspiracy rabbit hole. She takes on the challenge of unraveling the conspiracy or disproving it along the way.

5. What is the real reason to go?
Again, originally, to execute the will

6. What about the stated goal, what happens to it? Why might it have faded? Why did the author leave it unresolved?
The states goal is fulfilled, the will is executed by the end. But by the end she could care less about that, she cares more for the mystery...it’s unresolved because whether real or a fake it can’t be resolved, and she always have doubts, and she’ll be tied to her ex forever now. I think he wanted it that way, as a way to be in her head forever, this little nagging voice.

7. So how did you experience The Crying of Lot 49?
Interesting, but I’m not a fan. I pushed through and read the bulk of it in one day (half in print and half on audio, speeded up mind you which I rarely ever do), just to get to the end and see where this twisted tale was going. Personally I’m going with The Da Vinci code, but with a less scholarly conspiracy tracker, whose cast looked like 60-70’s typecast rejects, most of them heavily drunk or drugged out of their mind seeing hallucinations everywhere. Maybe Dr Hilarious and Mucho Mass were slipping LSD in everybody’s drinks.

Melissa and Gail did a very nice job of answering the various questions. A few other thoughts.

In terms of her name, I think Oedipus also was on a quest to unravel a mystery (in which he was intimately involved), and in that way there is a parallel to Oedipa's attempt to do the same.

I think it would be hard to think of a less compelling conspiracy than Pynchon managed to come up with. An underground postal system. It's hard for me to think of a topic that could be more of a snooze. Although he did have a nice phallic looking symbol to represent it. In fact, there seemed to be an undertone of juvenile sexual humor throughout . . .none of which tickled my personal funny bone.

Ultimately, Oedipa ends up questioning whether she's been "set up" by her ex and whether the whole boring conspiracy she's been doggedly tracking down could have been purposefully staged by Pierce Inverarity (last name means untruth, so is he leading Oedipa to pierce the untruth of the conspiracy . . .who the heck really knows?). The reader really has no insight into Inverarity's motivations, so it's hard to take a guess as to what is going on. Personally, I cared so little about the story and characters that I actually wasn't that disappointed by the lack of resolution . . .just relieved it was over. The (fake) history of the Tristero may have been one of the most boring passages I've ever read in a novel. Although chapter 3's play description was also exceedingly dull.

The only chuckle I really got out of the whole book was the fact that most of it took place in San Narcisco which sounds like the perfect setting for a book that cares so little for its readers.

One question I had was did anyone else recognize how much David Wallace Foster was clearly influenced by this author? I've read both Infinite Jest and The Pale King and see a LOT of parallels, from the naming, the use of acronyms, the unresolved ending, the odd and convoluted mystery, etc. Honestly, I don't like his writing much either . . .but I was able to finish two very long books by him, but I don't think there's any chance of me reading another Pynchon. He clearly lifts certain aspects from Pynchon, but I also felt like he elevated them into something more worthwhile and more intriguing.

My review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Anita wrote: "Melissa and Gail did a very nice job of answering the various questions. A few other thoughts.

In terms of her name, I think Oedipus also was on a quest to unravel a mystery (in which he was intim..."

I discussed this on my response to your review but will add here. I LOVED Infinite Jest. I think the post-modern approach and language plays, etc did remind me a little of Infinite Jest but Wallace (for me) was a master at capturing the inner lives and experience of lots of different types of people and his characterization was great. I didn't feel that way about this book. I also found Pynchon's humor/word plays a bit juvenile whereas Wallace's humor was more my style. I didn't fully understand IJ but I loved trying to piece it all together. I did not love anything about this book.

Anita wrote: "Melissa and Gail did a very nice job of answering the various questions. A few other thoughts.

In terms of her name, I think Oedipus also was on a quest to unravel a mystery (in which he was intim..."

Good points Anita and JenP. I also thought that Pynchon was copying James Joyce’s Ulysses. With his quest through labyrinths in the dark.

Why did the editors of 1001 Books put so many Pynchon’s on the list? Has anyone read his other works. Are they better? Mason & Dixon is a biographical but yet “re-imagined”.

I have not been active in this group due to work and other commitments. Finally had time to rejoin and picked up this book. Boy did I loath it. On the surface it has all the components that I enjoy - there is a quest with a mystery, the language is not difficult and at times very funny, and there is an underlying story to it. But all together it just did not work for me at all. It was very dull, the fact that there was no resolution at the end did not surprise or upset me - I cared this little about it. Hopefully next BOTM will be better :)
I am also wondering if Pynchon is just not for me.....

Ann wrote: "I have not been active in this group due to work and other commitments. Finally had time to rejoin and picked up this book. Boy did I loath it. On the surface it has all the components that I enjoy..."

Welcome back Ann!

I think everyone else has quite nicely answered the questions so all I can really add is my own opinion.

On paper this sounds like a really good book however the execution (haha) lets it down, I found myself puzzled and bored which is not a good combination.

I gave this a low 3 stars as I did enjoy the play on words especially the character names, however despite its short length I was desperate to get this over with.

If anyone needs a copy of this I am happy to send mine on just PM me :)

So, I finished this today after starting yesterday. I didn't hate it. I actually kind of liked it--or at least I see potential in it, it would be fun with a live book group. I enjoyed his descriptions of Berkeley (I took classes in Wheeler Hall!) and his random SoCal suburb. I kept forgetting that this book is older than me. Barely, but still.

I liked the wordplay, but I didn't understand all of it. I was wondering if some of it was dated? I kept forgetting that he was describing Yoyodine as a company 50 YEARS AGO. Was this satire that was flying over my head? Is Yoyodine supposed to be an actual company? Is San Narciso supposed to be a certain place? (Is it meant to be Irvine????)

I enjoyed the conspiracy ideas, but I HATE the lack of resolution. That is one of my literary pet peeves. So....grrrrr. I can't truly like the book because there is no resolution.

I finished the book tonight, and it seems like everyone has thoroughly answered the discussion questions above. I don’t have anything insightful to add, other than my impressions. For the first chapter I was hanging in there and knew what was going on. I was interested in Oedipa’s quest and found the book amusing and well-written. Somewhere in the middle I got completely lost when things got confusing. I’m still not entirely sure what I read, and like others have said, I am not a fan of the way the book ended. A little resolution would have been great. At least it was a short book!

Hey I liked it! Like Dree I whipped through it pretty quickly after one or two false starts. It reminded me of Dick’s Ubik one of my favorites from my college days. By the end of the novella I was streaming some Dead and contemplating taking up philately.

I read "The Crying " two years ago. Wish I had been in a group read with it then, but not sure with this one that it helps a lot, it's so crazy. I listened to the audiobook. I did like it to some degree, maybe helped that I grew up in the 60s, and noted it at 3.5 stars for me. I probably won't read any more Pynchon though, esp not the 776 page "Gravity's Rainbow".

Here are some additional questions; perhaps this will help some to find more enjoyment in the book. From Reading Book Guide.

1. Oedipa's search for The Tristero takes her through several labyrinths--the search itself, several buildings, night-time San Francisco, the Los Angeles freeway system. To what extent are we aware of the layout and purpose of each labyrinth? Is Oedipa's progress through each determined by her own choices? What does she discover in each?

2. How may we interpret Oedipa's endeavors as an attempt to impose order on a chaotic universe? What potential world-ordering systems and ideologies, including Inverarity's estate, must she contend with in the course of her quest? What potential systems and ideologies would she contend with today?

3. What does Oedipa learn about The Tristero through her own observations, and what through her own and others' conjecture? What conclusions does she draw? What do you think The Tristero represents? What are the implications of the acronym, W.A.S.T.E.?

4. Why does Pynchon leave Oedipa's quest unresolved? What more might she learn at the crying of lot 49?

5. What does Pierce Inverarity--with all his voices and all his possessions (while alive)--come to represent?

6.What societal outcasts, derelicts, and renegades appear in the novel, and to what purpose? What are the conditions of their lives? Do you think Pynchon would present the same examples in the same way today?

7. How are the Nefastis Machine and what it represents related to the "two distinct kinds" of entropy--the entropy posited by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the inevitable deterioration of any system to a state of disorder and zero energy or meaning) and that of information systems (a tendency to discard excess meanings and approach certainty and predictability)? How, in turn, are the two kinds of entropy related to Oedipa's search?

8. What conclusions can we draw from Pynchon's exploration of the various technologies in American culture--television, radio, the telephone, electronics, the automobile, and others? What impact do these technologies have on the lives of Oedipa and others?

9. Pynchon writes that "Oedipa had believed, long before leaving Kinneret, in some principle of the sea as redemption for Southern California." Does she maintain that belief? Does she find other principles or sources of belief in redemption? What religious images and concepts does Pynchon present, and to what purpose?

10.After speaking with Driblette's mother and with the neo-fascist ""Winner" Tremaine, the troubled Oedipa thinks, "This is America, you live in it, you let it happen." What are the implications of that thought?

I finished it yesterday. It took me longer than I expected for such a short book. After the first chapter I didn't like it at all, but it did kind of grow on me.

The first set of questions have been answered, so I'll just add, for no. 5, that I think the real reason for going is that she wants to get away. Learning about the law so she can execute the will is an excuse that she eagerly grasps. There's a part in the beginning that describes how she had been, metaphorically speaking, a Rapunzel and she had wanted Inverarity to rescue her. But instead it was like he had put himself in the tower with her. All he had was money to spend on her, and she realized that even though they had gone to Mexico, she had taken the tower of her own making with her. So in desperation she had married a radio DJ. Because why not. She has no way to get rid of her tower. I think her real reason for going on this quest is to try, yet again, to free herself from her tower. But once again she does it through a man, so it's bound to fail, isn't it?

The second set of questions looks quite hard, but I'll give it a go!

1. I think people who are familiar with San Fransisco and the LA freeway system will have a better idea of the layout of the labyrinth. Me, I have no clue. I also don't really know much about Southern California in the early 1960s, so I probably missed a lot of references. Oedipa's progress is only partly determined by her own choices. She is easily led, and in SF she decides to just drift. Towards the end her choice becomes inaction. To not pursue, even though she cannot stop thinking about it. She lets the tower, the magic of external forces, control her.

2. The whole book seems to be, at least partially, about our need for symbols and connections. I find it amusing that in her quest to make sense of the world she keeps running into anarchist groups. I'm not sure what else to say. Counterculture today certainly looks different from the 60s

(I need to give up the the computer now for my kid's homework project. I'll edit the post later with the rest of the questions.)

Making a second post instead of editing.

3. In the beginning Tristero seems to represent counterculture and revolution. But then it turns out Tristero is just another noble who fights because he feels cheated out of his inheritance. There's splinter groups and some seem more reactionary and others just want to cause chaos. I guess they remind me of socialist and communist movements, as well as anarchists. It's hard to say what the Tristero Oedipa is up against has become. And I'm honestly not sure what conclusions, if any, Oedipa draws.

I'm glad we were told what W.A.S.T.E. stands for! I was really wondering about that. It's odd, in a sense it seems more religious than political all of a sudden. It's like they're awaiting the second coming of a saviour.

4. I was a bit annoyed at the ending. But I guess Pynchon is telling the reader to draw their own conclusions. Will the mystery bidder turn out to be just an eccentric collector? Will it be the current leader of Tristero? I'm half inclined to believe it will be Inverarity himself (and that he might be the head of Tristero). We're never told what he died from. It might all be a hoax. I had to google The Shadow and Lamont Cranston, and the fact that Inverarity used that as his last message to Oedipa suggests that nothing and no one is what it seems.

5. Inverarity seems like a cross between Elon Musk and... I don't know. He puts on a mask of pure Capitalism, and he appears to own and control everything. Which is why I think he might be Tristero. But I'm not quite sure what Tristero has become!

6. Again, I don't know enough about California and the 60s to fully understand what Pynchon's take is on what groups. They all seem to be left-wing? Except for the guy with the nazi shop. And he could just be the same today, really. But for the various counter cultures I'm guessing maybe today he would use Black Lives Matter, or the 99%. Various feminist movements. The old guy wanting to contact his ex-wife would be a veteran from any of the many wars fought since the 60s. The guy from the association that help people who have fallen in love, I guess could easily be converted into Asexuals Anonymous? I don't know how close to reality the satire ran here.

7-10 I need to think about.

Leni, your comment about knowing SF/LA freeways etc rings true. His descriptions of actual places were some of my favorite parts of the book. I grew up in San Jose (lived there 18 years), spent 4 years at Cal for college (Berkeley, the places mentioned on campus are all real and geographically correct), I and have lived in LA for 17 years now. (I have also lived in Wisconsin and Arizona.)

I am still l among toward San Narciso being heavily based on Irvine and The Irvine Company, but there might be another place it could be.

One more thing—Oedipa’s nonchalance about driving back to the Bay Area surprised me. That’s a 6-8 hour drive and is not fun. Pretty sure it wasn’t fun in the 60s either. I know it wasn’t in the 70s. At least cars have ac now!

Dree wrote: "So, I finished this today after starting yesterday. I didn't hate it. I actually kind of liked it--or at least I see potential in it, it would be fun with a live book group. I enjoyed his descripti..."

Pynchon's worked as a technical writer for Boeing. He left when he began to write full-time (and teach).

I liked Pynchon's writing. As far as what's going on, who knows. Ms. Maas began a quest, then she began to wonder if what she was looking for existed, or if she was set up. Then, she kept looking, probably as much out of habit as yearning. W.A.S.T.E. was among the silly buy clever ways Pynchon hinted at the vast network of structures underlying society. If there are any, of course.

From Twenty-five Books That Shaped America: How White Whales, Green Lights, and Restless Spirits Forged Our National Identity by Thomas C. Foster, more on The Crying of Lot 49 as March ends.

Foster states that this book is full of crazy, nonsensical pop culture. That in Pynchon’s books every name means something.

Pierce Inverarity’s name is a combination of a famous stamp collector and a misprinted stamp with image reverse, an inverse rarity.

Thorn and Taxis was a real postal monopoly during the Roman Empire.

W.A.S.T.E with receptacles that look like garbage cans and carriers that look like homeless men that later might be called dumpster divers.

Foster insists that this book has a plot but to try to provide a synopsis would end up as long as the book. Here is his synopsis, “ Oedipa Maas, who has not been able to admit to herself that her marriage is a failure, finds that she is named as a coexecutor of her ex lovers will.

San Narcisso (he states insert your own joke about Southern California self-absorption).
Has an affair with her coexecutor and runs into a variety of paranoid characters and mayhem.
Structure: classic detective novel, amateur-sleuth. She meets the usual suspects. They resist giving her information, they resist or give her stuff that does not help her. She becomes mired in contradictory and possibly dangerous information. The actual mystery concerns the mail service. Pony Express. Etc. “In the California of the novel, the W.A.S.T.E. System is used by the dispossessed of the state—failing organizations, fringe-group theorists, budding insurrectionists, junkies and winos and the poor.
Oedipa gets overwhelmed with too much information.

It is existential circa California 1964
1. Tupperware
2. Cigarette maker that wants to up the ante with bone charcoal. (Human)
3. Sick Dick and the Volkswagens who hit is “I want to kiss your feet” Beetles
4, youth culture and worship of adolescence
5. Conspiracy, everyone is out to get you
6. Peter Pinguid Society (John Birch)
7. Yoyodyne
8. Inamorata Anonymous (before the proliferation of organizations with the second letter of the acronym starting with A.

While Oedipa never solves the mystery of postal system, her journey results in her seeing what she never saw before; the homeless, the destitute, hungry children, disenfranchised, immigrants. (The opposite of her time at the Tupperware party).

Quest: Oedipa finds by leaving her other self behind, (the trappings of civilization) she is able have real understanding and growth as is evident when she comforts the dying sailor, something she could not have done before. Oedipa is finally able to see the other America.

The themes are want, hunger, madness, loneliness.

Wow, thanks Kristel! That was useful, and I'm making note of that book!

1. OedipaMaas is the quester. When I read her name the first thing that popped into my head was Oedipus Rex. He killed his father and married his mother. I'm not sure what her name tells us. Is she the female version of Oedipus Rex? Will she kill her mother and marry her father? With Pynchon you never know, maybe.

2. At first Oedipa is going to San Narciso to find out why she was made an excutor of Inverarity's will. Then she is all over the place.

3. She starts out wanting to find out why she was made co-excutor of the will, but then she starts to obsess about the muted post horn, trystero and bones.

4. She meets a whole cast of strange characters. She meets Metzger, the co-excutor, and they have an affair. She meets the band, The Paranoias, Bortz the professor, Genghis Cohen the stamp expert, Driblette the director and other strange characters. She appears to be following clues about the muted post horn and trystero, but she really doesn't do much, except wonder from place to place.

5. I have no idea.

6. She just drops everything. She doesn't learn anything. Nothing gets resolved.

7. It wasn't as bad as Gravity's Rainbow, probably because it's short. Pynchon starts things and doesn't resolve them. This drives me crazy. Characters appear for one scene and are never seen again. His books seem like a lot of random thoughts thrown together that don't make sense. I'm not a fan.

I don't think she is a negative image or a female liberator. She is too unfocused to represent anything. She really doesn't have an actual task, but I don't think she could handle one if she did.

The drugs and the band jump out as 60's culture to me. The only things I know about the 60's come from reading and watching t.v.

2.5 stars
At least it's short. This story was a hot mess. I think Pynchon could be a good writer if he could form coherent thoughts. It's his plot or lack of that I dislike. He seems to take random ideas and throw them together. Thoughts are left half finished. Characters appear and disappear and you never know what happens to them. Oedipa just drifts from one thing to another. Was there an actual conspiracy or was it just her imagination. Nothing gets resolved. Does Oedipa even learn anything?

I hope it's not too late to post my thoughts on the book here. I finally finished it last night and had to think about it today to let it absorb a little bit before posting my opinion.

At first, I thoroughly hated it. I hated the sex scene at the hotel. I hated the main character. But I pushed through it.

At the end of the book, I only hated it a little. I don't know if it was the writing style or the lack of any sense or resolution (or all of the above), but I couldn't understand any of it. I tried thinking of some answers to the questions posed here, and many of the readers definitely understood the book better than I did because I seriously couldn't think of any answers.

The only thing I enjoyed in the story (and why it got 2 stars instead of 1), was the historical aspect and the mystery of the Tristero. Although, I was pretty annoyed at the end because there was no resolution there.

I don't know, fellow readers. I feel like maybe I'm too unenlightened to get this one. *shrugs*

I'm a little late but just finished this book. I did not like it! It became very messy and like other people I did not quite understand what the book was about.