A Closer Look at ‘The Crying of Lot 49′
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Michael Hall
We have all heard conspiracy theories. Some can be very interesting, while others can be quite pathetic. Many of us may listen to them just for enjoyment or amusement. But there are some who spend their entire lives researching certain conspiracies which they believe contain substance. The Crying of Lot 49, by Thomas Pynchon, is a satirical novel of a woman on a quest for the truth behind a grand conspiracy. The story follows the main character on her journey to the mysterious underworld of the secret society. The audience is soon bombarded with an array of allusions and symbolic meanings that add depth, and also confusion, to the reading. In addition, Pynchon uses his work as a platform to explore some of the great philosophical questions. What is truth? Is there any such thing as absolute truth? And what is the true nature of reality?
From time immemorial, philosophers have struggled with these seemingly simple, but complex questions. And in the thousands of years since these questions were first debated, there is still no agreed upon conclusion. But through his work, Pynchon takes the reader on a journey to explore the ideas surrounding the concept of subjective reality, and is able to show exactly how complex the reality of perception can be. The reader is then able to see the vast differences in the objective and subjective worlds. In addition to the numerous allusions and symbolic meanings the novel has, the story also brings up some interesting philosophical questions about the subjective nature of reality.
The excerpt begins with the main character, Oedipa Maas, traveling on the freeway from San Narciso to San Francisco in an attempt to discover the truth about a secret society known as the Trystero. The group is apparently an underground rival to the U.S. Postal Service. She is led from location to location pursuing the group’s symbol—a muted post horn. Along the way, she discovers clues that sometimes aid, but also hinder, her in her quest for discovery. In the process, Oedipa visits numerous places around San Francisco, such as: a homosexual bar, Chinatown, Golden Gate Park, city beach, a laundromat, and an airport. During her trip, she meets many people who seem to be connected in some way to this grand conspiracy. But after talking with them, Oedipa grows to be much more informed, but at the same time confused, as more new questions arise.
Pynchon uses the literary elements of allusion and satire throughout his novel. For example, the name Oedipa Maas is an allusion to the character Oedipus from Sophocles’ play of the same name. In the play, although Oedipus can see, he is blind to the events taking place around him. Only when he actually loses his sight does he see the truth. So by using this name, Pynchon could be trying to relate Oedipus’ blindness to Oedipa’s failure to comprehend what is going on around her. It could also mean that the more she “sees,” the more difficult it becomes for her to obtain the truth. So Pynchon might be trying to say that the only way for her to comprehend the truth is for her to stop seeking it. On the other hand, the allusion to Oedipus is an obvious one—maybe too obvious. An easily gained clue like this would contradict the characteristic radical indeterminacy and instability the rest of Pynchon’s work displays. So it is possible that Pynchon could have included this obvious allusion as bait to lure the reader off track into believing that meaning can be found, and thereby placing the reader in the same scenario as Oedipa. In addition to Oedipa, there are several other characters and places whose names give the work a satirical feeling. One of the other characters is Jesús Arrabal. This is a biblical allusion to Jesus Christ. And it is not just the names that are similar, but the personal characteristics as well. For example, Jesús Arrabal is an anti-government conspirator trying to end the current regime. Jesus Christ was also viewed as anti-government for his views towards the governing Roman Empire. Another example that shows the similarities between the two Jesus’ are the references Arrabal makes to wanting to bring about miracles (Pynchon 10). However, it is not only the characters’ names that are satirical, but also the locations they visit. For example, the city Oedipa is traveling from is San Narciso. This is an obvious distortion of the word narcissist, which means self-loving. Pynchon may be trying to make a statement about the attitudes that he felt were common in American society, which of course is an obsession with self.
The concept of one of postmodern literature’s greatest themes, which is subjective reality, is explored in great depth by Pynchon. First of all, we must understand that there are two different types of reality: objective and subjective. Objective reality is the world that we all, as humans, can collectively agree upon. For example, we all can agree that one plus one equals two, or if it rains, the ground gets wet. This type of reality exists independently from the perception of the observer. However, there exists another more complex reality which is the observer’s perception of the objective world. We can define this as subjective reality. This reality is influenced by the emotion, culture, and prior experiences of the observer. Subjective reality can also be broken down into several subcategories. For example, on one level, everyone has an entirely different subjective reality. But on another level, certain subjective elements can be shared by a number of people, based on similarities between the observers. For example, in the United States, many citizens view the flag as a symbol of freedom; however, citizens in other countries may view the same flag as a symbol of oppression. This is so because the perception of each group has been influenced by factors that are completely foreign to the other group. So, although each person in the world can agree on the world objectively, the subjective reality of each of those people can be entirely different.
The symbolic images prevalent throughout the story are used to show the differences in each individual’s subjective reality. We can most easily see this when examining the main symbolic image in the novel—the muted post horn. Throughout the story, this symbol is viewed by a number of people in an entirely different way. First of all, it is viewed by Oedipa as the secret symbol of the Trystero. When analyzed from this perspective, the horn could be interpreted as being symbolic of the truth, while the mute represents the suppressed voice of that truth. The meaning that could be derived from this interpretation is that we must remember that just because the truth no longer has a voice does not mean that truth does not exist. Therefore, instead of the truth coming to you, you must search for the truth. I believe this interpretation correctly represents Oedipa’s subjective perception of the symbol, with the Trystero group as the horn, the government or postal service as the mute, and Oedipa as the one searching for the truth. However, other individuals in the story do not have the same interpretation of the symbol. The Inamorati Anonymous member, for example, views the muted post horn as a badge of membership in his organization. To him, whoever wears this symbol is a fraternal brother in the crusade against love addiction. Another example is the group of children in the park who view the horn as an essential part of a jump-rope game in which you step “alternately in the loop, the bell, and the mute” (Pynchon 9). To the children, the horn is merely a part of a fun social activity. And yet another example is the youth gang whose members all wear the symbol stitched on their jackets. To them, the horn represents their gang symbolically, and also identifies members of the group. So as we can see, there are numerous views just on the one symbol. This is because each individual or group has a different subjective reality, and therefore perceives the symbol in their own unique way.
Symbols are also used extensively in the novel to examine the similarities in a group’s shared subjective reality. This can most easily be seen when analyzing the W.A.S.T.E bins. In the story, Oedipa views these “W.A.S.T.E.” bins as the postboxes for the underground mailing system operated by the Trystero group, and the people who know the “truth” communicate in this fashion. However, to the rest of the public, these W.A.S.T.E. bins are just waste bins. They are simply a receptacle into which garbage is placed. So how is this alternative perception supported? Well, in addition to her past experiences, this perception is supported by other individuals who have similar perceptions. These individuals collectively, whether known to them or not, form a subculture in which certain elements are common within all their members’ subjective realities. Once established, members of the subculture influence the other members by their own actions. For example, Oedipa undoubtedly witnesses numerous people using these bins as trash receptacles. But on rare occasions, she encounters someone with the same perception, such as the woman and the boy at the airport, or the old man in the stairwell. And each time her perception is confirmed by another member, her perception becomes much more real. And at the same time, Oedipa is also confirming the realities of the other members of the group. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle in which the subjective reality of all the members is substantiated.
While subjective reality can be influenced by many factors, its creation is completely in the observer’s hands. In a sense, we create our own reality. We have the power to determine what will make up our subjective reality. However, the type of reality that we can create is determined by what filters the observer has put in place. These filters are constructed from the beliefs, values, and the attitude of the observer. The filters work by allowing the effect of any action to enter the individual’s reality, but only admitting certain possible causes of that effect. Any possibility that does not coincide with the constructed reality is restricted access. Therefore, any effect viewed by the observer must be rationalized only from the possible causes that the filters admitted. This is because the possibilities that were not granted access do not exist in the individual’s subjective reality. So, for example, Oedipa’s subjective reality revolves around the idea of a secret society. Even though she may think and act like she is trying to find out whether the group exists or not, its existence never truly comes into question. This is because its existence is authenticated in her reality purely by her search for it. Oedipa has constructed filters that restrict any possibility that the group is a fabrication from entering. So when she sees a symbol or discovers information on her search for the truth, it must be connected in someway to the existence of the group. It is not a possibility in her reality that the symbol or information is altogether unrelated from anything pertaining to her quest for meaning. Another example is the Inamorati Anonymous member who finds meaning in his group by only concentrating on the aspects of love that support his belief. He has set up filters that restrict all of the positive attributes of love, while only admitting those aspects that are negative. In this way, he only can perceive relationships negatively. And even if he is confronted with a relationship that appears healthy, he must rationalize this by thinking “It won’t last,” or “she must be up to something.” Yet another example of this is Jesús Arrabal. In the excerpt, Jesús planned an anti-government rally to which nobody showed up. The possibility that no one wanted to come to the rally and that the government is necessary does not exist in his reality. Instead, he must rationalize the effect by thinking something like, “the police found out about it,” or “the people must be afraid.” This is because Jesús only has access to possibilities that support his reality. For another possibility to enter, the observer must alter or remove a filter. This is done by becoming more open-minded and examining the held beliefs, values, and attitude of the observer. Once this is accomplished, the individual will have a much wider view on reality as there are now more options available.
The question of whether clues are real or coincidental is explored by Pynchon in the novel. Some of the clues that Oedipa finds on her journey have already been discussed, such as the muted post horn and the “W.A.S.T.E.” bin. But there are other clues like the terms D.E.A.T.H. and AC-DC that she also discovers on the way. But what exactly is the nature of clues? Are clues still clues when they are not being sought? And do these clues have the same meaning for everyone? One of the statements made in the excerpt is that “each clue that comes is supposed to have its own clarity, its fine chances for permanence. But then she wondered if the gemlike ‘clues’ were only some kind of compensation” (Pynchon 9). So how can a clue be compensation? Well, it can be if the clue only exists in Oedipa’s subjective perception, and not in the collective objective reality. This is because if a clue were to exist objectively, it would be a clue for everyone. But this is clearly not the case. It is only Oedipa who sees these symbols as stepping stones to discovering the larger truth. And because these clues exist only in Oedipa’s perception, their meanings must also exist exclusively in her reality. Therefore, Oedipa creates these clues subjectively as a way of self-justifying the path she has taken, and thus confirming the authenticity of her reality. So the symbols Oedipa finds may have meaning to her, but quite possibly having no meaning to others who encounter the same clue. Even when compared to other members of her subculture, what is a clue for one member might mean nothing at all to another. I believe the message here is that there is a perceived meaning or a perceived non-meaning behind everything in each individual’s subjective reality.
Overall, we have seen how Pynchon made use of allusions, symbols, and philosophy to enhance his work. He used allusions when choosing the names for the characters and the locations to either give the audience help in unraveling the mystery, or give the misleading perception of help. Pynchon also used many symbolic images and terms that added depth to the story. He used this foundation of allusions and symbols as a platform to discuss the philosophical questions of truth and reality. And through his work, Pynchon is able to take the reader on a journey to explore the ideas surrounding the concept of subjective reality, and is also able to show exactly how complex the reality of perception can be. I believe that Pynchon’s message is that we are all Oedipa. We all, in one way or another, have a subjective reality which we support by a limited number of possibilities. So in addition to the numerous allusions and symbolic meanings the novel has, the story also brings up some interesting philosophical questions about the subjective nature of reality.
Pynchon, Thomas. “The Crying of Lot 49.” Postmodern American Fiction: A Norton Anthology. Ed. Paula Geyh et al. New York: Norton, 1998. 4-15.
Leave a reply