The crying of lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon

The crying of lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon

…You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth

The crying of lot 49 is known to be one of the greatest contemporary works of postmodern literature. Thus, before reading this work, I did not expect much clarity of story line.And I did not get any clarity. Pynchon’s work is not like Kafka’s although both of these authors refuse to give the reader any chance of closure. However, Pynchon goes a step ahead. Unlike Kafka, he does not even try to lead to the reader to a direction to resolve the conflict in the story. Indeed the reader fails even to comprehend the conflict of the story. Kafka at least gives hope of a climax. Pynchon’s world is straight up paranoid. Instead of moving towards clarity the plot moves towards chaos- increasing complexity in terms of history, number of characters, meaning of symbols.

Pynchon will not even give reader a chance to an interesting plot. A young woman’s ex-boyfriend dies and names her the executer of his estate. As she tries to execute her responsibilities she uncovers a possible alternate channel of postal mail besides the government postal mail system. There is no clear objective why this alternate channel might exist or an evil plot of what it can lead to.  Oedipa Maas, the young woman, finds herself in a shapeless cloud of paranoia, drugs, perversity and psychological horror. She eventually comes with four explanations of what is happening to her and prefers to be called mad than believe the other three explanations. She even imagines her ex-boyfriend has played a practical joke on her. Even after suspecting it is a joke, Oedipa does not stop chasing clues and horns. The story ends on a suspense that is never resolved. Even the significance of the suspense is not clear.  In the end the reader is left bereft of any joy of conclusion. In fact, the story has possibly made up historical facts and  faux-science. It seems that Pynchon wanted to portray paranoia in a form that will not be verified by reality.

It might be useful to analyze the story in light of the societal context in which it was written. In 1960's, public paranoia in America had escalated. The assassination of JFK, Vietnam war, civil rights movement, and music embroiled in psychedelic drugs- all this had led to propagation of conspiracy theories- a lot of them partially founded on facts and partially on imagination. Pynchon's novel seems to be an exaggerated of this context. Indeed, Pynchon's private life reflected this distrust and seclusion. Pynchon’s vision of the world is loose- unsatisfactory- full of paranoia and a grotesque yet banal atmosphere. Pynchon’s work too remains reclusive, uncaring of its audience and doesn’t even bother to give meaning to itself or let someone else give it meaning.

While I can appreciate this novella in terms of its significance at the time, I do not think I’m ready to embrace its chaos just yet. I’d like to have at least Kafka’s way of giving hope and then wresting it in the works I read. Or Orwellian way of building characters.

Recommended only for those who embrace chaos or would like to experiment with literature.