THE CRYING OF LOT 49, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READER AND THE CHARACTERS

For as long as I could read comprehensively, I have always believed that great writing centered around well written stories that would both provide a certain measure of unaffected pleasure, as well as challenge the readers perception of the world at large; both within and outside of the sphere of its prose.  Thomas Pynchons' The Crying of Lot 49 encompasses both of those requirements; by enfolding his readers, through a variety of means, within the intricate workings of his narrative. It centers around would be heroine Oedipa Maas, a practical but somewhat restless woman, who's life is turned upside down when she discovers that she has been made executor of the estate of old flame and entrepreneur Pierce Inverarity.  When she is imposed upon to travel to the fictional city of San Narcisco, where Inverarity is said to have numerous real estate holdings, in order to carry out her task, Oedipa stumbles upon a muted post horn; the first of many clues leading her deep into the impenetrable conspiracy surrounding Trystero, an underground postal system shrouded in mystery and intrigue; opening her eyes to an alternative way of life.  This post modern work of literature infuses dark humor and irony instigating a metamorphosis of intellectually challenging material; subsequently luring us, his readers who have unknowingly become a part of the conspiracy, into the methodical chaos of The Crying of Lot 49.
	
Well known for incorporating the basic ideas of philosophy and physics into all of his writings, Pynchon states that the "measure of the world is its entropy" (The Grim Phoenix, pg.2); an assertion that extends into the worlds he has created within the covers of his books.  The structure of observation that Pynchon has constructed for the viewing of his creation has two distinct levels focused on those of his characters, particularly Oedipa Maas, who's world is restricted to the confines of the composition and also that of the reader who stands on the outside looking in; but who is also affected by (his) relationship to that world on the other side of the glass.  Both the reader and the characters develop similar problems in dealing with the chaos around them.  Like Pynchons' reader's, Oedipa is forced to either work toward interpreting the trail of seemingly indecipherable clues being tossed in her wake or forgo it all and walk away in bewilderment.  Like the reader by deciding to go on, however aimlessly, she is forcibly drawn out of the complacency of her own existence; into a chaotic system of intrigue that reaches far beyond her normal scope of understanding.  In the same turn, like Oedipa the reader's role is also based on interpreting numerous symbols and metaphorical clues as a means of stumbling upon a legible conclusion that will stop the madness.   Each of them arriving at a different conclusion or none at all solely depended upon how far the use of our perceptions will allow us to go.  Unfortunately both Oedipa and the reader (myself included) are overwhelmed by the myriad of inconsistencies and masked innuendo saturating this book from cover to cover. Unable to sufficiently distinguish between what is real and relevant and what is unreal and irrelevant, both are left feeling disconcerted and paranoid; fearful that nothing they've ever perceived to be true, is...  
	
Paranoia is the common bond that now unites Oedipa and the reader; but it isn't paranoia as described in the Webster's dictionary, instead it is an aberration of their individual views which have been shifted and enhanced forcing them to see the world beyond that of their front porch; where before they were able to exist comfortably within the confines of the world of their own making, complacent in their narrow view of societal norms and governmental dealings, they are now forced to see the potential of corruption and conspiracy in every aspect of their lives.  The turning point in the book occurs when Oedipa begins to see the post horn everywhere she goes.  Is it all in her mind, and she has duped herself into believing that there is a plot orchestrated by Trystero, or is there really an underground society involving this statewide partisanship.  Has she stumbled upon a paradox?
	
elving deeper and deeper into Trystero's background and its link to Inveraritie's estate Oedipa began to realize that only one of four explanations could apply: "1.either she has indeed stumbled onto a secret organization having objective, historical existence; 2. Or she is hallucinating it by projecting a pattern onto various signs only randomly associated; 3.or she is the victim of a hoax; and 4. Or she is hallucinating such a hoax..." (Paranoia, pg.4) Whichever the case may be in the end Oedipa is left increasingly more paranoid and disillusioned as ever as the novel advances toward its end.  
	
As stated earlier Pynchon uses a variety of means to draw the reader in; the use of detail is his most powerful lure. An example of this is found in the ingenious way he intertwines fact with fiction. The most notable instance occurs in Pynchons creation of the Trystero, which also happens to have been at one time a Renaissance postal system; and also the way he uses names to illustrate the relationship between the reader and the characters, such as the name of Oedipa Maas which unites the myth of the Greek riddle solver Oedipus, who went mad trying to solve the riddle of the Delphic prophecies, with Maas which in turn brings to mind Newton's law of gravity. Together these references are indications of Oedipa's role as a would be agent, who's main directive to uncover the truth, is guided by factors outside of her control. In any case the objective of these details is to forge an ineffectual bridge between two roads leading no where. Teasing us with promises of what lies !
on the other side, he lets the reader see more of the horizon but not enough to give us a clear representation of what is waiting in its shadow.  Although we inevitably come to know more of what's going on inside of his world, like the characters we are still confined to knowing only what Pynchon wants us to know.  We are still destined to wander aimlessly, hoping rather desperately, not unlike Oedipa herself, that some type of closure will be imminent.   But, in my opinion, unlike Oedipa, on some level we the reader's are forced to rely on the guidance of a person even more ignorant than ourselves to lead us out of the chaos and into a greater understanding of who, what, when and why all of this is taking place. We, muted by our inability to interact personally with the characters in the book, are bound to a bewildered cicerone who cannot see well enough to point us in the right direction. 
	
Although Oedipa never uncovers' the hidden truth as to whether or not there really exist a statewide conspiracy involving Trystero, in the end she gives herself over to the paranoia innate to never knowing for sure. Like the reader she has come to the conclusion that it would be a better practice to know that she's paranoid and accept it as a part of life in that society, then to deny its existence and live in doubt for the rest of her life.  Choosing to embrace the new self she has unearthed in her journey, like the reader Oedipa is reintroduced to the world at large and with eyes wide open she extends her hand.  On a personal note: although making this statement will probably transport me out of the frying pan and into the fire.  I would like to add that in spite of the fact that this book accomplished its task, which I am supposing was to challenge my perceptions and reawaken some innate sense of self realization within me; to borrow the    words of another, after enduring!
 the torture of Pynchon's text for seven straight days my final assessment leads me to conclude that "The covers of this book are too far apart". (Bierce)