Lot 49 and The Mind of Watts

The Crying of Lot 49 and “Journey into the Mind of Watts” are similar in that, in both, Pynchon writes with a considerable focus on the human psyche, and both works also present a similarly negative view of his contemporary society, and yet, I believe that neither provides an effective argument.

First, The Crying of Lot 49 is basically a trip through the mind of his fictional character Oedipa, while, as the title states, “Journey into the Mind of Watts” is told from the collective perspective of the residents of Watts. Clearly, Pynchon has a fascination with human psychology, and this interest is reflected in his writing as both of these pieces are very subjective. Pynchon tries to place the audience into the minds of his subjects, trying to create feelings of empathy and understanding. For example, when Oedipa sees the Bordando el Manto Terrestre, Pynchon proceeds to describe every thought and feeling that the painting evokes in her. In a fictional work like Lot 49, such a subjective viewpoint is common. However, Pynchon uses the same technique in “Journey”, when he makes statements such as “Feelings range from a reflexive, angry, driving need to hit back somehow…” and “A Watts kid knows more of what goes on inside white heads than possibly whites do themselves”. No matter how much research or how many interviews Pynchon put into this article, he can never truly know what “A Watts kid” really knows; that would just be impossible. Yet, Pynchon still tries, most likely to compel the audience to empathize with his subjects

Speaking of his subjects, both Lot 49 and “Journey” present a horribly negative view of society. Obviously Pynchon didn’t have great faith in the leaders of his time, because both of these works paint the world as a place of tyrannical control coupled with ignorant bliss for the upper class and inescapable anguish for the lower class. Pynchon basically denies any existence of a middle class in “Journey”. He classifies nearly everyone as either white, and therefore free and happy, or black, and therefore impoverished and destitute. In Lot 49, the distinctions are not based entirely on location and wealth, and are therefore less clear for some characters. However, Oedipa clearly fits in with the “enslaved” category. Her reaction to the Bordando el Manto Terrestre shows that she feels trapped, unable to escape from her sadness. She describes how everything that she hopes to use for escape is all just part of the tapestry, and therefore, she will be forever trapped in the tower.

Although both of these works obviously convey Pynchon’s belief that society is extremely flawed and needs correction, neither provides an effective solution, and therefore, I don’t think either provides an effective argument. I believe that in order for an argument to be really effective, it needs to propose some sort of change. Anyone can criticize, and Pynchon is an excellent critic, but he never proposes any solutions to the problems that he raises, and in fact, both of these works practically state that a solution will never exist. As Lot 49 progresses, it continually reveals more societal flaws until it suddenly ends, without providing any sort of suggestions for improvement. “Journey” also deals with corruption in society, specifically concerning race and poverty, yet this too only criticizes society's current state, and never provides any sort of solution. In fact, when he discusses some possible solutions proposed by others such as E.Y.O.A., he basically states that the black residents of Watts will never trust the white people and therefore, any efforts to fix the situation would be fruitless as embodied by "...there is little reason to believe that now will be any different, any better than last time." The only argument I can draw out of these two works is that society is hopeless, and I cannot see how that would be effective at causing anything except for a widespread feeling of depression.