Pynchon is a Genius - Tamir Kalifa

Rhetorically, Pynchon’s fiction and non-fiction writing differ because unlike in The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon establishes a frightening reality in describing a very serious and relevant issue. Pynchon does not immediately want to play with his audience in writing about race riots. He first wants people to see that it is a problem and subsequently sends his audience into discomfort through the reality of their ignorance. He paints the conflict in black and white because so much of it stems from white individuals’ naivety and apathy. The article is laced with biting criticism that exposes ignorance and hypocrisy through anecdotes and clever rhetoric. Pynchon’s first example is one of the LAPD’s abuse of power and the hypocritical prejudice of a justice system that exists to protect and serve the people, not to protect and serve “white” people. He begins the article with a microcosm of the larger conflict describing a murdered “negro” at the hands of a “Caucasian,” a carefully chosen rhetorical distinction, and a justice system that lets the white man win.

Pynchon clearly knows his audience; predominantly white readers of the New York Times with enough time in their day to spend it perusing through black and white pages over coffee. Much of his article contains sharp criticisms of the white individuals who observe but ignore. He speaks directly to them at times when transitioning from a third 3^rd person subjective point of view to the 2^nd person to combat the white man’s lack of concern. “A kid could come along in his bare feet and step on this glass--not that you'd ever know. These kids are so tough you can pull slivers of it out of them and never get a whimper.” Pynchon forces his reader to uncomfortably juxtapose their own lifestyle with one of the streets to make sure they know the differences in lifestyle. He makes his audience feel privileged in knowing they will never have to pull shards of broken glass out of their children’s feet; a casualty of the racial divide that has been cemented by hypocrites and bigots. He uses the same technique later in the essay when launching his readers into the perspective of the black man at the hands of “the Man” with a gun. “You must anticipate always how the talk is going to go. It’s something you pick up quite young…” Pynchon suggests that life is subservience for young African American males and despite the carnal need to survive and fight, they acquiesce. If they do not abide, they run the risk of following the same path as Mr. Leonard Deadwyler.

He also draws an additional distinction between black and white by comparing the white concern “…with various forms of systematized folly…” to black “…realities like disease, like failure, violence and death.” In comparing the two, he mentions that the whites have chosen to, “—and can afford—to ignore.” This abrupt interjection through dashes represents a very significant issue that plagues the conflict nation-wide: the wealth gap. Whites can afford to ignore ““…realities like disease, like failure, violence and death” because they have access to health care, high paying professions, they do not live in neighborhoods where gangs battle over shattered windows for territory and drug money. They live behind the archetypical image of the time: a white picket fence.

In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon’s writing is playful as he spins the reader through an elaborate tapestry of logic and coincidence that culminates in confusion on the part of Oedipa Maas and the reader. He is ubiquitously tangential; however, there is a clear distinction in his fictional and non-fiction tangents. One reflects the abstract thought process which makes as little sense as the reality he consciously avoids whereas the other is relevant and provides the moment with a context not otherwise apparent. It elaborates on truths observed, often with a sense of satirical humor. Pynchon’s taste for irony is also evident when he mentions “Preachers in the community are urging calm –or, as other are putting it: ‘Make any big trouble, baby…’’’ This represents the subjective perceptions on both sides and the inability for whites to sympathize or understand the black perspective.

Pynchon’s ability of infiltrating the readers mind allows him to construct a psychological argument by allowing the reader to see it from their own eyes, not Pynchon’s. Because The Crying of Lot 49 is subjective to the perceptions of Oedipa Maas, the reader subconsciously falls into her own shoes and draws conclusions based on her own actions and what she sees. Similarly, in “A Journey into the Mind of Watts,” Pynchon manages to thrust the reader into the story, rather than being an observer. In consistently using the second person, he allows the reader to conjure what he wants them to see by painting images they are all too familiar with.

In terms of argument, his essay is more effective because his ultimate goal would be for people to act; at the very least to be me more self aware. The Crying of Lot 49 is so cryptic its often difficult to decipher at times. The essay however is for more straightforward although the rhetorical techniques and objectives are very similar.

As for the painting, The Bordando el Manto Terrestre, serves as a visual metaphor to Oedipia’s feelings of claustrophobia and uncertainty. As a domesticated product of the 1950s consumer-mania, she finds herself trapped and at a loss for the existence of what is outside the walls of her house where she sits and lives a life which she cannot even see. This passage presents one of Oedpia’s primary dilemmas: “escape.” The helplessness she felt at the frame of the painting suggests that in allowing herself to plummet head first through the rabbit hole of her perceived mystery, she had nothing to lose.

I know I wrote a lot on the second part of the prompt but that essay was so interesting and uncomfortably relevant that I couldn’t resist.