Tuesday, September 8, 2009

"The Worst Addiction of them All"

"The Crying of Lot 49" is easily my most difficult read since "A Clockwork Orange." Two chapters into the book Anthony Burgess' writing was all i could think about. I made myself wait a full twenty four hours before reading the rest. The bizarre tale weaved by Pynchon is so complex that it took a serious amount of thought to decipher (or attempt to). I found it difficult and extremely frustrating to determine the cause of Oedipa's hallucinations or visions. My immediate thought was that she was on peyote or mescaline because of the durasion of her hallucinations and Dr. Hilarious' reference to "LSD-25, mescaline, psilocybin (mushrooms), and related drugs." This idea was shot down at the conclusion of chapter five when the good doctor went crazy from the result of nothing but his own fantasies. Oedipa's name also left me with a strange feeling that Pynchon was attempting lead on that she was the Odysseus of the 20th century, a wild analogy at any rate. Was this reference coincidence or something purposely executed? Another problem was simply with Pynchon's sentence structure throughout the novel. On several occasions it seemed as if he would cut a sentence off in the middle and put a period just to test the reader's patience. Perhaps I am just ill-equipped for such writing. As far as the relation to the class i believe there is one main theme: the reference to a fragmented, divided society. Pynchon illustrates the many sects of society and their subcultures in the early to mid sixties throughout the novel much like SE Hinton did with "The Outsiders" in 1967. Hippies, homosexuals, businessmen, scholars, musicians, young people and many others are picked apart in a satiracal manner. This is tied into Vietnam in an utterly obvious reason. The war in Vietnam did just this to the United States. While America has always been a "melting pot" of people, the war in 'Nam put a fault line of distinction between major sects of culture. It brought about the countercuture opposed to the war back home being fed false or altered information (much like Oedipa). It brought about the pro war groups and their beliefs that what was going on halfway around the world was in fact what "God wanted us to do." It brought to attention that of the poor bastards drafted and forced to go fight a war that wasn't ours (much like Oedipa being "drafted" into executing her ex-lover's will). Vietnam divided this country as severely as segregation and the Civil War. While I found this book to be one of the most difficult of reads, I believe i will read it again much like the aforementioned "A Clockwork Orange" just so I may get a better grasp on what is considered one of the best pieces of literature in the past century (TIME Mag.). After reading this novel i realized i have seen "W.A.S.T.E." signs in various places in my travels. I also saw a Tristero symbol on a wall outside a BART station in San Francisco. I also now realize why Radiohead's fan club is called W.A.S.T.E. This book must be worth reading again. The idea brought about at the beginning of chapter five that love is "the worst addicton of them all" is the one idea and emotion in this book that i am completely in touch with. I believe Pynchon to be too far advanced for this age of art and literature.

1 comment:

  1. Noam Chomsky, on the "advanced" nature of postmodern thought and literature:

    "There are lots of things I don't understand — say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. — even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out."

    ReplyDelete