The Crying of Lot 49

Just finished this.

It was... interesting.

I liked the ambiguity and I find it funny that literature professors seem intent on discerning meaning from the names of the characters when it seems pretty apparent that they're mostly jokes.

From what I can tell, the central theme is about the discerning of meaning from a large amount of white noise and creating a context for that meaning and then subsequently questioning whether that meaning is valid.

Definitely wasn't the worst 150 pages I ever read.

>it seems pretty apparent that they're mostly jokes

You shouldn't underestimate the way Pynchon names his characters.

I mean, they're not completely empty but come on. We don't really need to over think what the name "Mucho" Maas means. It's a funny name, and yeah it kind of describes the cluelessness and simplicity of the character.

But that is just an example. Oedipa and Inverarity are much reacher. Sure, Pynchon's works are full of funny names, but they are not just that. Even the name of someone as Mucho shows his character, as you pointed out. That goes beyond its being "mostly jokes".

Particuarly with Pynchon, you should be on your guard when a character's name is introduced, lest you dismiss it as being a joke and lose the intention behind it.

>reacher

Richer****, my bad.

Dr. Hilarius is a reference to Dr. Strangelove, no?

The guy named Di Presso is manically depressed.

The town name is San Narciso (ie Narcissus) and completely owned by Inverarity reflecting his own image and desires.

I mean I think I get a decent amount of them but I never was like "Oh brilliant!" They're just kind of jokes. In order to get the joke you need to get the context, no?

The important thing to understand about this book is that it's all about Maxwell's Demon, which is a real thing. Or, rather, the theory positing its existence as a thought experiment is a serious scientific consideration. Maxwell’s Demon is the brainchild of physicist Clerk Maxwell, and is essentially a hypothetical means of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law stipulates that a thermodynamic reaction shall indefinitely proceed in a way that the entropy – disorder– is continuously increasing, as thermodynamic reactions involve the use of heat which increases molecular spread and kinetic energy, thus increasing the “chaos” of the system. Maxwell’s Demon is a theoretical being that Stanely Koteks describes to Oedipa as a “tiny intelligence” (Pynchon 24). The basis of the experiment, as described by Koteks is that “the Demon could sit in a box … and sort out the fast molecules from the slow ones. Fast molecules have more energy than slow ones. Concentrate enough of them in one place and you have a region of high temperature.” This region of high temperature, then, could be used to drive a steam engine or in the case of Nefastis’s machine, “raise a piston” (Pynchon 27).

Pynchon further complicates the ideal of the Demon in this scene by explaining that entropy was twofold – “One having to do with heat-engines, the other to do with communication…the equation for one had looked very much like the equation for the other” (Pynchon 30). Pynchon thusly links the two “entirely unconnected” (Pynchon 30) and contrasting themes of the novel, the quest for information, and chaos (Trystero and Entropy respectively), at one point: Maxwell's Demon. Oedipa herself remarks that “The word [entropy] bothered him almost as much as ‘Trystero’ bothered Oedipa” (Pynchon 30). Nefastis himself proclaims that “Entropy is a figure of speech, then… a metaphor. It connects the world of thermo-dynamics to the world of information flow” (Pynchon 30).

Nefastis explains that the loss in entropy caused by the demon’s orderly sorting of molecules in the system was “offset by the information the Demon gained about what molecules were where,” (Pynchon 30) – information that the Demon had to relay through a “sensitive” to “keep it all cycling” (Pynchon 30). Ultimately, Oedipa takes the test and fails. She finds that she cannot communicate with the demon, and the piston does not, in actuality, move – “but nothing happened” (Pynchon 30). Her inability to communicate with Maxwell’s Demon, the link between information and energetic entropy, is metaphorically indicative of Oedipa’s larger inability to establish or maintain any semblance of order in her pursuit of information. In her pursuit of meaning, her pursuit of Trystero, she delves deeper into madness and psychedelic discord and ultimately fails to maintain any sense of order. The “entropy of her situation” continuously increases, with maddening instances like the children in the park (Pynchon 39), W.A.S.T.E’s obscure horn symbol appearing more and more frequently throughout the novel (Pynchon 33, 36, 39), and Dr. Hilarius’s (arguably) drug-fueled rampage (Pynchon 38) all occurring towards the later stages of the novel, a long shot from the novel’s reasonably benign beginnings. During her interaction with the Machine, Oedipa remarks that “And there. At the top edge of what she could see: hadn't the right-hand piston moved, a fraction?” (Pynchon 30), Pynchon’s mocking of Oedipa thinking that she can, maybe, have some control of her own personal entropy, when in reality she has no communion with the Demon, Order is thrown further to the wind with the novel’s progression, and ultimately the novel ends with no conclusion, no order, to the mystery of who is behind the crying of Lot 49.

They might be funny, but they are not just jokes to crack you up. Why would Pynchon name them like that? Just because he was a smarty pants and wanted to crack himself up? They are not coincidences. I mean, I know you understood them, it's just that saying that they are "kind of jokes" sounds like you are dismissing them when they are there for a reason other than to sound funny.

Did you just post your term paper complete with APA citations?

Side question, I'm deciding between reading V. next or reading Pale Fire by Nabokov. Any opinions on which to go for? I'm considering just going straight on to Gravity's Rainbow after V but I think I might need a Pynchon break after it.

Agreed.

Don't read the following if you haven't read the book. Or go ahead if you don't care.


And OP, the whole idea of meaning within white noise/chaos is a solid interpretation, but the whole wacky name thing goes along with that. Think of how many people's names you've heard in your life and how many names you've forgotten -- both over time and within thirty seconds of meeting person. That's part of the white noise, the constant bombardment of things that are *supposed* to mean something, but we (most people) can't even remember the signifier(s), nevermind the signified.

Pynchon's crazy names do a few things. We, as readers, are more likely to remember, say, Mike Fallopian, than Bob Johnson. That helps diminish the noise in a very loud book. Also, he is loading these names with meaning so the reader, like Oedipa, can try to dicern meaning where there is (probably) none. He's making meaning out of meaninglessness.

And also, in a less interesting way/alternate thought, we are introduced to these people and their names are filled with substance and we "judge" them right away. I guess this thought could run parallel to the idea in the previous paragraph -- that once we have all these ideas and crazy theories, we must dismiss them.

Even less interesting: the names are substitutes for faces we cannot see (more than one person can share a name), but everyone looks slightly different from everyone else. Idk. That's a bland idea.

Oepdipa is emblematic of the reader who is constantly searching for meaning in what may or may not be an elaborate joke -- the joke being the one that *might* be played on Oedipa by I. and the joke Pynchon *might* be playing on the reader.

>just because he was a smarty pants and wanted to crack himself up?
Haha, man I literally did feel that way while reading this. Pynchon is extremely playful and he's always given off the feeling of a class clown, way too smart for his own good to me.

I can just imagine Pynchon, sitting at his typewriter in '65 thinking "I wonder what kind of nonsense treatise is going to be written about THIS name."

> I mean, I know you understood them, it's just that saying that they are "kind of jokes" sounds like you are dismissing them when they are there for a reason other than to sound funny.
I'm just not convinced the meanings are a whole lot deeper than what I stated, or rather that, in keeping with what I read as the central dilemma of the book, even if they were deeper that there is any way to really discern that meaning from the text.

MLA, pleb.

Few typos/missing words. Sorry.

Also, great thread.

Haha, I always used Chicago citations in my history and econ courses. I'm sorry I forgot the correct acronym.

This is the first thread I've read on this board that wasn't 90% shitposting, with actual analysis

Thanks guys

The thing about the names though is that they repeat throughout his books and I'd guess that not all of them have context and meaning as central themes.

I think the bit about the names being easy to remember is likely the closest to the true motivation. And I do acknowledge that the names aren't meaningless. They are though not, as a Yale professor says in her lecture about the book from YouTube, redolent with meaning.

You know, the central theme resonates pretty well with our daily experience on Veeky Forums.

Maybe Pynchon is hard at work on a magnum opus set on the seedy portions of internet forums like Veeky Forums where misinformation is impossible to discern from truth.

Just think of the screennames he could come up with for his characters in that!

No matter how hard I try I will never understand what entropy is. Like I understand that it means decay (right?), but I don't understand what its significance is in the context of Pynchon and pomo?

Shit. I forgot about that video. Hope I didn't gank too much of her stuff.

And yeah, I agree. I fall more in the reader-is-Oedipa camp. Whether names mean anything is up to you, of course. I do believe they are placed there to mislead the reader, though, because they are (at first glance) ripe with meaning.

90% sure the book was an eloborate and very funny joke.

Look into the information-based definition of entropy first. Might help you get a better grasp on the thermodynamic angle.

Also, the wikis suck for both. Just a heads up.

Well entropy is more than decay.

It is the persistent progression of all things to their state of lowest energy. So for instance. Every day your body uses energy in order to move and think, etc. Then you eat food to replenish that energy but in the long term. These types of systems exist everywhere. They all have waste each cycle, that is energy that cannot be recovered that is lost as heat.

The heat death of the universe, which is the ultimate end of entropy, is essentially a state where all things are finally static and there are no more of those systems that use energy.

Entropy is the measure of disorder within a system.

An easy example is the universe - we know that the universe is constantly expanding, and so it is becoming ever-larger, more disordered, and chaotic. So, entropy shares a positive correlation with the growing universe - as the size/chaos of the universe increases, entropy increases alongside it.

The same can be said for thermodynamic entropy. As heat is applied to a substance, it gives the molecules in that substance kinetic energy, which allow them to vibrate more quickly and further. When an object is a solid, it has little molecular movement, when it is a gas the molecules bounce all over the place. Heat increases the chaos within the [system] of a substance (and its molecules, particularly), so heat increases entropy as well.

Get it?

Pale fire. I'm a YUGE Nabokov fan though tbqh senpai

I'm only two chapters in but this book is hilarious.

you guys weren't kidding about the goofs, gags, and rambunctious behavior.

Considering you made a Trump reference(and I already started it while waiting for a response) I'm just going to read V.

This was really helpful, ty lads

Pale Fire is 100% worth reading though. You're not making a mistake by reading V. first by any means. Just get around to Pale Fire at some point. It's sweet.

I definitely will.

Entropy is hard to explain, but I'll try. As time passes, things tend to reach states that do not spontaneously become undone, for example, over time, we can extrapolate that a nail will become rusty, because once it rusts, it will not un rust unless someone intentionally tries to undo the process. It sort of like evolution, except for non living things. Entropy is sort of synonymous with disorder or caos, since disordered states tend to be hard to undo. Also there is entropy of information (as opposed to entropy of matter) but I don't know much about that.

you guys are bad at explaining things simplistically for stupid people

Entropy means out of order! Entropy always increases, so everything is always getting less organized! Next time Mom tells you to clean your room, just tell her, "It's not my fault my room's messy Mom! Entropy!"

That's how my eighth grade teacher taught it to us. Dumbed down enough for you?

>but they are not just jokes to crack you up. Why would Pynchon name them like that?
Don't underestimate the Pynchmeister's love of gags and goofs.

Best thread ever posted here

Is lot 49 any fun?
I read the first half of the first chapter just for giggles without intending on reading it all, but I didn't like it the same way I like the beginning of his other books.
May read through it if it is anywhere near as fun as V.

V. is my favorite Pynchon book, but l thought Lot 49 was much better in terms of gags.

Sure, the Profane chapters in V. are loaded with wacky stuff, but l felt like that was offset by Stencil's stories, which are generally a lot darker. I'm not saying the latter diminishes the humor of the former, but V. is certainly heavier thematically.

Lot 49, on the other hand, is goofy from start to finish.

Why, because people actually discuss a book they all read and competing readings of its meaning?

I'd agree that there are important meaningings to things like character names from Pynchon, but I have to agree with the other guy when it comes to academics trying to deconstruct his work.
Pynchon books don't take themselves that seriously, and standing in front of a class at Harvard and giving a lecture about a guy named Mike Fallopian is one of the best jokes Pynchon ever played.

>They are though not, as a Yale professor says in her lecture about the book from YouTube, redolent with meaning.
yeah, I stopped watching that lecture a bit after she said that
what the hell is the point of saying " the one takeaway is that pynchon wants you to notice that these names are redolent of meaning" without discussing anything he's doing with them, and when discussing an author who is known for making ridiculous jokes or fucking with the reader for its own sake

All I know is, my fantasy football team sucks.