The Crying of Lot 49 – Thomas Pynchon

Pynchon is famous for his novels, “V” and “Gravity’s Rainbow”, yet this is the only novel I’ve read by him, I first read this as an 18 year old at university, but didn’t really remember the story. This is a postmodern mystery novella based around Oedipa Maas, the executor of a former lovers estate, and her attempt to understand what connects his will and an ancient conflict between two postal services, Thurn und Taxis, and Trystero (or Tristero). There is also mystery around the actual existence of Trystero. Cleverly Pynchon has based his novella on a real postal firm, Thurn und Taxis being founded in Europe around the 17th century, but Trystero is a Pynchon invention. 

I really enjoyed this novella but it leaves many questions unanswered. As Oedipa Maas journeys around southern California she seems to encounter more problems and slowly begins to question her own understanding of what is going on. The reader too should question themselves especially as most of the character names are totally unbelievable; Oedipa Maas, Pierce Inverarity, Dr. Hilarius, Mike Fallopian and Genghis Cohen. There is a hint of Freud in Oedipa and Pierce, the former lovers, but is Pynchon questioning the way we read too much into names within novels? Dr Hilarius, Oedipa’s psychiatrist, is experimenting with prescription LSD, possibly a comment on 60s drug culture, but he is also revealed to be a former NAzi doctor, who eventually thinks he is being tracked down by Jews; “‘You think,’ said Oedipa, ‘then, that they’re trying to bring you back to Israel, to stand trial, like they did Eichmann?’ The shrink kept nodding.” We are left, as is Oedipa, wondering if Hilarius is really being chased by Jews or if he is insane. That leaves Mike Fallopian, which is just a ridiculous name, and Genghis Cohen, an absurd mix of Genghis Khan, and the common Hebrew name Cohen.

What is the point of this novel? I think its a reflection of the era it was written in. In 1965 America was in a state of flux; sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, a slightly chaotic era. Throughout we see allusions to The Beatles, use of drugs, and Oedipa has an affair. It seems to me that Pynchon is questioning 60s culture and how confusing it is, especially as Oedipa herself becomes slightly alienated from the culture she’s spent so much time exploring. The novel closes with the line, “Oedipa settled back, to await the crying of lot 49.” she is waiting to see what comes next, and this is how I see the reader in the 60s, waiting to see what will happen in the future, not worrying about the past.

Being and Nothingness – Jean-Paul Sartre

I was bought this book a number of years, if I remember correctly in about 2006, when I had chosen Philosophy as an A-Level subject.  I haven’t however read it until now because it’s a daunting book; minimalist cover design, small font and over 650 pages. I am not a philosopher, have not studied it extensively and have only read this out of interest.

Just before Christmas I decided not to buy any more books until I had finished all the unread books I have in a box by my bed. Due to the fact I’ve owned this for 10 years I started with this. It has taken me about three weeks to complete, a fair length of time considering the content and nature of the work. In this extensive ontological work, Sartre discusses the nature of an individual’s existence and an individual’s essence, as well as mans free will. This is considered to be one of Sartre’s most important philosophical works, and is his most famous non-fiction existential writing. It is in essence Sartre’s explanation of consciousness being the key part of existence, or as he says ‘being’ itself. I have previously read Sartre but only novels such as Nausea, Iron in the Soul and The Age of Reason. I may read these again with more understanding as I will have a more in depth understanding of his existential philosophies.

Sartre breaks down his essay into four parts each tackling a different aspect of existence. This is my understanding of them, remember I am not a philosopher or philosophy student. Sartre discusses first the idea of nothingness, for there to be nothing something must have been there to begin with and as such nothing becomes a being in itself, but only through consciousness do humans realise that nothing exists. Man can create himself through consciousness and cause change within his being because he is aware that he exists. He also discusses freedom, humanity is free to make decisions, but we cannot blame our decisions on anything prior to the decision because we still made that decision ourselves, and once we have made that decision we are responsible for it. Then Sartre discusses ‘bad faith’ and wrestles with the idea that we are all denying our dynamism, by saying ‘I am’ we deny ourselves the opportunity to become something else. Later Sartre discusses our relationship with others. I feel that he basically comes to the conclusion in this section that how we perceive ourselves is directly influenced by how we think others perceive ourselves. In Sartre’s conclusion he outlines the idea that without consciousness the world would not exist. We need consciousness for us to realise that there are other objects around us. Now, as I stated previously, I am no philosopher, and I have just read this out of interest, so this is a very brief outline of my understanding of this essay and I may have misinterpreted it. I do intend however to read some more of Sartre’s writing later in the year to help understand this essay further.

Starting Out

In September 2008 I started an English and American Literature degree at Goldsmiths, London, for the next three years I read numerous novels, plays, poems, short stories as well as studying literary theory and criticism. It took me about a year after graduating to get back into reading properly for pleasure.

In September 2012 I started to take note of every book I read in a little Moleskine notebook that had lain unused on my desk. Since then I have read 210 books (only accidentally repeating one), with nothing to show except a list in this notebook by my bed. I have run out of space on my bookshelves for new books but I will keep buying and reading books for ever.

In January 2017 I started this page, with the intention to share what I am reading and my thoughts on the books I am reading. Not necessarily reviewing each book but taking a bit of time to process my thoughts about the book. Some may be short posts, some may be long, some may digress off topic and some may stay totally on focus, but that is only an echo from the book itself. As well as writing about the books themselves I will probably add a bit of the context to my digesting of the book, such as where I am, what I was doing and maybe even what music or food were involved in the period of time.