COL49 _Courier's Tragedy_

[Dave Monroe]

Well, again, the question is, not only (if even) what
might Oedipa learn at that titular "crying," but what
might she NOT have learned already, despite having
witnessed it, hidden, perhaps, but, a la Poe's
purloined letter (Oedipa Mass = Poe is a maid ...
also, Adipose Sam, but ...) in the open nontheless. 
Again, taking that "Oedipa," Oedipus as a clue here. 
Blindness ...  

Most everything you write about why you prefer Pale
Fire to The Crying of Lot 49 is true for me of
Pynchon's novel as well ...

"She had dedicated herself, weeks ago, to making sense
of what Inverarity had left behind, never suspecting
that the legacy was America" (p. 178).  By the way, I
suspect (and I recall Pierre-Yves Petillon concurring)
that all this owes something to that final chapter of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby (and recall Pyn
and Far dressing as Fitz and Hem, respectively), which
makes more sense perhaps when you find out that FSF
wanted to change the name to Under the Red, White and
Blue ... 

"What was left to inherit?  That America coded in
Inverarity's testament, whose was that?" (p. 180). 
What does it mean for that "legacy" or any part
thereof, for example, to be up for auction at novel's
end?  Via a "crying," a lamentation ...  

Or, for that matter, for "the" Trystero to be
available for appropraition by so many different
people, groups, positions, whatever?  Trystero =
dissent, disaffection, what have you?  But, again,
binaries, excluded middles, opposition is not always
as opposite as it might seem.  Beware indeed those
either/or possibilities (pp. 181-2), that
structuralist foursquare game of ...

 A   -A

-B    B

Jameson, Frederic.  The Prison-House of Language:
   A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian
   Formalism.  Pinceton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1975.

Clifford, James.  The Predicament of Culture.
   Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1988.

"She had only some vague idea about causing a scene
violent enough to bring the cops into it ..." (p.
183).  well, perhaps she IS fit for protests and
sit-ins after all, or has become as such, but, then
again, "to bring the cops into it."  Damn, gotta go
...

--- MalignD at aol.com wrote:
> 
> David Monroe:
> 
> <<See what I mean?  This alleged "imperfection"
> might well be read as a disappointment brought about
> by the alleged reneging on some, if not necessarily
> implied (though not necessarily NOT implied),
> perceived, at least, promise, on the author's, on
> the text's part ... >>
> 
> I could have been clearer about what I called
> "imperfection."  I have no problem with the book's
> ending being undetermined.  I think, however, that 
> there is an absence of craft in the construction of
> the novel.  Let me offer, as a counter-example, Pale
> Fire, a book in most ways different from (and 
> superior to) COL49, but useful, I think to the point
> I'm making.  There are many questions left after one
> finishes Pale Fire and the more one thinks 
> about them, the more curious and interesting they
> become.  This is because Nabokov has so meticulously
> created the questions for the attentive and 
> curious reader to discover.  Clues are planted,
> threads are placed to be followed and, if they are,
> they lead to more questions and new threads.  In 
> the end, final answers remain illusive, but the
> chase is exhiliarating and fun and one has the
> feeling always that there's yet more to be 
> discovered, which is probably true.  
> 
> In COL 49, none of that is the case.  Too little
> information is given about things from outside
> Oedipa's point of view, for a reader to form an 
> independent hunch.  There is no mystery, really, no
> clues.  A reader knows too little about Inveratity
> to have any real idea whether he would create 
> such a situation for Oedipa, even less as to why. 
> Does a reader have evidence of Oedipa as a paranoid
> personality?  She sees a shrink, for all that's
> worth.  Is an historical Trystero a possiblity?  It
> would seem in the novel's presented world, possible.
> And then it ends.  Could be any of those things.
> Does a reader have any basis to suspect or argue,
> say, that it was Inverarity toying with her all
> along, over and above the other possibilites?  No.
> There's no lingering interest, nothing for a reader
> to wonder over, no mystery, at all; we're just not
> told.        


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/