websites

[Richard Fiero]

MalignD at aol.com wrote:
>  . . . It is finally nothing more than what is playing in
>Oedipa's head and Oedipa is a cipher.  Is she paraniod?  I don't know.  Is it
>plausible that Inverarity would hoax her in this fashion?  There's no
>evidence either way; Inverarity is also a cipher.  Might there be a Trystero?
>  The novel suggests as much, but offers nothing, particularly.  The last
>possibility is a combination of already obscure possibilities.
>
>What is a reader to take from this?  Go read history?  Be a good grad
>student?  Apply some textual theory?  If that satisfies you, fine.  I find it
>unfinished and weak.

Well, gee. I don't see any paranoids in CoL49 other than the 
Paranoids themselves. Should we argue with the author that the 
story is turning out some way other than he wrote it?
I'll settle on Indeterminacy rather than paranoia especially 
when viewed against the author's later introduction of 
anti-paranoia in GR. The only way to settle this is to get 
fucked-up and drive around and see if the world looks like 
CoL49. And no, the CIA is not in the story unless it wants to be.