As I was reading this book, I realized that it would be very easy to really fall into it and become taken in by all the references, connections and weird coincidences, especially where they connect with the real world. It's filled with so many layers that it's hard to sort through them all. This seems to be exactly what happens to Oedipa as she goes on in her research of the Tristero: she becomes obsessed with the symbol she can't escape and the coincidences that keep happening, to the point that she begins to question her own sanity. There is one passage toward the end that seems to sum it all up:
"Behind the hieroglyphic streets there would be either a transcendent meaning, or only the earth. In the songs Miles, Dean, Serge and Leonard sang was either a fraction of the truth's numinous beauty (as Mucho now believed) or only a power spectrum ... The bones of the GI's at the bottom of Lake Inverarity were there either for a reason that mattered to the world, or for skin divers and cigarette smokers ... Another mode of meaning behind the obvious, or none."
This could apply to more than just streets, songs, and GI bones. Oedipa wonders, was there really any Tristero organization? Was Pierce leaving her an elaborate prank of some sort? Is it all in her head? Just as the reader can wonder, is there some sort of underlying message Pynchon is giving us in code? Or is the whole book just a tangled webs of people, places, and images that have no real connection? I think what happens to Oedipa is the same as what would happen to a reader who tried to answer that question: No matter how much you searched, you still would not find a definitive answer. (Unfortunately for her, along the way she loses many of the people she had come to know, as well as her own sense of reality or sanity.) What I love about this book is the way it IS what it tries to describe--that is, a tangled-up web of things that seem connected and significant but may not be. If anyone does do a bucketload of research and finds out there really is an underlying (encoded?) message to this book, that would be awesome and I would love to know what it is. I don't think it would be possible to find one, though, because that seems to be the whole point. The book really is a question that is never answered, partly because it ends before Oedipa can find the mysterious bidder. (And if she does find him, would it lead to more mystery?) The question is, "Is there another mode of meaning behind the obvious, or none?"
1 comment:
WELL PUT! The entire time I was reading the book, I couldn't help but think that I felt exactly as confused and frustrated as Oedipa did. Obviously Pynchon meant for us to be in her shoes and feel what she felt. I find it entertaining that I connect with Oedipa because I don't actually like her character very much. I think she is obsessive and weird and completely immoral but hey- I am just as frustrated with W.A.S.T.E. and trystero as she is. Very impressive that Pynchon can give me this connection to a character I neither like nor relate to.
As you said, the only real way to describe what Oedipa experiences is as a "tangled web." Everything runs together so neatly and tightly and yet we are left out of it all so easily. A perfect way to drive someone insane. As much as I appreciate the skill it takes to write a piece that makes the reader feel the exact emotions of the main character, I despise this book. I don't like feeling frustrated in my own life and feeling frustrated for someone else's life (someone I don't know and don't even really like) is HORRIBLE. Well done on Pynchon's part though.
Post a Comment