Another reason why Oedipa’s search is so difficult and fruitless can be found in the relationship that Pynchon creates between Oedipa and the reader. They are both Maxwell’s Demon, sorting through Pynchon’s amalgamation of fiction and reality to find meaning. Using the complex history of both the Thurn and Taxis as well as the Tristero system leaves the reader and Oedipa more than confused.
Postmodern fiction reveals the past as always ideologically and discursively constructed. It is a fiction which is directed both inward and outward, concerned both with its status as fiction, narrative or language, and also grounded in some verifiable historical reality. (Woods 56)
Pynchon boggles the reader with details and complex histories in order to make a connection. This establishes a relationship between the reader and Oedipa, and allows the reader to take part in the search for meaning. When neither the reader nor Oedipa arrive at a solid conclusion, Pynchon provides an explanation. He notes that, much like the director Randolph Driblette, the interpretation and the meaning that the viewer/reader gleans is much more significant than the rote “words” on the page. “You guys, you’re like the Puritans about the Bible. So hung up with words, words” (Pynchon 79). Reading a page, word for word, will lead to a predictable conclusion. Pynchon, via Driblette, implies the opposite. Analyzing a word for what it’s worth will only lead to a single search and a singular meaning. Words, like Driblette proposes, contain an infinite amount of gray area for individual interpretation. Pynchon teases both the reader and Oedipa by showing them a portion of this gray area, and then quickly blurring it out of sight. Paranoia sets in, and the two (Oedipa and the reader) are forced to make a choice: to call it madness, or to follow it blindly.
Oedipa’s paranoia stems from the desire to solve the mystery, and to reach a definable endpoint. She wants to find the single element that will connect everything in order to create meaning. “Paranoia is a mode of perception that notes the connectedness between things in a hyperbolic metonymizing of reality” (O’Donnell 182). Paranoids, like Oedipa, and indeed the reader, are looking for an easy way out, but Pynchon is reluctant to provide an escape. He throws out signs, now devoid of meaning, but at the same time these signs “deflect us toward another sign” (Johnston 50). Oedipa, in her delusional state near the end of the book, ends up seeing the muted post horn everywhere she goes, and believes that the conspiracy is all around her. The truly paranoid can find a hidden meaning for everything, and if he/she looks hard enough, he/she will find an answer. Pynchon allows this paranoid search for meaning to take place in order to demonstrate a much larger concept. The interpretation and the understanding of the individual is much more important than the final conclusion because it permits a coexistence of multiple answers, all seemingly valid.
While it is true that the paranoid can find meaning in just about anything, it is also true that the person can be overwhelmed by everything that he/she deems a sign.
Oedipa, having effectively subscribed to all messages relating to the Tristero, finds herself increasingly ‘saturated’ with messages and references that she only partially understands and for which a general revelation can only tremble at the edge of perception. (McKenna 39)
Near the end of the novel, Oedipa becomes highly delusional, paranoid, or both. As a result, she tries to fix meanings and answers to clues that are not there, and tries to make the connection between everything that is presented to her. In the end, as Nietzsche postulated, “There are no facts, only interpretations” (Nietzsche, from Sontag 5). It can be argued that, at the end of it all, Oedipa has lost her way in Pierce’s web, and she is attempting to tie all of the loose ends together with her interpretations. Pynchon wants the reader to see, and indeed experience, what happens when one follows a trail of breadcrumbs. In both the reader’s and Oedipa’s situation, they find that following the trail becomes futile, and that the final conclusion is not even remotely attainable. By establishing this connection between Oedipa and the reader, Pynchon can demonstrate that individual interpretation is much more significant than going through the motions of following a trail from start to finish.
Oedipa, as well as the reader, are sanctioned enormous amounts of epistemological dexterity when it comes to interpreting and analyzing the signs that Pynchon throws forth. This “information overload” is the main cause for Oedipa’s paranoia, and leads to her more delusional states of mind. “Paradoxically, she is empowered as one in a growing army capable of reading the signs of these plots and power relations, not to resist or escape them but to formulate an ironic, streetwise attitude toward them” (O’Donnell 190). The reader, at this point, has made an extreme effort to understand Pynchon’s complex histories and insignificant signs. Near the end of it all, both Oedipa and the reader are reading signs, interpreting symbols, and picking up on common motifs. Oedipa does not “resist” these signs, nor does she “escape” them. She becomes truly paranoid and accepts their existence in her world, and even if she tried, she would not be able to escape the muted post horn. The manner in which Pynchon reveals his symbols speaks volumes to the effect it has on Oedipa and the reader.
It allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents; but the form, because of its recognizable consistency, continues to offer to the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure. Yet these sentiments do not constitute the real sublime sentiment, which is in an intrinsic combination of pleasure and pain: the pleasure that reason should exceed all presentation, the pain that imagination or sensibility should not be equal to the concept.” (Lyotard 81)
Oedipa finds that the form is familiar and identifiable, and because of this, she follows the clues wherever they lead. In some cases, she makes up her own signs to follow, as is a common tendency in the paranoid mentality, and works on an explanation. She expects to see a resolution, and have all of her questions answered. However, Pynchon stops just short, and both Oedipa and the reader are “awaiting” the conclusion.
People suffering from paranoia experience events differently than normal people. They find hidden meanings everywhere they look, and they have a propensity to overanalyze signs and symbols. This might be because they desire a conclusion or answer so strongly that they look for any connection to justify these paranoid actions. They are constantly flooded with signs devoid of relevance and meaning, and yet they handle this “information overload” like scientists. Oedipa Maas and the reader quickly become Maxwell’s Demon in the search for meaning, sorting unsuccessfully to separate fact from fiction. Pynchon uses this metaphor so as to make a statement about the quest to find meaning. Although the end will never be attainable, the answer will always lie within the mind of the interpreter.
Works Cited
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Theory and History of Literature, Volume 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
McKenna, Christopher J. "A Kiss of Cosmic Pool Balls": Technological Paradigms and Narrative Expectations Collide in The Crying of Lot 49. Winter 2000. 11 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354601>.
O'Donnell, Patrick. "Engendering Paranoia in Contemporary Narrative." Spring 1992. 11 Dec. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/303455>.
O'Donnell, Patrick. New Essays on The Crying of Lot 49. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49 (Perennial Fiction Library). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006.
Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation: And Other Essays. New York, NY: Picador, 2001.
Woods, Tim. Beginning Postmodernism. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999.
