that doesn’t mean I like his style. So, Pynchon is kind of like a literary version of the Joker, to me. He’s kind of weird, manical at times, and thinks it’s fun to torture people with what are his idea of jokes. HOWEVER, I can appreciate old Thomas for what he’s worth. He is certainly clever. His knowledge of words, history, and society seem extensive, if everything in the book was intentional. I believe everything in there is intentional because given how obscure some of his references are, I think it would be difficult for those to be an accident. The book is definitely satirical, and maybe not funny in a “ha-ha” sort of way, but amusing nonetheless. You have to be willing to work really hard to get a chuckle, though, at some parts. I have a kind of admiration for Pynchon, even though I don’t see myself reading his work for an easy read in my spare time. He writes the way he wants to, and he’s very original. He makes jokes that are funny, even if not everyone else gets them, or has to scramble to do so. I can see Pynchon as this creepy sadist who is watching us all through surveillance cameras, panicking about not understanding his work, and the joke’s on us: it’s all the more amusing to Pynchon that we don’t understand. We’re reading the book, trying to find what’s funny, but maybe the funny part (at least for Pynchon) is that we don’t get it, and we’re all too dense to see it! Maybe the paranoia of the Crying of Lot 49 has gone to my head. My conclusion is that Pynchon is a genius, but I still don’t have a desire to read anymore.
PS – I read an Amiri Baraka poem in another class, and it made a reference to Lamont Cranston. Interesting…
Good observations, Ashley. I’m inclined to think that Pynchon knows exactly what is going on in this text (especially since I’ve read some of his other novels). He’s not necessarily someone that I pick up at the drop of the hat. But believe it or not, it does get easier as you do it more often.