The Average

As I read through Lutz’s essay, the first thing I noticed was they way he wrote it. The way he included his ideas with his life and past events is great. Not only does he mention his ideas at the time, but his new ideas about that topic. Readers can go through the whole essay as if it were a novel. The first ideas he proposes are very clear, even though he goes into a little to much dial around the middle. It might only be me, but his point could have gotten across without such an extensive explanation.

After reading through all of his ideas I realized that the one that had stuck to me the most was the first one: “I soon succumbed to the notion that to imagine was to claim to know in advance an entirely forgettable outcome. A calendar was hung in the kitchen as if to say: Expect more of the same”. Maybe it is because I believe monotony is worst part of life or because it was the first thing I read. The truth is, Lutz had an average life. Most people do everything on a very rigid schedule that repeats itself over and over again. Myself included, it is not the best part of life. My point is, I never thought reading about someone’s average life would be so fun. If someone would have asked me what I thought of reading a long essay about the monotony in a person life, me answer would have been “boring”. To my surprise it wasn’t. The only reason I can think of why this would happen is because we don’t read about it. Our own fear of reading the essay is what makes it great. It is something different that is very enjoyable.

A Big Joke

As the reader approaches the last chapter in the book, Pynchon once again decides to twist the story. After a whole book full of satire, I would have expected some sort of sum up of ideas or conclusion at the end. It could have been the only connection that was made by the author. What happens is Oedipa gives up on her mysterious quest and "settled back, to await the crying of lot 49” (152). It may have been the dissolution of the mystery she was trying to uncover or part of the simple joke in the book. As Pynchon himself taught us, the book is making fun of itself. The ending makes the readers form their own conclusion and guess what will become of Oedipa. Even though I may never know the true reason Pynchon choose this ending, the most probable motive is to make the reader laugh. What I may have thought was important turned out to be part of the big joke Pynchon played for the audience.

The wiki library turned out to be very helpful. I regret not having discovered it earlier since it helps you make the connections that you would otherwise not have made. Pynchon requires his audience to be a very educated and cult people. If they are not the connections may be missed. This would make Pynchon’s target a very educated one. These people could enjoy the book at its fullest; however most people do not know what some of the jokes mean. This wiki library makes the book much more universal and not only helps the reader but the author. As I end this journey I am not sure whether everything I read was a big joke or if part of the story, was for the stories sake. Just by thinking about this the story is turning into a joke. This is Pynchon’s real talent, the ability to keep a reader guessing. It is the great joke.

A Unique Irony

As I approached the end of chapter 5 I was confused. The book had been following a certain story and it suddenly introduced a totally different one. Every single character in the book seemed to go crazy. At this point the satire was getting the best of me. Pynchon has changed the way the readers view the characters so many times that I did not know the characters. This gives him a little bit of freedom to write about whatever he feels like. Making jokes can take a long time, especially if they have to be on the same topic. Another reason could be satire itself. The irony in what the character from the past chapter does in the present one. This change in characters not only confuses the reader but also keeps him interested. It is a mixture of two feelings that make the book unique.

Pynchon continues to amaze me with his ability to combine two very different topics: teachings and jokes. Even though he gives the reader all of the teachings under disguise, once in a while you are able to pick one up. When Oedipa enters the gay bar I thought it would only be funny. I was not expecting to learn anything that I could apply. To my surprise one man mentioned how his “big mistake was love. From this day I swear to stay of love: hetero, homo, bi, dog or cat, car, every type there is” (93). If I had not been paying attention I would have easily missed this. Love is a very complicated emotion. History has proven that people will go to great lengths for love. Not to love again is like saying you will not be happy again because you are afraid of being sad. Life has to be enjoyed and I think it is ironical that a gay person would propose an end to love.

An Immortal Talent

As I read this chapter one of the only things I could think about was immortality. A few weeks ago I decided to write a blog about this very same topic: Human Race: Outgrown. In this blog I mentioned how a person can become immortal if his ideas are immortal. The concept states, that if you leave something for the rest of the world you will be remembered. Chapter 4 specifically mentions how our society has “only one man per invention“ (70). In a way this can be considered selfish. If more people are able to take credit for certain things more people will be remembered. Nobody remembers the man who made the TV a smaller machine, but everyone remembers who made the TV. At this point, I was very happy since a topic I had mentioned before came up. The next few pages then mention immortality. Pynchon had connected the ideas in the same way I had. Maybe it is very common, but I still felt inspired. To my surprise, I had come to a conclusion too fast. The connection is made but the conclusion is totally different.

The most important realization I came upon was about myself. I had thought that I was on the right track and that most people agreed with what I had said. I was wrong. Oedipa continues to make the reader laugh through a smart type of satire. Some might read satire to entertain themselves, and others too learn. Pynchon was able to do both. At the beginning of the book I thought that we were reading it to learn about satire. I now know that it approaches some very deep topics. The reader is given a great opportunity and a choice when reading The Crying Of Lot 49.

A Frail Understanding

One of the aspects that has been able to capture my attention is the different names used in the book. As I read a book I dont not usually pay attention to the names. In saying pay attention, I mean analyze what the names might symbolize. If there is a name that has a meaning, you will not find more than one. Pynchon on the other hand decided to give every name a funny aspect. There is Dr. Hilarious who “sounded like Pierce doing a Gestapo officer” (7). There is also the name Oedipa, Mike Fallopian, Mucho Mass, and many more. All of these names mean something and are there to give the reader a certain context. Lets take the example of Oedipa. Her name could be referring to the mythological character. The best thing about it, is that it works. I do form a different image in my mind about a certain character if a can associate him with something I know.

There is one name I cannot understand, and that is Mike Fallopian. He is introduced as “A frail young man in a drip-dry suit slid into the seat across from them, introduced himself as Mike Fallopian, and begun proselytizing for an organization known as the Peter Punguid Society” (34-35). Ok, at this point I can assume that his name means something. The only problem is I can’t figure out what. I tried looking his name up in Google and all I came up with was a Fallopian Tube. I can see no association with him and a Fallopian Tube. I hope that as I read on my understanding of the book also moves on and I get to understand what all of these things mean.

A Narcissistic Target

As I read chapter 2, many of my previously formed conclusions were corrected. I believed that this book would turn out to be very hard to read. The first paragraph did not include periods and time was clearly not important for the author. It was a completely non-linear story that seemed weird and interesting. This second chapter was very different. Not only were there fewer stories, but everything seemed to fall into place. Pynchon had a drastic change in attitude when she wrote each chapter. Everything seemed clear and I did not have to reread anything. I have the impression that by changing the way she writes every chapter the reader is constantly interested and suspicious of what is to come.

After I ended this second section I noticed an aspect of the book that had previously eluded me. Pynchon, in her attempt to create satire, changes the names of several known places in order to give the reader a certain background: “San Narcisco lay further south, near L.A. like many named places in California it was less an identifiable city than a grouping of concepts…” (13). The concept of “San Narcisco” is great. The reader can associate it with Narcissus and it immediately changes the way you look at San Francisco. After this allusion I did not only realize his way of explaining but about his target. If there is a reference to narcissism, his readers must be educated. Most people can read the book, but if you do not have a certain education you will not get most of the jokes. I am impressed with all of the changes that I have discovered from one chapter to the next and look forward to discovering more.

Informal Fun

As I began reading the first paragraph of Crying of Lot 49 the only thing I could process was the lack of periods. In my confusion, the next thing I noticed was how the stories were connected. There is no real chronological or logical connection, the only solution was to start all over again. After a slower reading and rereading I finally got what the author was trying to say. When the main character decided to start using the,“when Pierce had got maybe halfway up, her lovely hair turned, through some sinister sorcery, into a great unanchored wig, and down he fell, on his ass” (11). At this point was able to make all of the connections. I might not be accustomed to the way in which Pynchon writes but I do find it fun. It is sort of a challenge that you have to decipher. Things are not clear and it allows for many interpretations. I like the language that is used since it is sort of casual. Dawkins wrote in a more formal and strict manner. By being informal you can associate with the characters in a more personal way. I look forward to reading the rest of the book.

Concluding An Introduction

As I approach the end of Dawkins journey, I start thinking of my first blogs. My comments ranged from a book that proposes some great ideas to a book that clearly did not make sense. As I mentioned in Writing: An Expression, the way Dawkins introduces new ideas is amazing. I may not agree with many of the ideas planted but I do believe that the way they are planted is very captivating. The reader feels as if he had a connection with the author. The way Dawkins ended the book was very abrupt. Maybe because this is a science book and not a novel, the author has the liberty to be abrupt. I have no doubt even though some of the evidence used in the book is outdated, the main ideas are still valid. Every chapter focuses on a different topic, which in turn revolves around the main idea. This allows certain pieces of the book to be eliminated and others to be studied without hurting the readers understanding. Dawkins was able to make his ideas immortal.

The conclusion to his ideas is not only a summary of what was mentioned previously but an introduction to new ones: “a parasite whose genes aspire to the same destiny as the genes of its host shares all the interests of its host and will eventually cease to act parasitically” (245). This idea made me think of what a parasite is. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, a parasite is “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense”. As this last idea moves around in my head, I realized that the whole book is based on this example. The same principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is used. The parasites original purpose (as the definition states) was to benefit at the expense of another. If this parasite realized that this other wants the same things it needs they will work together. As soon as the other person does not have our same inters in mind he is expendable. The parasite principle will then come into effect and we will take all that we can from him before he dies. This simple example is all that I needed in order to form the connection that the whole book has wanted me to form. Every person learns in a different way and maybe that is what the rest o the examples are for. Everybody has part of the Selfish Gene; however, some people are better at hiding it.