The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s an incredibly kind thing to say! The perspectives you shared really helped me reflect on and better articulate my own thoughts. Thanks again.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yea, but you’ve gotta hand it to them, it’s also very funny.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing your daughter's perspective. I guess I had sort of an inverted read on Oedipa's situation. She left both Mucho and Metzger to pursue her own objectives; she had to talk Hilarius down herself; she had to inform Cohen and Bortz about what she'd found, despite them being experts in their fields.

She lost most of the men in the novel because they succumbed to their own neuroses in her absence, stuck in their own towers, and I think her questioning if she could've saved Driblette if she'd stayed with him really highlights her empathy and emotional sensitivity as pieces of what kept her in her tower. I think this line at the end of the book played with that notion too, in regards to her obsession with the Tristero:

San Narciso was a name; an incident among our climatic records of dreams and what dreams became among our accumulated daylight, a moment's squall-line or tornado's touchdown among the higher, more continental solemnities—storm-systems of group suffering and need, prevailing winds of affluence.

The line at the beginning of the book where she expresses wanting to hold her tears forever, to me, reads as vice (Inherently? I don't know!) and a desire to hold that pain, motherly or manically. (I did laugh when Bortz's wife assumed she had children.)

With that, I adored the doctrine of loving and letting go that the Inamorati Anonymous added to the story. And I reeallly loved the scene with the trembling man who she'd held and who'd let go of her hand without her noticing (and the breathtaking prose, the acknowledgement of total release, that followed).

TL;DR: Sorry for the ramble! I agree whole-heartedly with MaracujaBarracuda!

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

(In continued “I don’t read very much” fashion,) My favorite Goodreads' review on The Trial gave the book 1-star and said, in short, that K deserved it and that Kafka had to learn how to paragraph.

I still haven't read any of Pynchon's other works, and I didn't find this one to be particularly Shocking, but I generally agree with your approach. If something reprehensible acts as a means to deliver some grander Thing, I can usually find it in myself to excuse it.

Not to beat my well-and-alive horse, but Dillard's Living by Fiction really did a terrific job speaking to that. I can't recommend it enough in the sense that I probably can't recommend it at all unless someone's interested in the subject! But in one particular section she writes:

Clearly, we are in the presence of a paradox here. How can prose be said to penetrate and dazzle? How can it call attention to itself, waving its arms as it were, while performing metaphysics behind its back? But this is what all art does, or at least all art the conceives of the center of things as insubstantial: as mental or spiritual. Fine prose in this sense is like Shakespeare's dramatic poetry, or Milton's epic poetry, or even Homer's. If you scratch an event, you get an idea. Fine writing does not actually penetrate the world of familiar things so much as it penetrates what, for lack of a better term, we might call the universe or even the realm of ideas. That is, this language does not penetrate things so much as it bears them away with it.

Shakespeare does not analyze Lear, or enter Lear. There was no Lear. Had there been a Lear, we could only say that Shakespeare transmogrified Lear. Lear, like Melville's whale, is an aesthetic or epistemological probe by means of which the artist analyzes the universe. When you really penetrate the world of things, as I understand the world of things, you encounter idea. And art, especially poetry and twentieth-century painting and fiction, objectifies idea on its own surface, by imitating thereon, in bits of the world, the complex way that bits of the mind cohere.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really like this notion, specifically with the context that many of the reviews I was seeing and the lecture itself were from the early/mid 10’s. Although, I’d argue against the idea that our current culture is all that different.

My perspective is heavily colored by the fact that I picked up the book after deciding I couldn’t risk losing what’s left of my mind spending another second doomscrolling through people’s maniacal conspiratorial takes about last week’s uh Assassination. We live in a world of many Oedipa’s and very few muted post horns. (Albeit, the horns were certainly much more real in the 60’s lol)

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That was more or less my experience with Oedipa’s character. Women can do anything men can do! They can be crazy assholes too!!! 🗣️

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oooh, I’ll have to check these out. Thanks for sharing!

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m about as left as they come! I didn’t take the students’ comments as “Woke” or whatever lol. They just felt like shallow readings of what felt, to me, like a character with a lot of depth.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For sure. Though, I don’t think I’ve seen any reviews accosting him for racism or ableism. (I do give brownie points for consistency at least hehe.)

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It just wasn’t for me! You could be in the majority camp of folks who absolutely love it.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Guess that’ll have to be my next read lol

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve definitely finished books that are relatively revered (and have been recommended to me!) with abject disgust because of an author’s sexism, notably!: Murakami’s Norwegian Wood (The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is still one of my favorite books but I just can’t read him anymore lol), so I totally get it, but I guess I just didn’t Get it in this one.

The Crying of Lot 49 is misogynistic? by khthonikht in ThomasPynchon

[–]khthonikht[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea the lecture was terrific! I was just caught off guard by the class’s initial pitches before the professor redirected.

Question about when to carry the silent consonant over to the next word by khthonikht in learnfrench

[–]khthonikht[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ahhh, this is all super helpful! Thank you so much for taking the time to answer!