A Tears-Based Epistemology in The Crying of Lot 49 

I’m releasing a novel on August 15 called Lionel Lancet and the Right Vibe. It was undoubtedly inspired by The Crying of Lot 49.

Freudianism is satirized in the book (Dr. Hilarius). Oedipa as Oedipus is the mother of all red herrings we impose on the novel. Oh and speaking of names, we've got Stanley Kotecks (Kotex), Mike Fallopian and Emory Bortz (emery board, for filing nails). And Arnold Snarb, who is looking for a good time ;) And Manny DiPresso, ROTFL

In a way you could look at The Crying of Lot 49 is a literary examination of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in which the act of observation changes that which is observed, or in this case changes the observer to the point the original act of observation is, perhaps, no longer relevant. I guess whether the observed or the observer is changed is really a question of your frame of reference.

You have done a commendable job here! I love Pynchon and this is one of the best vids I have seen breaking down CoL49's meanings and themes. Just great, sir!

I loved the parts about The Courier'sTragedy, and all the clues hidden inside of it. Absolutely enthralling.

Great analysis. I would add, for what it's worth, that Oedipus was the first detective, which is certainly pertinent to the story. The fact that Oedipus discovers he himself is the criminal may or may not be pertinent, though it suggests a serpent that devours its own tail, which seems to me a very Pynchonian notion.

Three remarks: Iokaste is the female version of Oedipus in Greek mythology. Penelope is the famous weaver in the Odyssee. And finally, a great review

SICK video, I like the clear Freudian analysis. Although I always thought of it more as a mythological/ontological reference than psychological. Oedipus do you know your feet? Oedipus your feet! Where are they? KNOW YOUR FEET OEDIPUS. boom he kills his dad and sleeps with his mom. The cycle is/was useless. The search for meaning deconstructs the original instruments/methods used to derive new meaning. You will find yourself wondering midnight streets, fucking around with polished lawyers, and rambling about post horns. But its probably good though

Great video, I was really struggling with this novel but your explanation helped me appreciate Pynchon's style more!

Bird good - Adam Neely

I read this book at your suggestion...really like the way you explain things...

This was great thanks.

This is surreal, because I had the same reading order as you. I'm in mid 20's and read Gravity's Rainbow first, then went to this book and had the same "Dunno what this was about, but I'm all for it."

quality birb content

Excellent thoughts here. One thing I noticed when comparing how Pynchon ends his character’s arc is the tendency for very open-ended even nebulous endings. I’m reminded of Slothrop’s dissolution in GR- he never really wins (besides the gross out dinner scene) or figures shit out, just kind of dissolves. Gets credited for playing harmonica on an album, then never heard from again. Slothrop was trying to create a meaning and connect the actual real symbols that DID have an actual Them behind it (the Military-Industrial Complex, Jamf, his own father,&c.) so if we are to talk about Pynchonian paranoia we can clearly see how there was a tangible world behind Slothrop’s paranoia and the world he projected and meaning created was confirmed and it leads him to become different characters (rocketman) and then simply dissolve as a means of reaction or survival. Oedipa is different in that even with the preponderance of clues that do seem to point to some meaning or THEM (Trystero) she is never sure if she is chasing signal or noise. And her character is at least left trying to discover for certain (this time by trying to find the stamp collector at the crying/auction) whether the meaning exists- but I believe it will continue to lead her on a chase which is why Pynchon left it somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps the search and the collecting of clues is all we have and we will forever be looking for confirmation and meaning. As such it ends differently than Slothrop in GR, but I do believe that by comparing the two it might help us gain insight into a bit a what Pynchon was pointing at. Again- Great video!

I love this! Thank you so much for sharing your analysis. I just finished the novel today and there's so much going on in my mind! You gave me better words to describe what I thought about it and also enlighten new perceptions :)

Great analysis. Still didn't enjoy reading it though...

I just figured out that this Inverarity character is a continuation of Dean Moriarty from the Kerouac novels. And if you think about it, also about despots/Cat In the Hat type like Trump and Putin in today's world.

You have such a chill budgie. I love how parrots are fascinated by human language.

This is a very good video !

I like the parts of your review where you talk about the construction of meaning in our minds and the idea that the book explores the way we believe things, but I don’t quite see how any of it ties into her being oppressed. Don’t you think you are doing exactly what you refer to in the video about trying to put one specific interpretation on postmodern works, when you reduce Oedipa into some kind of political symbol?

why is nobody addressing lawrence? I love him.