The Disdainful Use of Names in Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 :: Crying Lot 49 Essays

The Disdainful Use of label in Pynchons The Crying of Lot 49While practice Pynchons, The Crying of Lot 49, I found myself fascinated with the notes of the characters. I tried to analyze them and make them consider several(prenominal)thing, but it seems that Pynchon did not connote for the names to flip a specific meaning. This deduction made me compute about the satirical nature of the naming of the characters. Which led me to muse on the chaotic nature of the naming. The apparent disdain for the characters by their naming seems to insinuate that the author is poking fun at the reader and society done the characters. The first character is Oedipa Maas and the reader cannot help but immediately reckon of Oedipus the King and the implications of that naming. As I read, I was on the alert for the characteristics of the Oedipus story. Although Oedipa does have a mystery to solve in the novel, I found I really could not relate her to Oedipus in any other way. And what does Maa s mean? Mass, as in a solid mass? Mass, as in the Catholic rite? Is Oedipa perhaps performing a rite of some kind? These questions plagued me as I read and by the conclusion of the story, I was no wiser. Then there is Oedipas husband, Mucho Maas. What kind of a name is Mucho? It implies, to me at least, that Mucho is somehow superior to his wife. But as the story progresses, Mucho seems to cash in ones chips less and less. Perhaps a comment by Pynchon on the declining position of a husband in American society? Perhaps a satirical jab at the rising state of womens rights as equal instead of subordinate in a marriage? whatever it means, the name Mucho didnt seem to fit the character. Next we encounter Oedipas therapist. His character was bizarre from beginning to end. His name, Dr. Hilarious, worked for me. His name was readjustment in galore(postnominal) ways. That he goes berserk in the end was a fitting pass on in depicting a shrink. His character was hilarious in a way. I mean, come on, what therapist actually believes in telepathy? The oblivious character in the book, Pierce Inverarity, is a puzzle. The closest definition for Inverarity that I could find in the dictionary was a definition for inveracity. Inveracity means untruthfulness, which is fitting for the absent Pierce, since we never do discover if the man is actually departed or not.