So maybe I was too hard in my last post on The Crying of Lot 49, and maybe I do like it more than I think I do. As we were discussing it in class, I kept on thinking about how much I did understand what was going on, well, except for Trystero, which I still don't have a clue.


 This book reminds me of a cool dream, one that you want so badly to remember in the morning, but can't. Then like a week later, out of no where, you remember the dream, and you're like Totally! Yeah, that's this book in a nutshell. 


So I might not understand what exactly I'm reading at the time, but something will click later. And that's the thing with Pynchon I think, you're not supposed to know the whole story. It goes back to the decode VS. detangle example - and I think with Pynchon, it's more about detangling the clues. 


I found that I do have more in common with Oedipa than I thought. Well except for the young republican thing, but I'm all over the tupperware party! I see her character differently when you take in to context that  this was written in the 60's. Oedipa suddenly becomes a bold woman, who doesn't let anything stand in her way. 


I'm curious why Pynchon decided to call her Oedipa, and is she going to kill her father and sleep with her mother? Is Pierce her father??? Ok, that's going a little too far, but there has to be something about a name like that.
I hope it reveals itself in the next two chapters, which I can't wait to read!