Modernism v. Postmodernism part one: The Crying of Lot 49

The relationship between modernism and postmodernism is often complicated as both genres share certain similarities as well as differences. E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime and Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 are examples of the relationship between these two genres. In both novels, discarded objects play a crucial role in establishing the relationship between modernism and postmodernism. Throughout both of these texts, there are numerous examples of not only discarded objects, but also discarded people and ideas. This recurrent theme intertwines itself within both of these novels and becomes vital to the understanding of the relationship between modernism and postmodernism. This first article will entail a discussion of The Crying of Lot 49, which focuses on the heroine, Oedipa Mass, as she strives to uncover the secrets behind the death of her recently deceased ex-boyfriend after being named the executor of his will. Set against the backdrop of Hollywood, Oedipa follows several dead-end paths to unfold not only the mystery of her ex-lover's death, but to uncover the the depths of her inner soul. Pynchon demonstrates that lost causes are the only kind worth fighting for in this novel, because they lead to self-discovery, even if that discovery is only the realization of all that we don't know and understand. As Oedipa becomes more entwined in the lies and the hope of discovering truth becomes more vague, she strives even more to uncover it. There's something terribly heroic about a person who continues searching for truth despite the realization that such a quest is a lost cause. She searches not simply to find answers, but to find questions and to realize that her quest is about the journey and not her destination. This novel is ultimately about a modernist heroine striving to find her place in a postmodern world.

Pynchon’s novel also critiques certain aspects of modernity by exemplifying a society that is filled with both discarded objects and discarded people. The most obvious example of this is the acronym WASTE, which evolves into a central theme of the book for both the reader and the protagonist, Oedipa Maas. WASTE is supposedly an underground mailing system created by dissatisfied members of society to subvert the U.S. Postal service. Oedipa becomes obsessed with the concept of WASTE and goes on a frantic journey to attempt to uncover this mystery. Along the way, she encounters various people who have formed their own underground organizations in response to various forms of rejection. There is the IA group, founded by a man who swore off love after his wife cheated on him, The Alameda County death Club that sacrifices well-adjusted members of society on a monthly basis, the Peter Pinguids, who are against industrial capitalism, etc.

Oedipa lives in a society saturated by consumerism. “Waste” is prevalent in the novel because consumerism is so ubiquitous and new objects are constantly replacing the old. Pierce Inverarity becomes a key symbol of consumerism and capitalism because he owns much of the world that Oedipa is thrown into during the course of the novel. There is even a reference to Pierce “using one of his many credit cards for a shim” (11) to reach Oedipa. Initially, Oedipa is immersed in this world of consumerism, living as a suburban housewife who attends Tupperware parties and cooks dinner for her husband every night. It becomes apparent that amidst these Tupperware parties and multiple credit cards, Pynchon is creating a vision of a plastic society. This plastic society is one that is always changing in hopes of improvement. A critical example of this occurs early on in the text when the narrator describes Mucho’s feelings about working as a used car salesman:

-he could still never accept the way each owner, each shadow, filed in only to exchange a dented, malfunctioning version of himself for another, just as futureless, automotive projection of somebody else’s life (5).

This quote illustrates the idea that people are always shifting, ignoring the past, and looking for an improved version of life. This is a very modernist idea, and one that Pynchon is obviously critiquing because he regards this exchange as “futureless.” Simply because things change in the novel does not imply that things necessarily evolve. In fact, the more new information that both Oedipa and the reader receive, the more chaotic the book becomes. Having these new concepts and conspiracy theories introduced makes it difficult for Oedipa to make sense out of the increasing chaos:

Oedipa wondered whether at the end of this,…she too might not be left with only compiled memories of clues, announcements, imitations, but never the central truth itself, which must always blaze out, destroying its own message irreversibly, leaving an overexposed blank when the ordinary world came back (76)

The latter quote demonstrates how new information is constantly replacing and confusing old information. There is also the idea that the information is being replaced by “imitations” and not the truth. This results in the destruction of truth. Pynchon illustrates a common postmodern idea that:
“If we are unable to unify the past, present, and future of the sentence, then we are similarly unable to unify the past, present and future of our own biographical experience of psychic life” (Jameson 27)
Oedipa seems to be suffering from a sort of identity crisis because of her inability to uncover the past. She fears that she will be unable to remember past events and therefore she will not know herself. There is the trepidation that “a life’s base lie, rewritten into truth” (Pynchon 58) is a reality in this novel.
Although The Crying of Lot 49 seems to have pessimistic tone to it, throughout the course of novel, Oedipa evolves as a character. Initially, she is an enclosed housewife, dependant on her husband and living in the suburbs. However, she evolves into a postmodern heroine. Even if she never discovers the truth behind WASTE and Trystero, she still triumphs as a character because she acknowledges the necessity of discarded objects and discarded members of society. Discarded things become a means of gaining consciousness for her as they bring her outside of the sheltered suburban life. She becomes her own heroine, no longer relying on husbands, wealthy boyfriends and insane psychiatrists to save her. She learns to recognize that the seemingly useless, discarded people and objects are vital links to a past that modern society is trying to undermine. It is only by looking to the past that she will be able to look towards the future. Her character experiences a submergence of consciousness, and it is through the presence of discarded objects that she is able to evolve into a human being as opposed to remaining a plastic product of a consumer driven society.