Is it a mystery, a thriller, a satire?  All of the above. I read this book yesterday and although it is about 50% shorter than the other books I’ve read thus far, I have way more notecards, full of my questions as the plot progresses, notes on expressed themes, interesting character issues, good quotes, et cetera.  I mean, how can you not love a book with a character named Genghis Cohen?  Dr. Hilarius?  Tony Jaguar?  Mike Fallopian?  Way weird, way entertaining.  This book was written in 1966 but you would never think so. It feels post-post-modern and unencumbered by setting.  I read that Pynchon doesn’t like this novel much, which makes me want to read everything else he wrote.  If this is the crappy novel, I’m keen to read the good ones.  

The story, I think, is about the blurry line between certainty and delusion.  I mean, probably. Who can know.  In the beginning, I thought the “lot” referred to Mucho Maas’s car lot, but found out I was dead wrong.  This was my first experience with the assumption vs. reality aspect of this novel.  Then there was the question of why Oedipa’s ex makes her executrix of his massive estate, which we expect to be the point of the novel, but Mr. Inverarity is not the point. 

I started off looking at the characters and their motivation; each character is supposed to want something, according to Vonnegut and pretty much every awesome writer in the universe.  So what does Oedipa want?  Escape from Rapunzel’s tower.  Hilarius?  Escape from the secrets of his internship.  Mucho?  Escape from a passionless future.  What happened when I tried to discern motivation of the principal characters?  I discovered theme.

In the first chapter, Oedipa remembers a trip to Mexico that she took with Inverarity, where they stumble into a museum during a storm.  She finds a painting of several women shut away, weaving the universe outside their tower.  This is the first indication that Oedipa finds it difficult to determine what is real and what she has woven underneath her own feet like the tapestry in the painting.  Then when she meets Rudolph Driblette, he gently mocks her curiosity about his directorial choices for the play that has just sparked her obsession, highlighting the theme of illusion, delusion and the role of perceived certainty.  He points out, “…You can put together clues, develop a thesis, or several, about why characters reacted to the Trystero possibility the way they did, why the assassins came on, why the black costumes. You could waste your life that way and never touch the truth.”  (Note that W.A.S.T.E. will come into play later). Oedipa takes this as a challenge and sets out to do just that.  She exists to interpret Inverarity’s will to the world as Driblette has interpreted the play – a director creating worlds.  

Inverarity had been with Oedipa when she lost her certainty and she doubts her ability to determine reality & fiction when he has posthumously presented her with the will, the role, the clues.  The idea of him is wrapped up in her loss of her direction, her ability to trust and engage in communication – communication being another theme, most explicitly explored in the activities of W.A.S.T.E., and in the meaning of the title (the crying).  There are also a few strange lines that step outside the narrative to speak directly to the reader about the characters, mini-asides like: “Your gynecologist has no test for what she was pregnant with.” These stray sentences are modes of communication outside what the reader has been used to and it jars your attention, kind of delights you when it happens.  There’s a feeling that Oedipa can no longer speak for herself, the commentary is necessary.  As she loses contact with the people she can confide in, the themes of communication, isolation and unreality get tangled in the action.  Theme is expressed in the imagery, the characters in their motivation and dialogue, in the plot, in the style: an added layer in a well-crafted and well-planned story.

I don’t want to say too much, but I can’t say enough.  Suffice it to say that this book will make sense to you if you, like every character in the book, are seeking “…a real alternative to the exitlessness, to the absence of surprise to life, that harrows the head of everybody American you know, and you too, sweetie.”