The Crying of Lot 49

So my first impression of the first chapter in this novel is that it is trying to epitomize the essence of the 1960s with the three characters that are established within it. First of all, Oedipa is presented to the reader in a curious manner, and she is shrouded with bits and pieces of a very eclectic life. For instance, her trip home lands her in a million different places that are none alike, but she all seems to be a frequent visitor to all of them. She goes to the market downtown to buy cheese and listen to Muzak, but on the way she takes a route to hear a concerto, then she ventures to an herb garden, and reads book reviews in a scientific journal, then she makes an Italian dinner. Oedipa's trip home and the different cultures she experiences along the way seem to form a collective sense of unity, while at the same time being totally diverse aspects of very different cultures. This type of unity in a world of ever-differing culture is what I think of most when I think of life in the 1960s. It seems that this era was the embodiment of rapid and progressive change, that cultures, languages, music and food were shared by everyone, no matter where you came from. The idea that everyone could enjoy variety seems to be prevalent in this first chapter and there exist people in it that are in a sense jack of all trades. For instance, Oedipa's husband Mucho is an ex-car salesman turned disk jockey, which seems to be an unlikely progression of a career path. Also, Pierce's conversation with Oedipa where he uses many different voices and characters seems to be rather eclectic and free-spirited. Overall, I feel like the rapid change in the 60s had a profound effect on people settling down, or choosing to be associated with one particular culture, and this is evident by Pynchon's development of his characters in the first chapter. Also, I wanted to point out that the names established in this first chapter are quite intriguing. Perhaps there is a sense of foreshadowing here, and I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I feel like Oedipa is meant to sound like Oedipus, or the tragic hero whose ultimate downfall was his own self. And Mucho, which means much in Spanish, seems like Pynchon is making a point that he is a very overbearing character. Also, Pierce, which has the connotation of action (since it is a verb) seems to be a commentary on his nature to upset or create change. And of course, my favorite is Dr. Hilarius, who seems more a head-case than his patient, is maybe a humorous satire of psychologists or therapists in general.

"There Was a Queen"

I feel like in this work, Faulkner is presenting his reader with some very interesting ideas about both the condition and the character of women. For one thing, the title of this piece suggests a forgotten brilliance and importance of a woman, though the reader is really never able to identify whether the "Queen" is a figure in the story or a more broad representation of women worldwide. The fact that there was a Queen, suggests a sort of fall from grace, or a diminishing quality. To me, though Faulkner is a bit ambiguous in this text, the Queen seems to be Miss Jenny, a woman who never married and seems to be the matriarch of the household. In fact, in the very beginning Faulkner makes note of the entire Sartoris family tree, but defines the men of that family as the sons of mothers, and the husbands of wives. This sort of emphasis on the female as the trace of a blood line is pretty unusual. In this piece, it also seems that Faulkner may be alluding to a shift in the character of women over the time period discussed (from 1869 to the early 20th century), and nothing highlights this shift more than when he juxtaposes Miss Jenny and Narcissa. Miss Jenny seems to be steadfast, and believes that women are truly autonomous and in many cases (for instance, when she says "You can thank your stars it was just men your grandfather fought.") more resolute and tougher than men. I think when Faulkner places these two women together, he is making a comment on how the inner character of the woman has changed over time. He inventively does this by having the house servants (particularly Elnora) comment on the characters of both Miss Jenny and Narcissa. For instance, Elnora describes Narcissa as "trash" and Miss Jenny as "quality." Even the stark contrast of the women's two names seems to hint that Narcissa is a product of a more selfish breed of woman. Interestingly enough, the issue of time and change over time seems to be of importance in this piece with regard to how women have evolved. When Elnora is describing Miss Jenny to her son she is trying to tell him that women of Miss Jenny's quality do not exist, or they are slowly becoming extinct. She relays this message by saying to him that "you don't know nothing about, because you born too late to see any of it except her." This statement implies that not only is Miss Jenny of a certain "quality," but that other women joined her in this category; women who are now no longer around. I think it is interesting that Faulkner is making the statement that the character of women is what has deteriorated, not their condition in society. Perhaps this piece is aimed at criticizing those women who would abuse the new-found powers that society afforded them, instead of embracing them genuinely.

H.D. and Sappho

I thought it was interesting that one author in particular (Eileen Gregory) decided to connect H.D. and Sappho. Having read quite a lot of Sapphor recently for a Classics course, I can certainly see how the two females' work might be compared. Sappho was generally known for her tenderness of words and her ability to capture emotion in the lines she wrote. Nature was also a resounding theme in her poetry and the imagery she creates with nature is astoundingly convincing. Similarly, H.D. is trying to create an image with the "Sea Rose" that reinforces the nature theme. However, in Sappho's poetry, much of her imagery and content was so florid and emotional that I found myself getting lost in the nature part of the poetry and not focusing on the metaphors she used. But I think that H.D. has solved the problem of too muchnature my making those images almost acidic in a way. She represents the beauty of a blossoming rose, but also its ability to fade and wither away. Also, H.D. takes the literal meaning of the rose and transforms it so it almost becomes a human in a way. The bad things that happen to it are things that we would think might happen in our own lives. For instance, being "marred," "lifted," or "flung" seems improbable for a rose, and more probable for a human. I think H.D.'s word connotations serve the purpose of making the reader humanize the rose in a very emotional and intimate way. This certainly seems like a progression from Sappho, whose Ancient way of writing was in effect a masterpiece, but nature was so totally offset from the human form and human emotion. I find it interesting that H.D. wrote a poem about Helen of Troy and then did such a florid poem like this to possibly imitate and expand on Sappho. Perhaps she has a fascination with the classic realm, but it seems she takes the themes of that realm and infinitely expands upon them in her own way. My only wish is that she would have done that for all Classical works, to make them entirely more interesting and relevant for young students like me.