Existentialism in The Crying of Lot 49

Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 documents Oedipa Maas’ growing obsession with the possibly imagined conspiracy involved in her newfound role as executor of a will, which her late ex-boyfriend assigned to her. While the protagonist is often used as a device for the reader to feel comfort and familiarity, this novel has an obvious lack of those qualities, which ultimately may lead one to question whether Oedipa is in any way distinct from anyone else here. It is this deliberate combination of randomness, paranoia, and existentialism that culminates in a tone of pointlessness and a conscious disregard for conventional novel features.
The story’s instances of randomness and existentialism are exemplified from the beginning when both the plot and Oedipa’s reaction are detailed. The first thing she does after discovering her newfound responsibility is to stand “in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, [speak] the name of God, [try] to feel as drunk as possible. But this [does] not work” (Pynchon 1). Here, she appeals to multiple forces of the world she lives in: technology, religion, and intoxication, all as different forms of escapism. A few complexities come together here to set the tone for the novel. First, there is the element of casualness with which she does these things, which is contrasted by the gravity they hold in reality; for example, the dangers of alcoholism and addiction to technology, as well as the formality of religion. The writing, then, makes light of potentially serious subject matter. This is a world in which people seem to have been desensitized to important matters, and so the writing reflects that by mentioning three of them in a row with nearly no context. To add to this effect, she achieves nothing through her effort, suggesting either that these forces hold no power or that her character is somewhat apathetic, lacking the desire to follow these routes of peace to their end. It is even possible that the words were nothing more than a joke; a sort of performance put into the novel to emphasize this fiction’s chaos rather than provide profound insight into the state of the world. In any case, Pynchon’s choice of making this Oedipa’s first specific action makes it clear that the novel involves a struggle for meaning and purpose that does not necessarily get resolved by the end. 

The bulk of the novel, however, follows Oedipa’s obsession with the fictional history of the opposition between Thurn and Taxis and Trystero, both competing postal services, though the latter of which is portrayed as very secretive. Throughout her pursuit of the truth behind it all, she comes across many side characters that serve to both move the plot forward and explore the idea of existentialism in the novel further. One of the first instances of this is when Oedipa meets with a lawyer named Metzger at a motel, where their dynamic focuses much more on the sexual tension between them than on the business their meeting is meant for. Though the main irony lies in how easily that transition happens, the situation allows for some briefer examples of absurdity that further pervert the idea of a business meeting. One such occurrence is when Metzger suggests a game he calls Strip Botticelli, with the goal of getting Oedipa to strip, which she agrees to before putting on every article of clothing she has. This choice is followed by her own initial reaction when she “made the mistake of looking at herself in the full-length mirror, saw a beach ball with feet, and laughed so violently she fell over, taking a can of hair-spray on the sink with her” (24). The image of this is obviously intended to be ridiculous and continues the scene’s tone of informality in a situation that is supposed to be considerably more formal. The scene, then, is a prime example of how the novel takes typically serious situations and removes that element from them, therefore contributing to the sense of existentialism via the questioning of tradition.
Although the whole scenario seems to be prompted by Metzger, it is apparent that Oedipa is not the most traditional protagonist by virtue of her reactions. In a more general sense, however, it is repeatedly suggested that the entire plot of the novel could be nothing more than a fantasy in Oedipa’s mind, which at one point is explained as follows: “either Trystero did exist, in its own right, or it was being presumed, perhaps fancied by Oedipa, so hung up and interpenetrated with the dead man’s estate” (88). It is suggested here that Oedipa wants to believe in this huge conspiracy left to her by such an unlikely person after his death as if it is little more than a game for her at this point. Once again, there is a juxtaposition between the formal and the lighthearted, as Oedipa is much more interested in fantastic possibilities than in the real responsibility of being named the executor of a will. Even this dynamic is reversed before the end of the story, however, as Oedipa becomes so obsessed with the conspiracy that she acts in ways that hold potential harm for her well-being, thereby transforming her fantasy mystery into an unnecessarily dangerous task. The possibility that none of it is real makes her character seem all the more eccentric, and arguably no different than any of the impulsive or mysterious people she meets along the way. This blurring of conventional lines between protagonist and supporting character breaks down one more traditional novel element, resulting in a story that is ultimately less about one central figure with a purpose and more about many figures, indistinguishable in their strangeness, with no strong sense of purpose.
The end of the novel sees Oedipa sitting in an auction room to “await the crying of lot 49,” which supposedly holds the potential to solve her mystery (152). Pynchon’s choice to withhold the answer once again subverts the point behind the novel. Instead of providing a clean mystery and solution, we are given a mystery, dense with other subversions, and no satisfying conclusion. If one cannot find the point of the novel in the ending, and the premise itself is not entirely certain, then one of the few remaining possibilities is that the novel is designed to lack meaning, which it achieves through the constant perversion of traditional novel elements.