Oedpia the underdog!

One can argue that The Crying of lot 49 can be inferred as an optimistic text because Oedipa fits the quintessential underdog archetype. Her task of managing her ex boyfriend’s estate provides the obstacles needed to mimic the setting in which underdog archetypes are normally found in. The setting presents an uphill battle for the protagonist which brings out the underdog archetype. Her determination to carry out her ex boyfriend’s estate parallels the determination associated with an underdog archetype. Presenting Oedipa as this type of archetype allows the reader to support Oedipa path down the rabbit hole, so to speak, where instead of criticizing her decisions they are rationalized as necessary in order to complete her objective. The open ending-ness of the story doesn’t allow the reader to determine if Oedipa succeed but with the underdog archetype it is the journey not the destination that matters.

            Oedipa doesn’t lead a galvanizing life nor is there any insight that she is living a fulfilling life that provides her any type of agency over her identity. Her lack of agency, inability to initially move plot, is what makes her resemble the persona of an underdog. She is presented as underqualified and unaware on how to complete her task. This is similar to how an underdog is defined which is “a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest” as defined by Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. It is the objectives presented by being the executor of Pierce’s estate that control plot movement in the beginning. This sets up the setting for the underdog archetype because it presents a type of game. Oedipa needs to gain control over plot movement in order to win the game but given her lack of agency presented her as the inevitable loser. The “loser” depiction is combined with a determination element here which causes the reader to support Oedipa not criticize her, this makes the story appear lighthearted. The depiction if Oedipa leaving her mundane life to an unknown future parallels a journey. It is the journey type element that brings excitement and wonder to the book giving it an optimistic view. The reader can infer that Oedipa’s life will improve because of this journey and because her current situation isn’t grand enough to settle for.

            Oedipa’s choices in figuring out the Tristero System translate to the obstacles she must overcome in order to win her objective. With each new clue she thinks she finds only leads to another obstacle. The rabbit hole figuring out the Tristero system is what make her look more like a loser of the game. This causes the reader to root for Oedipa more. This causes a red herring effect, instead of questioning whether figuring out the Tristero system is pragmatic to fulfilling Pierce’s estate seems to matter less. The focus then shifts to being more about Oedipa’s personal growth rather than winning “the game” itself.

            Her reflection of whether she is having a mental breakdown or not present a type of personal growth for Odipa. She starts to push back against the game being the thing causing movement within the story. This causes her to backtrack and reassess her life. It is at during this time that Oedipa realizes her psychiatrist is crazy and her husband is now a drug addict. Oedipa has a choice to make here, she can either stay and try to go back to her old life or continue into an unknown future. This choice shows how Oedipa has progressed, she thinks she is crazy but realizes that the craziness was at home, so to speak. It is the change she sees in herself that causes her to retain a sense of agency because now is moving plot. She moves plot by deciding to have a better future by deciding to figure out the mystery. The realization of agency is an important process of the underdog archetype, it is the reason why readers align with them. The act of bringing meaning and creating the possibility of a better life is what satisfies the reader to continue reading the story.

            Even though the story has an open-ended ending, one thing can be inferred by the end of the novel and that is, Oedipa’s life is better than it was before. Before beginning this journey Oedipa had no agency, she lived a circular life that she didn’t dictate. The continuation of the journey is what granted her, her agency and paints a more optimistic future for her. Her future can be viewed as optimistic because Oedipa has now taken charge of her life. She is continuing to handle the estate because she decides to, not because she feels obligated to. This mimics the underdog archetype because even though the possibility of losing is certain, the gain in bettering their situation in trying to win is what matters. Oedipa improved her life situation by taken control over it and that is what matters and makes this an optimistic story.