NARRATION IN JAZZ, BY TONI MORRISON

Word count: 895

Though the form of a novel is conventionally expected to contain content that is told through a singular form of perspective, Toni Morrison defies expectation and convention in her manipulation of narration. Within the scope of the first section of Toni Morrison’s Jazz, Morrison fluidly transitions between first person and third person narration. Morrison’s fluid use of differing modes of narration, as she rapidly cycles between first and third person, constructs a narrator that embodies both the familiarity of an onlooking neighbor and the intimacy of an omniscient observer.  

In the opening to the first section of Jazz, the narration immediately begins in ambiguity as Morrison blurs the lines between the first person account of the narrator and a distanced third person narrator. Morrison’s ambiguity immediately draws the reader's attention to two different aspects of narration, resisting categorization from the earliest moment of the novel. In the opening line of Jazz, Morrison writes: “Sth, I know that woman. She used to live with a flock of birds on Lennox Avenue. Know her husband, too”(3). With these opening words, Morrison establishes the novel on a basis of ambiguity in who, or to where, the reader should look to in following the story line. Though the story begins in first person, the contents depict a distance between the narrator and what is being described, making it ambiguous as to whether the focus is on the narrator or the story being told. Morrison does not back down from her avoidance of classifications as the novel progresses, creating a characterization of the narrator that exists outside of the story that is being told.

Morrison’s intermittent use of a first person narrator goes as far as to delve into characterizing the narrator, characterizing the lens through which the reader receives the narrator’s third person recollection of events. Morrison diverges from the notion that distance in narration aligns with objectivity through the moments in which the narrator interjects extensively in first person. For example, Toni Morrison writes, “I lived a long time, maybe too, in my own mind. People say I should come out more. Mix. I agree that I close off in places, but if you have been left standing, as I have, while your partner overstays at another appointment, or promises to give you exclusive attention after supper, but is falling asleep just as you have begun to speak- well it can make you inhospitable if you aren't careful, the last thing I want to be”(9). The characterization of the narrator suggests that what we receive in what appears to be third person is a biased take on Violet’s story, which points to the narrator as having a view of the story that is skewed by personal experience as it comes to manifest in seemingly omniscient portions of the first section.

Though the narrator is characterized in first person, the third person recollection of events transitions into what appears to be a borderline omniscient level of knowledge of the events that have come to pass. For example, Morrison writes, “Washing his handkerchiefs and putting food on the table was the most she could manage. A poison silence floated through the rooms like a fishnet that Violet alone slashed through with violent recriminations”(5). Such descriptions lead the reader into detailed descriptions that stray away from the initial first person and limited third person perspective, leaning instead towards a narration that appears to be much more objective in nature. These moments of intimate omniscient knowledge are ended bluntly, before diverting to the narrator's own speculation riddled with ‘Maybes’. As the narration fluidly transitions from first person to third person perspectives, the third person account that appears to be omniscient in nature become confounded by limitations in the third person perspective. As the narrator reflects upon Violet’s actions, Morrison writes, “Maybe she thought she could solve the mystery of love that way. Good luck and let me know”(5). Though the narrator is distanced from the content that is being described in the use of third person narration, the narrator indicates a limitation in knowledge in her use of qualifiers. The narrator not only indicates limitations in their knowledge of events, but accompanies this with their personal regards towards the speculated events. Therefore, in this moment of the first section of Jazz, the narration blurs the line between what it is that Violet felt about love and what the distanced narrator feels about Violet’s quest for love. The attitude of the narrator, though indirect, places the depiction of Violet’s quest to define love, which is described on uncertain terms to begin with, in a space of naivety from the point of view of the narrator. The narrator takes a sympathetic stance towards Violet’s actions that is fitting with the narrator's own experiences with love that surface earlier in the first section of the novel.

The culmination of the narrator’s ability to present seemingly omniscient detail, while also maintaining their own characterization and biases, constructs a narrator that is able to embody both the position of a third party observer and a first-hand participant. Morrison exceedingly breaks beyond the boundaries of linear narration in the first section of the novel as she leaves the reader in hanging on the tail end of her transitions in perspective that are both abrupt and fluid. As Morrison details in her foreword to the novel that the work itself was styled to be a linguistic manifestation of the characteristics of Jazz, the narrator of Jazz resists categorization and flows with a music-like disregard for convention.

The Confusion of Lot 49

            The Crying of Lot 49, in simple terms, is confused. Thomas Pynchon imbues every scene in the book, from the seemingly random onset of Oedipa Mass’s journey as the executor of Pierce Inverarity’s will to the concluding moments of an estate auction overrun by conspiracy, with notes of hesitancy, jilted by shadows of paranoia and doubt. Nothing makes sense--or perhaps everything does. A confusing sentiment--and the crux of the story, or lack thereof. Oedipa acts as the standard-bearer for the reader, tugging at plot threads that may or may not be there. The question of whether anything is happening at all remains, always. A pervasive haze shrouds Lot 49, obscuring what truths the reader or Oedipa may derive at any given moment. One specific moment embodies this worldview, the confusion of Lot 49.

            The moment to which I refer is Oedipa’s interaction with John Nefastis, a scientist who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine by invoking a literal version of the famed thought experiment Maxwell’s Demon. As Oedipa interprets it in the book, “There were two distinct kinds of this entropy. One having to do with heat-engines, the other to do with communication. The equation for one...looked very like the equation for the other. It was a coincidence. The two fields were entirely unconnected except at one point: Maxwell’s Demon” (84). Notice that Pynchon does not focus on the defined qualities of each individual equation. Whether it has to do with heat-engines or communication is irrelevant: what he emphasizes instead is that any perceived similarity is purely the product of coincidence. His statement as such is granted its own sentence ( “It was a coincidence”) and furthered in the subsequent phrases, while Nefastis’ explanation of the actual nuances of the the experiment is, for the most part, ignored. So the reader is meant to understand only that there is nothing to understand. Lot 49’s main plot, the perceived mail conspiracy supposedly uncovered by Oedipa as the book progresses, acts as a macrocosm for this principle of visible yet non-existent connection.

            That concept is furthered by Nefastis, in distinctly literary terms. Simplifying his verbiage for Oedipa, Nefastis says, “Entropy is a figure of speech...a metaphor...The Demon makes the metaphor not only verbally graceful, but also objectively true”(85). Pynchon’s diction, despite acting within a description of a scientific concept, employs language intended to clue the reader in as to the possibility of Oedipa’s (and Nefastis’s) delusion, as well as to the possibility of their own. Nefastis’ explanation pulls from rhetorical vocabulary: metaphor, figure of speech, verbally graceful. The connection between the fields is a metaphor, “entirely connected except at one point: Maxwell’s Demon.” By referring to literary nomenclature, Pynchon implies that the Demon exists within the novel itself, that it may be more than figurative, that Oedipa herself may be the one point holding together a perceived connection that, in reality, is no more than self-deception. The reader is granted a sense of dramatic irony here, made aware of the possibility of Oedipa’s folly: but only briefly, as she proceeds to raise the question herself.

            Oedipa, in comprehending the nature of Maxwell’s demon, begins to realize that the concept may apply to the narrative that she has constructed--that she may be the demon in the box.  She, of course, is terrified at this prospect, having already (in pursuit of a potential farce) cheated on her husband and left home for an indeterminate amount of time, presumably at some monetary expense. So, she asks the inevitable question: “‘But what,’ she felt like some kind of heretic, “if the Demon exists only because the two equations look alike? Because of the metaphor?’ Nefastis smiled; impenetrable, calm, a believer. ‘He existed for Clerk Maxwell long before the days of the metaphor’” (85). Oedipa, in questioning her own mission, feels like “some kind of heretic”, as if by considering the possibility of being wrong, of the conspiracy existing only in her head, she is committing blasphemy, rebelling against a natural order. Nefastis, then, represents a pious counterpart: “impenetrable, calm, a believer”. But his answer only reaffirms her fears. Nefastis reacts to her question by referencing Clerk Maxwell’s faith; in other words, the Demon existed because Clerk Maxwell believed it so. Oedipa’s question is left unanswered. She remains in the dark, lost in a haze of probability and confusion and belief that, when combined, results in a worldview centered in uncertainty, in the reality that without looking inside the box, one can never know whether or not the metaphor, or the Demon itself, exists at all.

            In this scene, Thomas Pynchon creates a microcosm for the novel’s thematic crux. The reader, from beginning to end, is never sure whether the mail conspiracy is anything beyond delusion. Oedipa, too, doubts herself more and more as the narrative progresses, but still is never able to reach a definitive conclusion. The Crying of Lot 49’s worldview is built on Oedipa’s question, the question of whether the story exists at all. Nefastis’s answer, then, defines Oedipa’s and the reader’s subsequent perspective. It exists if you believe it to exist. Would you like it to?

Word Count: 865

The Confusion of Lot 49

The Crying of Lot 49, in simple terms, is confused. Thomas Pynchon imbues every scene in the book, from the seemingly random onset of Oedipa Mass’s journey as the executor of Pierce Inverarity’s will to the concluding moments of an estate auction overrun by conspiracy, with notes of hesitancy, jilted by shadows of paranoia and doubt. Nothing makes sense--or perhaps everything does. A confusing sentiment--and the crux of the story, or lack thereof. Oedipa acts as the standard-bearer for the reader, tugging at plot threads that may or may not be there. The question of whether anything is happening at all remains, always. A pervasive haze shrouds Lot 49, obscuring what truths the reader or Oedipa may derive at any given moment. One specific moment embodies this worldview, the confusion of Lot 49.

The moment to which I refer is Oedipa’s interaction with John Nefastis, a scientist who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine by invoking a literal version of the famed thought experiment Maxwell’s Demon. As Oedipa interprets it in the book, “There were two distinct kinds of this entropy. One having to do with heat-engines, the other to do with communication. The equation for one...looked very like the equation for the other. It was a coincidence. The two fields were entirely unconnected except at one point: Maxwell’s Demon” (84). Notice that Pynchon does not focus on the defined qualities of each individual equation. Whether it has to do with heat-engines or communication is irrelevant: what he emphasizes instead is that any perceived similarity is purely the product of coincidence. His statement as such is granted its own sentence ( “It was a coincidence”) and furthered in the subsequent phrases, while Nefastis’ explanation of the actual nuances of the experiment is, for the most part, ignored. So the reader is meant to understand only that there is nothing to understand. Lot 49’s main plot, the perceived mail conspiracy supposedly uncovered by Oedipa as the book progresses, acts as a macrocosm for this principle of visible yet non-existent connection.

That concept is furthered by Nefastis, in distinctly literary terms. Simplifying his verbiage for Oedipa, Nefastis says, “Entropy is a figure of speech...a metaphor...The Demon makes the metaphor not only verbally graceful, but also objectively true”(85). Pynchon’s diction, despite acting within a description of a scientific concept, employs language intended to clue the reader in as to the possibility of Oedipa’s (and Nefastis’s) delusion, as well as to the possibility of their own. Nefastis’ explanation pulls from rhetorical vocabulary: metaphor, figure of speech, verbally graceful. The connection between the fields is a metaphor, “entirely connected except at one point: Maxwell’s Demon.” Pynchon implies that the Demon exists within the novel itself, that it may be more than figurative, that Oedipa herself may be the one point holding together a perceived connection that, in reality, is no more than self-deception. The reader is granted a sense of dramatic irony here, made aware of the possibility of Oedipa’s folly: but only briefly, as she proceeds to raise the question herself.

Oedipa, in comprehending the nature of Maxwell’s demon, begins to realize that the concept may apply to the narrative that she has constructed--that she may be the demon in the box.  She, of course, is terrified at this prospect, having already (in pursuit of a potential farce) cheated on her husband and left home for an indeterminate amount of time, presumably at some monetary expense. So, she asks the inevitable question: “‘But what,’ she felt like some kind of heretic, “if the Demon exists only because the two equations look alike? Because of the metaphor?’ Nefastis smiled; impenetrable, calm, a believer. ‘He existed for Clerk Maxwell long before the days of the metaphor’” (85). Oedipa, in questioning her own mission, feels like “some kind of heretic”, as if by considering the possibility of being wrong, of the conspiracy existing only in her head, she is committing blasphemy, rebelling against a natural order. Nefastis, then, represents a pious counterpart: “impenetrable, calm, a believer”. But his answer only reaffirms her fears. Nefastis reacts to her question by referencing Clerk Maxwell’s faith; in other words, the Demon existed because Clerk Maxwell believed it so. Oedipa’s question is left unanswered. She remains in the dark, lost in a haze of probability and confusion and belief that, when combined, results in a worldview centered in uncertainty, in the reality that without looking inside the box, one can never know whether or not the metaphor, or the Demon itself, exists at all.

In this scene, Thomas Pynchon creates a microcosm for the novel’s thematic crux. The reader, from beginning to end, is never sure whether the mail conspiracy is anything beyond delusion. Oedipa, too, doubts herself more and more as the narrative progresses, but still is never able to reach a definitive conclusion. The Crying of Lot 49’s worldview is built on Oedipa’s question, the question of whether the story exists at all. Nefastis’s answer, then, defines Oedipa’s and the reader’s subsequent perspective. It exists if you believe it to exist. Would you like it to?

Word Count: 865

The Jazz Narration

  

   In the beginning of the novel, it is impossible to determine who the narrator is. The narrator never describes themselves, so how do we know exactly who they are? We can only see and feel their emotions, but also what they experience and what they see.

   In my point of view the narrator is not just one character, but four other characters. The characters sees and experiences many different scenes in the novel, so we can clearly see that there is more than one. Plus it'll be creepy if it's just one character following the others and being nosy in their business. The narrators that are in the beginning of the novel are Violet, Joe, Alice and Dorcas. It is now visible with who exactly is the narrator. Each of the main characters is experiencing different emotions and it is taking place at different locations. Also there is many different scenes taking place and different characters that are being used. Each character has their own portion in which they narrate and they know exactly what has happened or what is happening at that moment.

    The narrator is speaking in first person point of view. The word "I" is used a lot in the story in which the narrator is telling us what they are thinking or what they are feeling. One example can be, "Well, it can make you inhospitable if you aren't careful, the last thing I want to be," (pg.9). In this quote the narrator explains that they do not want to be inhospitable because they are being ignored by their husband. This novel is also speaking in third person omniscient. The third person knows the thoughts and feelings of the characters of the story. Mainly the whole novel is told in third person omniscient. They know everything that is happening in the story.

      In the beginning of the story you will read the character Violet, most of the times. The focus was mainly on Violent and it focuses on what she does and the experiences she went through. The narrator in the beginning will be Violet and she explains herself in the third person point of view. She went into full detail on her whole experience she had when her husband was having an affair. I'm sure Violet was the only person who knew all the details that she went through herself and explained it into third person. In some parts of the story she speaks into first person saying, " I suspected that girl didn't need to straighten her hair," (pg.5). During that event Violet was looking for details of Dorcas after she had been murdered to capture her husband's attention and at that moment it was in third person point of view describing how Violet found what Dorcas used and there was a side note of the first person being used saying that Dorcas didn't need to straighten her hair. One hint that gave out that the narrator was Violet herself was that Violet is a beautician who did hair and she found the iron Dorcas has used. Violet felt sympathy towards herself because she was so desperate in trying to make her husband pay attention to her by reenacting the things Dorca did.

   After Violets narration, it moves on to Joe and this time Joe will be the narrator for his own story. In the second chapter of the novel the third person, which is Joe, is explaining how he saw Dorcas and the way he felt towards her. He explains how he met his wife, then it moves on how he convinced Malvonne to rent out her room, so he can turn it into a love nest for him and Dorcas. Then it moves on to the third chapter in which Alice is her own narrator of her own story. She narrates her own story and what happens. Then it shifts to Dorcas narration and she tells her own story of being happy with another man, but then her experience of being shot.

    The first three chapters of the novel has four different narrators to the story. Each narrator is in both third and first point of view and they're explaining their story and their feelings. The narrator's have sympathy towards the other characters in the story because of of Dorcas death, but Dorca felt sympathy towards Joe. Violet felt sympathy towards her husband because he was so depressed of the death of Dorcas. Joe had sympathy for Dorca since he killed her and now she is gone. And Dorcas had sympathy towards Joe because she didn't want to be with him anymore and she was happy with another man.

The Narrator of Jazz by Toni Morrison

            The narrator of Toni Morrison’s 1992 novel is notoriously ambiguous, speaking from personal experience and employing “I” intermittently, yet remaining physically and emotionally detached from the events described. There is little private information provided or implied, but through careful analysis, conclusions can be made about the narrator’s identity and significance to the novel. I will argue that the narrator is a black woman and resident of Harlem. She is generally sympathetic in her narration, not making many judgments in herself and remaining so far removed from the story that most of it is essentially read as third-person.

The identity of the narrator can be deducted based on the way in which they approach certain aspects of the story and some distinguishing personal statements. The narrator is a woman of similar background to the main female characters, such as Violet. From the opening line, she claims to “know that woman" [Violet] and “know her husband, too” (Morrison 3). This establishes her as a member of the community, with some sort of undefined relationship with the couple. A few pages later, she states: “I’m crazy about this city” (7), reaffirming her as a loyal resident of the city, which has been established as New York City, the neighborhood of Harlem particularly. The depth of information that she provides in regard to the narrative reveals that she must also maintain a vast network of communication with others—particularly women

Addressing the assertion that the narrator is, in fact, a woman, it must be admitted that there is no explicit declaration or direct implication. However, the tone and approach of the narrator suggest that it is a woman. This is evident in the way that the account is focused on female stories and the black female experience in Harlem. Much of the events in the early chapters are related in some way to hairdressing, which is strongly feminine in the context of the novel. It seems that nearly all of the women in the community have regular hairdressing appointments and this is a routine through which the women exchange information. Violet learns about Dorcas through “the legally licensed beauticians” (5). Despite having “no supervised training, and therefore no license to do it” (13), Violet works as a private hairdresser and this occupation guides a great deal of the plot. The shared female experience of hairdressing is an important motif within the novel and the narrator’s adept understanding of this lends to the argument that she is a woman. Lastly—although most of the characters are female—the men are largely defined and understood through their relationships with women. Even Joe is heavily identified and analyzed based on his romances with Violet and Dorcas and his reputation in the community. Fittingly, he is closely tied to feminity and the women of the city because he sells beauty products. He is described as a “nice, neighborly, everybody knows-him man…he was the sort women ran to when they thought they were being followed” (73). The way in which Joe is characterized, in relation to women, is especially convincing for indicating that the narrative perspective is female. Overall, the story’s emphasis on women and recurring feminine themes strong suggests that the narrator is a woman.

While the use of “I” technically makes the narration first-person, the reality more closely resembles third-person. For example, the long paragraph following the statement “I’m crazy about this city” is intermixed with first-person: “When I look over strips of green grass lining the river…I’m strong” (7). However, because the narrator is not a known character within the story, the “I” serves little purpose except to generate a sense of intimacy; otherwise, the passage is no different than a third-person description. In most moments, the near omniscience of the narrator—such as when she notes that, “privately, Alice admired them” (55)—is just like typical third-person, strongly contrasting the limited perspective of first-person.

The chosen viewpoint is relatively neutral and sympathetic. Being a member of the community herself, the narrator identifies with the characters—or at least aspects of them. She is also able to understand and sympathize with their struggles—the shared hardships of the community. Most notably, the narrator is not extremely condemnatory of Joe Trace’s actions—perhaps knowing that the average reader will criticize him enough. Instead, the thoughts of other characters more harshly disparage him. Alice pondering her niece’s murderer, thinks: “he knew wrong wasn’t right, and did it anyway” (74). Still, the narrator takes time to describe Joe’s childhood and provide the readers with his own perspective on many occasions, demonstrating a personal neutrality or sense of fairness.

The narrator’s position as a member of the community allows her to empathize with the characters, but her absence from the actual events allows her a uniquely neutral perspective separate from emotional attachments and personal feelings. This allows the reader to form their own opinions and make their judgment without direct narrator influence, a refreshing approach.

Prompt 1: Insanity in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot

Insanity in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term insanity means “condition of being insane; unsoundness of mind as a consequence of brain-disease; madness, lunacy.” Because of the overuse of this term in today’s culture, I feel that this term has come to be defined more loosely in that people employ the term in a manner that suggests that anything that seems to be outrageous in regard to what is socially “correct” or what the norm is, is insane. Given this, the term has come to define actions that are out of the ordinary without the individual demonstrating any logic in his or her decision making and thinking. One of the most obvious signs of  insanity appears to be the individual’s inability to see anything inherently wrong or odd about his or her behavior. Because of this, insanity’s definition has come to mean the instability of the mind with no regard or understanding for one’s own being, surroundings, or what is socially acceptable; the manner in which people utilize the term proves to be subjective in its usage. With this definition in mind and that the play was written during a time where existentialism was a popular topic, I believe that in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Estragon and Vladimir do demonstrate signs of insanity due to their lack of sense of time and their constant waiting for a person who clearly will not arrive.

Estragon: If he came yesterday and we weren’t here you may be sure he won’t come again today.

Vladimir: But you say we were here yesterday.

Estragon: I may be mistaken. [Pause] Let’s stop talking for a minute do you mind? (Beckett 7)

In this scene, Estragon and Vladimir attempt to remember how long they have been waiting, yet they do not seem to possess the ability to know how long they have been waiting or what day it actually is. In other words, the two evidently have no concept of time. Time is a social construct as far as years, months, days, and hours go because the manner in which people measure time was created by people.Throughout the play, both characters clearly have no regard for time as they never seem to be able to determine how much time has passed. They demonstrate awareness for what time is, yet they cannot grasp how it passes. The fact that they never know how much time passed demonstrates insanity because they cannot see an issue with this inability, but someone of a sound mind would be able to. They never question their failure to determine what day it is or how much time goes by, they continue to simply wait for Godot.

Vladimir: We’ll hang ourselves tomorrow. [Pause.] Unless Godot comes.

Estragon: And if he comes?

Vladimir: We’ll be saved. (Beckett 84)

Here, at the end of the play, both characters revisit the same idea of killing themselves they explored in the beginning of the novel. This demonstrates that their only reason to live is Godot’s arrival, yet he never arrives. Godot’s failure to appear drives Vladimir and Estragon to the point where they feel the need to hang themselves. Because they cannot distinguish how much time has passed, they cannot tell how long they truly have been waiting for Godot, so they continue to await this being who never seems to appear. They rely so heavily on someone who does not present himself at all throughout the play, and this person drives Vladimir and Estragon to the point where they want to commit suicide because they wait and have been waiting for an unknown amount of time. Clearly, Godot may never come to Vladimir and Estragon, and the evidence throughout the play appears to point to that he will not. Still, the two characters ignore any reasoning behind Godot’s absence which supports them being insane. Their own existence relies on a figure’s existence that has yet to be confirmed.

Vladimir and Estragon demonstrate that they are insane due to their irrational and outrageous thoughts that occur while waiting for someone whose character is unknown and presence is nonexistent. This play explores existentialism, a popular concept during the time Beckett wrote the play, so it oddly makes sense for the characters to exhibit signs of insanity because people experiencing an existential crisis often feel that they are insane. The characters live in an endless cycle and constant state of not knowing or understanding anything that occurs around them or that they experience allows Beckett to create a piece that represents the time period’s feelings of insanity. Overall, Vladimir and Estragon do appear to demonstrate insanity due to the idea that the intended audience likely felt that they were also insane.

Names in The Crying of Lot 49

Samantha Tellez

ENL 10C – Blog Post #2

            Throughout the novel The Crying of Lot 49, we get introduced to, and in most cases brief glimpses of, various characters. The characters of the novel have been given ridiculously unrealistic names by the novel’s author, Thomas Pynchon. However, it’s possible that the names themselves carry on a deeper meaning, a more symbolic meaning. This symbolic meaning would then influence the reader as they work to uncover what is occurring throughout the novel. For example, do these names offer us insight into the lives of the characters? Do they mean something deeper or are they simply a form of satire that Thomas Pynchon uses throughout the novel? Or is the author simply trying to confuse the reader and the names mean nothing at all?

The novel itself begins with the introduction of our main character, Oedipa Maas. Oedipa coming from the name Oedipus. Oedipus was a mythical Greek character, a king, in Sophocles’ tragedy of three Theban plays. The story of Oedipus illustrates as he accidently fulfills a prophecy in which he unknowingly kills his father and marries his own mother. The fact that Oedipa’s name comes from the name Oedipus could mean that she too is destined to fulfill a prophecy, she has a route she must take in order to uncover the truth. This prophecy could be similar to Oedipus’ in the fact that she may uncover a horrid truth. However, in the case of the novel, it is quite possible that the truth she must uncover comes in the form of her ex-boyfriend Pierce Inverarity, who makes her executrix of his estate after his death. Her ex-boyfriend’s name could also mean many things, a “variety” of things you could say. For one his name sounds similar to “pierce variety,” which could simply account for the many different voices he would use and imitate, the last time he spoke to Oedipa, he was using various voices in order to speak with her. His name, specifically the “variety” part, could also account for the many different estates he holds. His name could also stand for “pierce the verity,” verity meaning truth, otherwise known as pierce, or uncover, the truth. This could be a sign to the reader that Oedipa is uncovering something far bigger than she expected. However, Oedipa Maas’ name could mean the exact opposite and she is not destined for anything. In fact, her last name could be read as “Mas,” which is Spanish for “more” which could mean that is Oedipa is meant to be “more” than her namesake, or she rather, she isn’t meant to be like her namesake at all.

As mentioned prior, there are also names used throughout the novel which are simply examples of satire that Pynchon is using. For example Dr. Hilarius, who we learn, after he goes insane from taking LSD, is a runaway Nazi doctor. Pynchon may have given Dr. Hilarius his name as it can be taken in two ways. One being that Pynchon finds Dr. Hilarius’ story funny, similar to the way he simply brushes off the fact that he was a Nazi in the novel. Another explanation could possibly be found by taking the beginning of Dr. Hilarius’ name, the “Hi-“ part, and using is as another form of satire as Pynchon mock/laughs at Dr. Hilarius’ ultimate addiction and insanity from taking LSD, which we first get an idea of when he calls Oedipa asking her to be a part of his “bridge,” “The bridge…being his pet name for the experiment he was helping the community hospital run on effects of LSD-25, mescaline, psilocybin, and related drugs on a large sample of suburban housewives” (Pynchon, pg. 8). Another character whose name could be a form of satire, is Mucho Maas, Oedipa’s husband who by the end of the novel, becomes addicted to LSD. Mucho, according to Oedipa, “…was a disk jockey who worked further along the Peninsula and suffered regular crises of conscience about his profession” (Pynchon, pg. 3). Similar to the way Oedipa’s name was interpreted, his name could be interpreted as “Mucho,” meaning “much” and “Maas” meaning “more.” This would make his name mean “much more,” as he struggles with his profession, Mucho sees himself as capable of doing much more, possibly succeeding in a different career or a different field.

Ultimately, it seems as though it is up to the reader to interpret whether or not the names given by Pynchon to his characters carry any sort of significance. If they do carry some significance to the reader, it is quite possible that these names can help uncover the truth that Oedipa is searching for. 

Socially Insane

Word Count: 751

Insanity is well understood as a “condition” or a “consequence of brain disease,” relying on formal testing and observation to deem someone terminally insane. Culturally, this definition relies too heavily on diagnosis, completely negating the fact that some areas of the whole may not have access to neurological medicine. Also, it fails to acknowledge cultural perception, that is, it depends on the society itself to label the action or the individual as “insane,” and it differs across each social group. Not to mention, there are various conditions of the mind that do not necessarily cause madness and the side effects vary case to case. Personally, I witness insanity as the idea of repeating the same action while expecting different results, lacking better judgement to acknowledge the action itself is flawed. My cultural surroundings demonstrate that an individual becoming an inconvenience to the general public, despite obvious social cues is mentally incompetent and the best possible conclusion is to either ignore or humor the individual to maintain the peace. In Waiting for Gadot, by Samuel Beckett, Vladimir and Estragon desperately find means of entertainment while expecting the arrival of a guest that has guaranteed them a reward for their patience. Though they are not the only questionable characters in the text, their odd distraction tactics and unreasonable investment in an unfamiliar person demonstrate Vladimir and Estragon are not mentally sound.

When initially deciding a way to pass the time, Estragon suggests hanging themselves, sparking interest from Vladimir who lets his companion in on an interesting “fact.” Vladimir informs Estragon of the possibility of an erection, further exciting Estragon to proceed with the hanging (Beckett 10).  Rather than refusing to wait for this unknown character, the men suggest suicide as a reasonable method in escaping boredom. Estragon and Vladimir disassociate from the fact that if they are successful in their attempts, they will not be able to feel anything at all, highlighting they are not capable of understanding the potential consequences. After arguing about which of the two should hang themselves first, Estragon advises Vladimir to “use [his} intelligence” in understanding Estragon’s reasoning for not being able to go first to which Vladimir responds, “I remain in the dark” (Beckett 11). Estragon is suggesting his friend to think intellectually about an unnecessary act, placing Vladimir in a reflective state. During their chaotic thoughts, the characters frequently reside to these moments of darkness they try to avoid. The extreme fluctuation of emotions further extends the definition of insanity since, often, it is emotions of the individual that are telling of their mental status. Though is seems Pozzo and Lucky have their own questionable attributes, it is how Vladimir and Estragon respond that is the most off putting.

After a brief departure from the men, Pozzo and Lucky return frantic and tumble to the ground. Before even deciding to engage with Pozzo at all, Estragon suggests to Vladimir they should ask for a favor from him and “if he refuses [they’ll] leave him there” (Beckett 71). They sense no wrong in receiving a payment for their services. Because Pozzo is revealed to be disabled, their actions are not only cruel, but it reveals the characters are lacking a proper conscious. Pozzo is now begging the men to help them regain their composure; however, Estragon and Vladimir become annoyed, deciding to “kick him in the crouch” (Beckett 75). Without warning or reason other than frustration, the men strike the helpless man only to assist him a short time later. This rise in temperament explains why the public avoid those in a severe mental state to not only avoid conflict but injury.

Towards the end of the play, Vladimir and Estragon once again find themselves alone and impatiently waiting for Gadot, throwing around suicide to calm their minds. This return of their initial plan to escape the madness that has become their lives: pointless and repetitive, shows that they too wish to end the insanity. However, being a prisoner to their minds, they maintain a lighthearted attitude toward their situation, Estragon jokingly using his belt as a noose of sorts (Beckett 87). Finding tranquility in their insanity is another aspect of the definition that is unacknowledged. Because these individuals are so removed from their reality, they are also separated from the tragedy of the world. It is easier for Vladimir and Gadot to reside in their illnesses for a moment the feel they have a greater purpose and that they can potentially reach it someday.

Blog Post #2

The story, Crying of Lot 49 is quite an eccentric reading. The plot and setting at times can be quite arbitrary and ambiguous, but Pynchon within the ambiguity and arbitriousness uses his many different themes; one specifically being that of sex, sexual authority and gender stratification to convey certain messages-- which show the disparing worldview of the story. The overarching plot is that the main protagonist, Oedipa, ex-boyfriend has passed but has named her the executor of his estate, and with this she feels the duty to execute-- to where she meets the lawyer to whom were the reader is made aware of one of the themes which shows the despaired world view within the story. How this is shown is by the main protagonist lack of authority and or ownership of her own body-- and in general her sexual identity.

When the lawyer (Metzger) showed up and after they had more than a few drinks they decided to have a game/wager on a show that Metzger was apart of when he was a young boy and stated that everytime that Oedipa was wrong on an answer she would have to strip a piece of clothing(and vice versa) and also she placed a wager that everyone on the boat would die. Yet, Oedipa had been suspicious of what Metzge knew and what he had planned-- especially after their initial counter when Oedipa was weary of the knowledge given by Inverarity, but Oedipa had  a “Marvellous idea” as she describes it, that would help her win regardless and so,

“Oedipa skipped into the bathroom, which happened to also to have a walk-in closet, quickly undressed and began putting on as much as she could of the clothing she could of the clothing shed brought with her: six pairs of panties in assorted colors, girdle, three pairs of nylons, three brassieres, two stretch slacks, four half-slips, one black sheath, two summer dresses, half dozen A-line skirts, three sweaters, two two blouses quilted wrapper, baby blue peignoir and old Orlon muu-muu. Bracelets then, scatter pins, earrings, a pendant. It all seemed to take hours to put on and she could hardly walk when she was finished.” (Pynchon: 24)

This initially signifies that the worldview of the story was alluding to a more optimistic- positive stance because it shows Oedipa taking ownership of her body. Oedipa doesn't throw herself at Metzger whom she says she finds handsome; she does the opposite and makes him work for it-- playing hard to get because she is unsure of Metzger as an individual and also because she wants to assert her authority of not only her body but also over Metzger. She could barely even walk after putting on all of that clothing, but her inability to move meant nothing if she could exert her power. She wanted Metzger to understand the power structure in play and that he would have to allow her amendment of the rules of the game for him to even have a possibility of achieving what he set out to do, which he thought was cleaver. Arguably Pynchon thoroughly describes this setting; stating every clothing item because he wants the reader to understand the importance of what Oedipa is doing for she is acting out of many conventional stereotypes of women, during the modern-post modern era, when faced against a man whom they find attractive. Each piece of clothing she put on to possibly irritate Metzger and yearn for something out of his reach and also every piece of clothing acting as act of rebelance.

Yet this is where almost immediately after the dynamic of the world view of the story changes and shows its true countenance of being bleak and or disparaging. Oedipa is winning the game/wager because after finishing adding more clothing to herself in the bathroom to further tease and assert her authority she sees that he is pretty much naked and decides that she wants to have sex with him. This at first it seems that she still is in control but when she found out that the story didn't end well for the protagonist within the story and that they actually had a gruesome ending. So, “Oedipa had leaped to her feet and run across to the other wall to turn and glare at Metzger. “They didn't make it!” She yelled. “You bastard, I won.” (Pynchon: 30) The countenance of disparity now is shown because in response to Oedipus outburst he smiled and stated that she won. And then after Oedipa asked Metzger what Iverarity had told him and he stated, “That you wouldn't be easy.” (Pynchon: 30) So the chapter ends with crying and with Metzger in the end. This truly shows the disparity pertaining to the world view of the text through the theme of sex, sexual authority and gender stratification because in the end even though Oedipa worked so hard to have this complete authority she was deceived and led to believe that she had authority not only of the situation but also her body. She went through an entire process and worked extremely hard to assert the matriarch in that current situation-- going through far lengths-- even not being able to walk from her adding clothes to have control. Yet this control was a fiction. And even though she won the game she still gave herself to Metzger thinking that it was her decision but all along Metzger would have won with either outcome of the game, which was rigged with knowledge and or resource which he possessed. So the solemness of the worldview can be argues that to be solidified by the relaity of Oedpia losing the game.

Multiple Narrative of Jazz by Toni Morrison

In Jazz by Toni Morrison, the central narrator is not explicitly stated--rather, readers are given purposeful ambiguity that leaves the point of view up to interpretation. Because of this, I feel that the narrator is an omniscient, often 3rd person narrator due to their birds-eye view over many events of the novel. Alongside this, the mysterious narrator include moments of 1st person interjections to carry the story along in a way that exudes emotions likened almost to a diary entry. Although bias is shown towards characters and the story is told in a non-linear form, these elements intertwine with facts only an omniscient narrative could reference, indicating a presence outside the characters that tells the story. In an interestingly created stream of consciousness narrative, the author settles on a combination between 1st person and 3rd person omniscient to provide a personal yet all-knowing view on the story’s events, overlaying story on story in a melodic harmony reminiscent of the novel’s title itself.

This stream-of-consciousness, omniscient narrative is greatly impactful when discussing each character’s actions--better immersing the reader through the narrator’s own sympathies and explanations. For example, as Violet is introduced the narrator takes an omniscient point of view to explicate her thought process of winning Joe back through jealousy as it would “dry up his tears and and give her some satisfaction as well” (Morrison 4). Her plans come from her own head, but the narrator addresses Violet through the third person, making it clear that they are not the same person. While Violet is given her own chance at narration later on, the tale of her running through the snow in combination with the ability to know her plans before they happen provides ample evidence that this narrator takes on an omniscient view.

In the first three pages, the narrator also uses their 1st person point of view to insert their own attitude and sympathies to the story, in comparison to the typical neutral 3rd person  After addressing Violet’s wild schemes of romance, the narrator sarcastically remarks “good luck and let me know” (Morrison 5). These sorts of out of pocket statements are threaded constantly throughout the novel. By including such remarks, the narrator is able to have the best of both literary worlds--personal ideals of the first person, and the all-knowing presence of the third person. The addition of such comments is a more personal approach to narration, and is used to both sympathize and belittle the characters to twist the reader’s biases. 

This combination of the omniscient and personal is incredibly impactful for how readers interpret the text. Even when describing the city of Harlem, the narrator uses their personal voice to insert their own opinions on the city whilst leaving holes for readers to decide the true meaning of the text. This is most notoriously present as they feel “alone, yes, but top notch and indestructible-- like the City in 1926 when the wars are all over and there will never be another one” (Morrison 7). The narrator describes the city as unbeatable, and at the time period of the novel another World War wasn’t apparent to most. Despite these seemingly positive and all-knowing thoughts, there are several gaps within the narrator’s claims that leave readers questioning their true intentions. By qualifying the sentence with the word “alone” and implying no knowledge of future events, the first person concepts are increasingly present as if it were fully omniscient, the narrator would likely know peace was far from home. 

The holes left in the narrator’s statements explicate a more personal, stream-of-consciousness kind of narrative in comparison to an all-knowing, godlike presence of traditional third person points of views. The insistent personal sympathies and often sarcastic attitudes provided towards many of the characters indicates that the narrator is fully immersed in the story rather than watching from afar. That said, the consistent knowledge of character’s thoughts and actions is tradition to an omniscient viewpoint. The combination of these two aspects leads me to believe that the narrator is not a character readers learn by name in  the story, but rather a mysterious third party that is within the story yet allotted a bird’s eye view of events. Though not a traditional narrative by any means, I believe that this combination of viewpoints is incredibly impactful for leading readers to their own observations and interpretations--especially when meeting characters like Violet, who is deeply complex.