Talk:The Crying of Lot 49

The Paranoids

Okay, it's clear to all and sundry that the Paranoids are a spoof of The Beatles. (This being a Pynchon book, everything must be more than one thing, but among everything else they do. . . .) For the past couple years, off and on, I've researched the following question: did Pynchon name his parodic band after the nickname the Beatles gave themselves? According to the Anthology, the Fab Four called themselves "Los Para Noias". Among the name's appearances in Beatles lore:

• John lamented that they didn't think to stick para noia into Abbey Road's fake Italian, along with chika ferdi and so forth
• The Anthology discs contain a medley with "Los Para Noias" mixed with several other ingredients

I believe there is (or was) also a cover band who named themselves after this alias.

TCL49 came out just about the time the Beatles were becoming a true phenomenon. They had already been inducing hysteria in vast crowds of teenage girls, but the year Pynchon published this novel, A Hard Day's Night hit the movie screen. Roger Ebert states that the movie "converted the unbelievers"; grown-ups who saw it began to think there was weight to rock and roll. Ebert also commented, "While I was watching the movie, my hair started to grow." (The quote might not be exact, but it's close: look on the You Can't Do That documentary.) Pynchon, recognizing an important movement when he saw it, chose to cut into the core of the controversy. I wonder if he researched the Beatles closely enough to find the nickname they used for themselves. It wouldn't take much: just one comment in a press conference I haven't found yet.

If it were any author besides Pynchon, I would happily dismiss the whole thing as coincidence.

Anville 23:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since this appears to be "original research," I'm going to respond. I think you can make way too much of an obvious Beatle reference. I think it's far more apt to call The Paranoids a spoof on the American reaction not only to The Beatles, but to the British Invasion generally, whereupon Stateside we get an insatiable demand for bands that sing in thick British accents (e.g. Herman's Hermits). The Paranoids are Miles, Dean, Serge and Leonard, four American youths with plausibly Angloid first names, who wear single-button mohair suits, sport Beatles haircuts and sing in fake British accents. This was all over Southern California in the mid-60s, as Frank Zappa attests in The Real Frank Zappa Book. So Pynchon is, I think, more commenting (a la Adorno?) on the American culture-industry tendency to take an original trend and immediately standardize and duplicate it, rendering The Beatles clonable -- as indeed The Monkees tried to do a few years later.

Here's a textual example (from memory). When Oedipa checks into Echo Courts the first time, one of The Paranoids, acting as bellhop, tries to hit on her. Oedipa demurs, and he responds with something like "But I have a smooth young body. I thought that's what you older chicks went for." So it wasn't any grand attempt at seduction, it was merely behavior expected of him as a rock musician in a Beatle clone band, just as wearing mohair suits, Beatle haircuts and singing in a fake British accent is behavior expected of his mates and he if they want to form a rock 'n' roll band at that moment in Southern California history. Playing with the tin-stamped expectations rife in consumer culture is a big part of what drives the book, and this idea gets its first major workout that night when Oedipa bets Metzger on the outcome of the Baby Igor movie -- the grossly unexpected gristly outcome of which begins to set the tone for Oedipa's later encounters.

Snardbafulator (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I think the inclusion of this in category:philately is a bit inappropriate, and borders on a joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it. R Lowry 15:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References made by the book

So far the section on "references made by the book" seems pretty useless (since it is just a list of what is alluded to, not how it's alluded). And these are trivial references (character named "Oedipa", town named "San Narciso"). I don't even know what the Hamlet reference is supposed to be: yes, the play in the middle is in the form of a Jacobean revenge play, but I don't remember any specific references to Hamlet as against the genre. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Working on it. If I feel really clever, I'll try summarizing the novel's take on entropy. Anville 03:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice additions. Keep up the good work! -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Post horn

I see no indication of a mute in the post horn in the illustration. Perhaps it is simply a Thurn und Taxis post horn? - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

You know, I do believe you're correct. Looks like the silly cover artist got it wrong. (-; Anville 01:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

au contrair. If you check closely you will see a line at the edge of the horn which is an indication of the mute. It is not exactly teh same as the sketch on the book but it is still muted. User:Basil

I think that's just a line on the horn itself, not a mute inserted in the horn. :) Zafiroblue05 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a mute. For sure.

"wry nods"

Maybe, given the auction. I believe, though, that Tour et Tassis is simply the French variant of Thurn und Taxis, which is real, not a Pynchon invention. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference apparatus broken

The rapparatus of this article is broken. The {{ref}}/{{note}} mechanism depends on giving notes in the same order as they are referenced in the article. Instead, this is now a muddle. In particular, there is an impossible mix of a general reference list (which should be alphabetical) with a notes section (which must go in the same order as things are mentioned in the article). See Minstrel show as an example of doing this correctly. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Pierce is a dead man (miss him, miss him)

Is Pierce dead?

Note that even Mike Fallopian, who tells Oedipa that the whole Trystero might be "something Inverarity set up before he died", still agrees that Inverarity is dead. If you believe that he isn't, the entire novel implodes. All right, maybe that's the point—but you have to be a hardcore pomo addict to find that prospect enjoyable. If everything Metzger says, everything that the entire firm of Warpe, Wistfull, Kubitschek and McMingus says, the entire behavior of Yoyodyne, and the whole construction of San Narciso are fabrications, then we might as well believe that the narrative voice is lying to us, all along.

Without a source, it sounds like original research to me. Because I am a nice phenomenon of text, I even dug one up which resembles this sort of reasoning, if reasoning it can be called: "If you have to say Edna Mosh into the speaker to have it come out as Oedipa Mass, then a whole code may be involved which would displace the sound and meaning of The Crying of Lot 49 in its entirety". That's Georgiana M. Colville, Beyond and Beneath the Mantle: On Thomas Pynchon's "The Crying of Lot 49". Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988 (page 26).

So, people have at least "thought" along these lines. However, once you go that far—and go that far you must, if you exhume Pierce Inverarity's corpse and promenade it around your narrative space—then reason can no longer help you. It recalls Borges's line in "The Library of Babel": "A number N of possible languages use the same vocabulary; in some of them, the symbol library allows the correct definition 'a ubiquitous and lasting system of hexagonal galleries', but library is 'bread' or 'pyramid' or anything else, and these seven words which define it have another value. You who read me, are You sure of understanding my language?"

Or, put another way, it's Yoda's Law of Postmodernism: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Quedar chingado!

I am, as far as you know, a congeries of text, concatenated from raw alphanumerical symbols. We texts look out for each other. Can we please have a source before we say that TCL49 is really a howling vacuum? Just a footnote?

Eh, sfacim'. Anville 09:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I myself am both text and images. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

$R{\frac {dR}{dr}}!$

Me too. Anville 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention $\int {\frac {1}{Book}}dBook$ in Mason-Dixon. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean "Cada chingado!" (K. da Chingado) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.90.103 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters

I want to see a sub-section in this article on characters. If I work on it, would it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elb2000 (talk • contribs) 8 Feb 2006

<joke>Never having seen your work, I can't say.</joke> It would be a perfectly appropriate addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Explaining puns/jokes?

Is it worth including a section explaining some of the one-off references, puns, and jokes in the book? (And would they violate WP:NOR?) I'm thinking of the radio station KCUF (obvious to an English speaker) and to Metzger's reference to his friend "Manny Di Presso" (manic depressive, I assume). Cons: It might make the article too long, and it might violate the NOR prohibition. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they should be included or not, but there are enough books, articles etc. about the book that references could be found explaining possible meanings of the names (particularly A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49). Esquizombi 13:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

References to Cold War and Vietnam War

Reading the novel, I noticed many references to the Cold War and the Vietnam War, particularly the 1963 Bhuddist crisis in South-Vietnam (the televized self-immolation of a Bhuddist monk is mentioned) and the 1964 Tonkin Incident (which is prodied through the alledged but unprovable naval confrontation in Califorian waters in 1864 between the Confederate vessel Disgruntled and the Russian Navy. The Russians interfered similarly in 1864 in the American civil war as America would later do in the Vietnam War, which was essentially also a civil war. The claim about the confrontation between the Russian Navy and the Disgruntled is made by Mike Fallopian, member of the Peter Pinguid society, a parody of the John Birch society. According to Fallopian, the non-confrontation between Tsarist Russia and the Confederacy, foreshadowed the inevitable Cold War.

I wonder is there is any literary criticism of Pynchon's engagment in this novel with the Cold War, the Vietnam War and also the Second World War.

Narrative Voice

About half way through the book, the narrative voice shifts, but only for a second. When she is leaving the dressing room of one of the actors in The Courier's Tragedy, one of her thoughts / feelings is introduced with the pronoun 'I...' instead of the usual 'She...' . I don't know whether this shift from third to first person is simply an editing mistake in the version I have, or whether it is as Pynchon intended. If Pynchon wrote it that way, then can someone explain what it means? It struck me as rather odd, and, to tell the truth, I had to put the book down for a while trying to figure it out. EmmaSmith 07:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the bit you are talking about? Is it this one? (It's the only one I could find, near the section you mentioned.)

'I'll call,' said Oedipa. She left, and was all the way outside before thinking, I went in there to ask about bones and instead we talked about the Trystero thing.

If that's the part you are talking about, I am afraid the change is simply a stylistic choice. Pynchon decides not to use inverted commas to demarcate Oedipa's thoughts.

If you are talking about some other section, please be kind enough to let us know what section that might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.89.23 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

References

spoiler purge

is an exposition of content needed for a work of art? -maas.

WP does have a lot of pages that do, I don't know if it is necessary. See also Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Esquizombi 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

can anyone direct me to the necessity of a spoiler in an encyclopedia? --Maas 07:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you are objecting the spoiler warning text, or the desricption of the novel that could posssibly spoil the ending for someone? I just read your first comment. Yes I believe it generally necessary to discuss the content before you can properly discuss the criticism of the novel. I don't know it this article is the best example. A good hypothetical is a novel which recieved bad reviews for having a deus ex machina ending would need to have the ending explained to understand the criticism.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

i assume that the consumption of art prefigures discussions and/or critiques. a page on the 'pedia may hence be viewed at three different times: before, during and/or after this consumption. an exposition of content subtracts from the former and is irrelevant otherwise. my first comment repeats. --Maas 07:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if I misinterpret your postition as I am guessing what you mean in some instances. An article on any art work at Wikipedia needs to be encyclopedic. Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. That must include any relevent interpretations. Not original reasearch, but books have been written analizing certian art, including the works of an author. The articles on Wikipedia are not here to serve advertisments to interest people in artwork, but rather to inform them of the important implications and legacy of artwork. As I said before this article is not the best example. I disagree that the content is irrelevent to those who have already read the book. For example by the time I was 15 I had read everything by Charles Dickens. He often used similar plot devices and everyone always seemed to find they were related at the end of the book. For me to remember exactly how the orphan plot progressed in Oliver Twist is beyond me. I need to refresh my memory before I can understand the criticism. That does not even take into account the numerous people who have only seen a film adaption of a classic work without realizing important plot points had been altered. Perhaps your objection is actually to badly written, or improper emphasis of the expostition. You might want to look at The Illuminatus! Trilogy which is featured article on a novel and see if still find it to be inappropiate in that case.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My first question was directed at spoilers of all kinds, not merely this article. The claim of content summaries belonging to '..accumulated knowledge for their subject domain' is debatable. Yes, summaries are helpful for examples such as yours, Birgitte, but my question now modifies to: is the 'pedia a place for these? --Maas 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is the place for them. The fact that no-one objected to the spoilers at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy is a good indication others agree that they belong. Another strong indication is simply how many spoilers have been added by many different contributors (The spoiler template is used in more than 2000 articles). However I don't think many people are watching this page. To find out for sure this conversation should be moved to a more visible place. I looked at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning and saw that whether or not we have spoiler warnings has often been discussed but I did not see anyone suggest removing summaries altogether. I didn't read through all of the archives so I may be incorrect. That may be one place to gauge opinion. However I will warn you a likely couterpoint will be insisting on removing the summaries from articles on religious texts as well.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Spoilers but nobody responded. I think the spoiler warning talk page would be a good place for discussion or maybe the village pump. Esquizombi 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Birgitte, I fail to see the logic of your second sentence (and the claim within). Again, the purpose of this dialogue is to debate the need, rather than illuminate on how frequent spoiler usage is. If the 'pedia community decides to do away with spoilers altogether, Birgitte, I assume this would apply to religious texts as well. Why this is something to be warned about, I do not see. I've posted on the spoiler talk page. --Maas 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

-and to the village pump at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#spoiler_policy

--Maas 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There didn't end up being much discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#spoiler_policy. None at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Is_an_exposition_of_content_necessary_for_a_work_of_art.3F and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Spoilers. That's too bad, as it is a topic that merits discussion. Esquizombi 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The band from Austin

Here's why I've reverted or removed the reference to the band in Austin called Tristero: 1. I can't find any mention of this band online. There's no AMG entry, and a few Google searches didn't turn anything up. Either they don't exist, or (more likely) they're extremely obscure. 2. One of the earlier edits claimed that there would be a song with a TCOL49-inspired title on a forthcoming EP, which violates the rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. 3. An anonymous user with no edits to any other articles is pushing this one pretty hard, which looks like an agenda edit to me. It seems likely to me that this is an unknown band trying to get a little free publicity. They may very well be a real band, but if their existence can't be verified and/or they have no known releases, then they're below the threshold for inclusion in this article. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not listed at: Austin Chronicle's Musicians Register; AustinLive; MusicAustin; Austin Axis; or Austin City Links, so I would have to agree with disincluding them for now. Шизомби 20:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really see the harm in including them, even if they hadn't any exposure in the public media. That's why I reverted the revert. I have not heard of them either, but we seem to have a lot of other bands in there with references. Didn't see the harm in it, not like it will instantly catapult them to success.--GoNINzo 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation

I have cut the following (uncited speculation):

The significance of the number 49 within the novel cannot be placed for sure, but, as the book is preoccupied with the theme of communications, the year 1849 would seemingly bear some resemblence to the text. 1849 was the second year of the California Gold Rush in which vast quantities of telecommunications equipment was rolled out to support those rushing to California. There would also have been need for a courier system to be set up for this purpose.

Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Now sourced: T. Tanner - Thomas Pynchon (London : Pan Books, 1979), p. 65 - readding :) Martin Hinks 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that citation is correct? Google searching on Tanner Pynchon "Pan Books" ISBN turns up nothing relevant, but there is a Tony Tanner, Thomas Pynchon (Contemporary writers) Methuen - July, 1982, ISBN 0416316700. I suppose it is perfectly possible that there is an edition not mentioned online anywhere, but it would be unusual. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you are completely right - my library's online catalogue was severely off - it is the Methuen (London and New York) 1982 edition. If you'd like to see the page in question I can do a photo... I'll fix the citation on the page Martin Hinks 09:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Oedipa Maas

I'm all for merging Oedipa Maas into this article. Heck, since Oedipa Maas has no independent, well-cited material of its own, I'm all for making it a redirect page. Nothing else is necessary. Anville 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Completeness

I have a feeling that the author had been currently reading the book, while writing teh article. It seems to stop at the play, while that is only about a third to a halfway through the novel. --Finalbroadcast 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Near-spam

Given that "Jason Mordaunt"+"Welcome To Coolsville" gets almost no Google hits outside of the book being for sale or in the collections of some public libraries, and given that the connection to The Crying of Lot 49 is at best tangential, I do not think it should be mentioned here. I'll give a few days for someone to explain why it might by relevant for the reader of this article, but unless someone makes a case that completely escapes me at the moment, I plan to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this came from two IP addresses neither of which has ever made any other contribution to Wikipedia does not exactly increase my confidence in the addition being of value. - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And the removal of the request for citation on the claims about it clinches it, at least for me. I am removing this paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Potsage Stamps

It appears that Tibet printed stamps in 1912, and that two of the carmine stamps were erroneously labelled "POTSAGE." I figure that this should be mentioned here somewhere, but I don't know where.--70.101.69.73 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, probably worth a mention. Trying to find appropriate online citation, I'm finding mainly (possibly shortlived) auction site pages. Does someone have a good, stable citation for this? Maybe the Scott numbers? - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got an image, and somebody selling reprints.--Superluser 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Host went down. I've got a copy of the stamp. I also found a copy listed as Tibet, Scott 4a VF NG. I assume that the last four letters mean very fine, no gum. superluser_tc 2007 July 26, 02:29 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

I think The Courier's Tragedy and KCUF don't offer quite enough information to be stand alone articles, and the information would be more helpful to readers if merged with The Crying of Lot 49. Any objections? -- hibou 11:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

None at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

None here. Freshacconci 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Martin Hinks 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge Kcuf, as it has a number of things not directly, or perhaps at all, associated with this book. It would be bad to delete them, and the CL49 article is too long to include them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:02, December 14, 2006 (talk • contribs)64.106.121.59.

I agree that KCUF may serve the project better as a disambiguation page, but have no trouble with the information merge. -- nae'blis 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged The Courier's Tragedy and made KCUF a disambiguation page. BJ^Talk 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Reference

A reference to the fact that Adobe used this book's text for their semaphore code on top of their building in San Jose should be put in. Not sure how to put it in while avoiding "recentism."

The Adobe reference is entirely unnecessary and belongs somewhere else. Somewhere other than an encyclopaedia.

"perpetual motion"

The scientist John Nefastis is not obsessed with perpetual motion, nor is perpetual motion mentioned in the book. The entry saying so must be written by someone who doesn't understand maxwell's demon. "motion" of the molecules is mentioned as a proxy for temperature. The scientists claims to have built a realization of maxwell's demon, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics with the assistance of psychic abilities of "sensitives" who are able to operate the device.

Technically, that would be a perpetual motion machine, as it is pointed out in the novel, to which Oedipa replies: "Sorting isn't work? (...) Tell them down at the post office, you'll find yourself in a mailbag headed for Fairbanks, Alaska, without even a FRAGILE sticker going for you."

Publication Date?

My copy of The Crying of Lot 49, a Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition (2006), states "A hardcover edition of this book was published in 1965 by J.B. Lippincott Company." So was Crying published first in 1965 or 1966? Does anyone have a definitive answer?

You are right, it should be 1965.

Tristero vs. Trystero

Don't have a copy of the book handy, and haven't read it for decades... but noticed that two spellings of Tristero/Trystero appear in the article. Perhaps this should be changed, for consistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.18.72 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings appear in the novel, as it is a novel about deviations, variations, permutations and the like. No change is needed. Go to your local library and re-read the book.

Brighton Rock

Could someone please do the World a favour and get rid of that section? It's absolute rubbish. There are no direct references to Graham Greene's novels in The Crying of Lot 49 and, for that matter, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other narratives involving the death of a character and the protagonist's subsequent investigation into it. Who writes this rubbish? Honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.90.103 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Шизомби (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

W.A.S.T.E

Is the English language version of the slogan: what would the actual original name be? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In German it would be something along the lines of 'W.E.S.T.R.' In Dutch, 'W.W.O.P.I.S.T.', or something like that. Zazaban (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What is Lot (2)49?

The following subsection was added to the article today by a new user. I am bringing it here for discussion for several reasons, for which see below.

Two major themes within the novel are mummification (e.g., Oepida wears layers and layers of clothes in her tryst with Metzger) and the inability to communicate with others (e.g., the muted post horn, Oedipa's inability to hear or be heard over the Inveratity's helicopter, et alia). While the physical object "Lot 49" in the novel is a stamp and something of a MacGuffin, in the similarly titled short story, "Lot No. 249," by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lot 249 is a mummy that is auctioned to the public. Doyle's short story is the first mummy horror tale, and tells the now familiar story of an evil Egyptologist (Bellingham) waking a mummy to murder his foes. The mummy itself is known only by its number (Bellingham says: "Lot 249 is all the title he has now. You see it printed on his case. That was his number in the auction at which I picked him up.") Consequently, Pynchon uses the reference to Doyle's work to create a pun and, thus, evoke an image of a mummy weeping as well as recapitulate the literal "crying of lot (2)49" at the auction where Bellingham bought the mummy and at the auction where Oedipa patiently awaits at the end of the novel. The removal of the "2" from from the reference in the title to lot 249 likely emphasizes the ambiguity in communication with the reader, who is forced to seek the literal meaning of "Lot 49" by reading the novel and then seek the metaphorical meaning of the term outside the novel in Western literature and history.

First of all, this is poorly referenced. Other than the Grant book, nothing is provided here in the way of a source for these claims. And, at that, the Grant book does not support the claim of Doyle's story influencing Pynchon, specifically influencing this novel, or of Pynchon even being aware of the story. In other words, this is all speculation and original research on the part of the editor who wrote this. As such, it is inappropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

References

What is Lot (2)49? Rebuttal

I tried to use parentheticals to offer a rebuttal, but this is apparently bad practice. Let's try again.

RepublicanJacobite said: "First of all, this is poorly referenced." I do not think this is true, I linked the text to Doyle's work, which is the support for the allusion.

RepublicanJacobite said: "Other than the Grant book, nothing is provided here in the way of a source for these claims." I disagree, for the reasons below.

RepublicanJacobite said: "And, at that, the Grant book does not support the claim of Doyle's story influencing Pynchon, specifically influencing this novel, or of Pynchon even being aware of the story." I disagree for the following reasons.

Come on, the coincidence is amazing. To believe that Doyle's "Lot 249" is irrelevant means that Pynchon never heard of "The Mummy," was unaware that Doyle wrote the first mummy story on which the MGM classic was based, was unaware that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote short stories or perhaps knew about them but refused to read them, and was unaware that Doyle wrote the first detective story ("Crying" has been referenced as a detective story ala' Doyle) and/or never read Doyle's canon even after reading a Sherlock Holmes novel.

The coincidence is even more incredible if Pynchon never intended to reference Doyle because it means that despite Pynchon's alleged ignorance of Doyle's short stories, he accidentally titled his book with Lot 49 and included a theme of mummification and an auction of lot 49 (Check Grant out on mummification BTW) being completely ignorant of the fact that Doyle has already written about the auction of a mummy, named Lot 249. Does this argument about the incredible ignorance of Pynchon of Doyle's work posited by RepublicanJacobite sound convincing?

I guess the question to wiki users is how poorly read is Pynchon in the area of great writers of the late 19th century that this many coincidences occurred in his title? But you wiki folks be the judge-- compare my assertion of the allusion to Doyle's work to the "referenced" allusion to the gold rush of 1849-- Which seems more credible or convincing as a motivation to use the term "Lot 49" in the title? I think reasonableness should always triumph where there is disagreement. Despite RepublicanJabcobite's disparagement of original research being anathema to Wiki, I think that it is reasonable that (and have seen where) original research is within the domain of Wiki as long as its verifiable. As such, I urge Pynchon fans to read Doyle's Lot 249 and verify that the allusion is credible. If you agree, please put the section back in the wiki article. RepublicanJacobite and I disagree on what content is appropriate for Wiki articles on literary criticism, so we need a third party educated in Pynchon to weigh in.

Further RepublicanJacobite writes: "This is all speculation and original research on the part of the editor who wrote this." I think that the distinction is meaningless in literary criticism because no critic is ever able to prove that an allusion was intended except when the author himself states that such allusion was intentional (for the exception to the rule, check out Golding's Playboy article on "Lord of the Flies" to see how how to wreck English Professors' "supported" theories.) In other words, all of the references in the original Wiki article are "original research" and "speculation." Despite the inability to "prove" intended allusions in literature or "prove" that an author was aware of a previous artist's/author's works, literary criticism flourishes as long the reference to the allusion is credible and supported by well reasoned argument and at least circumstantial evidence. Thus, my entry meets the criteria of "verifiable" for a Wiki article, especially where empirical evidence is not obtainable absent an interview with Pynchon on the issue. One more issue is that RepublicanJacobite inconsistently applies the standard of "poorly referenced" in the original wiki article. The section on "The Courier's Tragedy" which has no references whatsoever seems to meet RepublicanJacobite's approval while my section (which is actually referenced) does not. Why is one theory without references acceptable, while my theory, which actually links to the verbatim text of the story itself, does not, especially when it is more likely Pynchon has read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle than Kyd or Webster.

Finally, RepublicanJacobite writes: "As such, it is inappropriate." I disagree for the above reasons. My arguments are rational, well supported, and credible. So far I have not seen any substantive criticism of the theory beyond a failure of Pynchon to personally weigh in on the issue. This disagreement between RepublicanJacobite and me appears to be a wiki edit war. Consequently, we need 3rd party analysis in true Wiki tradition to resolve the issue. Please read my arguments and RepublicanJacobite's arguments and decide whether or not the title of Lot 49 refers to Doyle's Lot 249. Surely, there are some English Profs out there who have an opinion. I look forward to hearing more from fellow scholars-- either way, you decide. I just want to get the idea out in the public forum for debate.

Psykl (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the section on the Courier's Tragedy needs to come out too for the same reason. That's the issue I addressed above about consistency in applying the rule for original research in the "Crying" wiki article. Psykl (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same case, but it could be tagged for sources, certainly. There's adequate coverage of Jacobean revenge plays in writing about CL49, about Lot 249, not so much. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the original research should not be in the primary article under Wiki rules, so I agree with RepublicanJacobite's editing. However, I think there room in Wikipedia for original research at least in the discussion section. I think that those who read the primary Wiki article will be able to use the discussion section to fill in areas that although perhaps somewhat speculative, are at least informative and verifiable. It appears that the rules for discussion are formative at this stage. I have run into a similar issue with the "Talk:Lost (TV series)" discussion group. The question is really about whether discussion should include information that is not directly referenced but at least considered "true" by other editors. I believe that the discussion section (or a new style discussion section) could really be useful, especially in contemporary arts, but there seems to be no specific guidance on the issue.Psykl (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's really not the purpose of discussion pages. See e.g. Help:Introduction to talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk. You might try the usenet group alt.books.thomas-pynchon or the e-mail list http://www.waste.org/pynchon-l/ or something like that for original theories. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible missing pop-culture reference

Since you've got a section on these: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine S5E25 "In The Cards" revolves around the auction of a rare baseball card, which is sold as lot 49. Presumably that is a reference to this work, though I can't prove it. Equinox ◑ 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a missing pop-culture reference ... if you check https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Promenade#Promenade_directory (check the image, lower right) you will see that Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems is listed on the directory (making this on-screen canon) as having an office on the Promenade.

I just do not have the time right now to do justice to a proper edit. cjs 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a missing pop-culture reference ... if you check https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Promenade#Promenade_directory (check the image, lower right) you will see that Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems is listed on the directory (making this on-screen canon) as having an office on the Promenade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith725 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I just do not have the time right now to do justice to a proper edit. cjs 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith725 (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education assignment: Rethinking Revenge

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 April 2024 and 11 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dandyozymandy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AliveTurtle0.

— Assignment last updated by AliveTurtle0 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)