Talk:The Crying of Lot 49

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I have removed it. R Lowry 15:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Paranoids

message: 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)
thread_title:  "wry nods" 

message: The rapparatus of this article is broken. The / 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)
thread_title:  Reference apparatus broken 

message: 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)
thread_title: Characters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Explaining puns/jokes?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Narrative Voice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  -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)
thread_title: spoiler purge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The band from Austin

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

text: 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, . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pure speculation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging Oedipa Maas 

message: 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)
thread_title: Completeness

message: 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)
thread_title:  Near-spam 

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tristero vs. Trystero 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed and done. Шизомби (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brighton Rock

message: Is the English language version of the slogan: what would the actual original name be? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: W.A.S.T.E

message: 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).Grant, J. Kerry. A Companion to The Crying of Lot 49 (Athens:  University of Georgia Press, 1994). . 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.http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Arthur_Conan_Doyle/Round_The_Red_Lamp/Lot_No_249_p1.html 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Lot (2)49? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is Lot (2)49? Rebuttal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Crying of Lot 49. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219074830/http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_watts.html to http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_watts.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by AliveTurtle0 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Rethinking Revenge