The Crying of Lot 49

This book was utterly confusing. I guessed it might be a good introduction to Pynchon because his other works are much much longer, but I was only half-right. On the good side, it prepares you, sort of, to accept that you will not be able to completely comprehend everything that is written here. The book itself suggests, in a manner of meta-narrative, that clues are as clear and self-referential as they are emptied of meaning beyond what you yourself might ascribe to them. It's only your choice whether you'll follow threads or not, whether you'll construct some kind of story or “meaning” out of them (I feel this particular word lingers more than any other during reading). Sure, I had my bit of fun with it. I had fun exploring what academics wrote about it – although the journal articles themselves are a bit too much (kind of academically douchy, if that makes sense). I also had fun diving into all that conspiracy-type stuff around it and listened to almost a 4-hour podcast about the Dutch and U.S. postal service systems, JFK, 2nd World War concentration camps, Nazi human experiments, etc. However, what I think is missing in this book, if you compare it to the rest of Pyncho's body of work, is his great style and literary talent. In comparison, The Crying of Lot 49 feels like the worst and most confusing parts of V. and Gravity Rainbow devoided of beautiful and intricate passages.