Filler

  This is my last piece of high school homework, so instead of trying to make a point on Libra, I will contemplate my time in the History as Fiction class. I’ve certainly learned a lot, starting with what post-modernism is. I picked this class because it had the most interesting book-list; I gained a new-found appreciation for books I’ve already read or heard about like Slaughterhouse-Five and Ragtime, and I also discovered new books that I would otherwise never read. Overall, I gained a lot things from this class; not only have my writing skills improved, but my general cultural knowledge has as well. I sincerely would like to thank Mr. Mitchell for providing a great class and really genuinely caring about it.

Zapruder

When we watched the Zapruder film in class, I wasn't as emotionally charged as I thought I would be. The dichotomy of the film being the quality of a home movie and, at the same time, one of the most shocking and important films in American history gave it an odd, creepy quality. I was most surprised by how little emotion the film carried, especially compared to Libra. The fact that is has been studied frame-by-frame to look for evidence further detracts from it’s emotional power.

Libra offers a narration to the Zapruder film that is grounded in history, but filled with human emotion. For example, the narration of the little girl and the secret service man who thinks to himself that the man taking evasive action is a vet. The small human moments give the story a strong emotional force. This is also seen in Marguerite's narration at the end. History books don’t consider the grief of a mother. Delillo also makes the reader sympathetic for Lee, one of the most hated figures of the 20th century. This goes to show the power fiction has over history to convey deeper emotions than just good and bad.

Similarities Between Jack Ruby and Lee

Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald have a lot of things in common. They were both truants and they both spent time in the armed forces. They were also both marginalized; Jack as a Jew and Lee as a Marxist, but the way in which they deal with their marginalization greatly differs. Jack rejects his Marginalization and despite not being incredibly successful, sees himself as an example of the American dream. This is the opposite of Lee who rejects the American dream and embraces his Marxists beliefs.

Their assassinations and motives also differ. Lee wants to be a famous figure in the future. He has been living his whole life in anticipation of the moment where he will make a name for himself. Lee doesn't particularly hate JFK, but he thinks it’s the right decision in the bigger picture for himself. Ruby shoots Lee for many reasons. There’s the loan from the mafia, and his own personal feelings. He wants the instant gratification; he wants to be a figure in the present. The comparison of these two characters shows the ambiguities and mixed emotions of both characters.

Oswald as a Character

The character of Lee Harvey Oswald presents an interesting set of dichotomies in Don Delillo's Libra. G. Robert Blakey, a law professor featured in the documentary, describes the real life Oswald as, “a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, hidden behind a riddle.”

Lee, as he is called in the novel, is both smart and dumb. He has a learning disability but manages to overcome it and read marxist literature at a young age. As a character, he is likeable and relatable, but also hated by a lot of characters in the book. To me, he seems like the annoying younger-brother-type, who just tries to provoke others just for the sake of doing it. For example, when he rides in the back of the bus, he doesn’t say whether he was doing it out of principle or naivete and he becomes a “misplaced martyr” when he gets beaten up for his actions.

Delillo chooses to refer to the protagonist as Lee, instead of his full name. To me, this makes Oswald seem more like a character in a book than an assassin. No one in the news or media has ever referred to him with something as familiar as Lee. There are times in the book were I feel bad for Lee. The way he is presented makes me forget that he is the man who killed John F. Kennedy.

Kevin and Dana

Kevin and Dana are subject to the rules of the time periods they travel to, but the different opportunities they both have as a white man and a black woman are starkly different and highlight an important tension that exists throughout time.

Both Dana and Kevin are like actors when they go back in time. They have to play along with the other characters, but Dana’s role as a slave is much more real than Kevin’s as a slave-owner. Dana pretty much becomes a slave to the Weylins throughout her experiences at the house and is subject to both the judgment of the Weylins and eventually the field-hands who see her as an “Uncle Tom.” Kevin, on the other hand, is more of a tourist and his judgments are less scrutinizing than Dana’s. This is illustrated when Dana and Kevin see the slave children pretend to sell each other. Kevin just sees kids playing, while Dana sees the effects of a time period that indoctrinated children to accept their enslavement.

This tension can also be seen in Dana and Kevin’s relationship in 1976. Kevin wants Dana to type his manuscripts instead of working at a menial, manual labor job she referred to as the “slave market” (52). Kevin doesn’t understand that Dana wants the job for the independance. As an observer, Kevin cannot relate to the position Dana is in. He is trying to help Dana but ends up damaging their relationship.

Slave to the Times

Many characters in the novel Kindred can be see as enslaved by the times they live in. Their actions would be different if the cultural norms of the times they lived in were not in place. This is seen in many characters, but especially in Rufus.

From what we gather from when he was a child, Rufus doesn't seem like an inherently evil person. He is friends with Alice and treats Dana with respect, so we see that he isn't born with prejudice. For example, in his youth, Rufus would come to Dana for advice, and not his step-mother. Dana is a very maternal figure to him. Rufus also yearns to live in the future so he and can have a relationship with Alice similar to Dana’s and Kevin’s; but because of the time he lives in, he is not afforded the opportunity to have a “normal” relationship with Alice.

All of the bad things Rufus eventually does are seen as normal in his time period, but he knows that they are immoral because Dana calls him out on them. For example, when Rufus sells Tess, one of his slaves, he tells Dana that it was already arranged by his father. This is an excuse that Rufus makes up just to please Dana. Rufus remains childlike throughout the book because he looks to Dana as a mother-figure, but she is not in his life enough to have a lasting impression, so Rufus’s character is naturally shaped by the time he lives in. He is spoiled by the amount of power that a white plantation owner in the Antebellum South was given.

Creating Their Own Fictions

Someone in class yesterday brought up that many characters in Slaughterhouse-Five live in their own world. For example, Roland Weary sees the war through the narrative of war movies; he glorifies the war and celebrates the killings. He thinks of himself and the two scouts he travels with as “the Three Musketeers” despite the fact that they are indifferent to him. He doesn’t help keep Billy keep up with the group because he’s a good person, he does it because he’s fitting it into his own narrative about war; the battle-ready soldier, helping the weak soldier survive. He eventually dies from infections and makes his war buddy, Lazzaro, promises to kill Billy.

Another example is “poor old” Edgar Derby. Every chance Vonnegut has, he mentions that Derby is doomed (it reminded me of Doctorow referring to Coalhouse as black). Derby’s shining moment happens when he makes an impassioned speech about American ideals and being happy to die for the cause. He was greeted with an unenthusiastic response and is eventually shot for looting a teapot. He saw himself as a great leader, but was not treated as such.

All of these fictions, including Billy’s idea of Tralfamadore, relate to war. Billy’s fiction seems like a reaction to going through war, Weary’s is a misconstrued idea of war, and Derby is not the leader he thinks he is. All of these fictions give a general negative view of war and its effects.