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.

Science Fiction in Slaughterhouse-Five

Billy uses science-fiction to escape and form a new universe. All of the weird fictional things in Slaughterhouse-5, Billy has picked up from science-fiction books. For example, the stuff about the fourth-dimension, the Tralfamadorian-like aliens, and the aliens that captured humans as zoo creatures.
I don’t think that having this sci-fi stuff next to the seriousness of the bombings detracts from the bombing’s importance. I read it as Billy, being unable to cope with the idea of war and the deaths, creates his own world with his own view on time to escape this reality. The Tralfamadorian way of looking at death is relatively positive. The death is insignificant because the person will live on forever in the past. This does come with the consequence of losing free will, but that also benefits Billy’s psyche; there’s nothing he can change about the war.
        There is a proverb in the book that appears in both Billy’s office, and on a locket owned by Montana Wildhack that goes, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Billy does not accept the truth of the war and casts himself into a reality where he has no free will, and no power to change anything, leading to his “serenity.” This also relates to Billy’s epitaph about the his feelings towards war, “Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt.” In the Tralfamadorian view of time and life, everything is beautiful, but through Billy’s traveling in time, we see that the things he experienced were far from beautiful by normal standards.

Mumbo Jumbo Humour

The humour in Mumbo Jumbo is used to critique both western and black culture. For example, Gould and Hinkle try to educate Woodrow Wilson Jefferson, a black man, on how to speak with the common African-American vernacular they have observed. Most of the black characters speak proper, grammatically correct English, while the white characters use the vernacular. As someone in class said on Friday, it played with the preconceived notions of race we have about the characters. I did not expect the secret organization for the advancement of the white race to speak in vernacular. W.W. Reed also uses the humour to critic black culture. For example, W.W. is rejected from a cabaret for being too dark. This is criticizing the black racism that happened during the Harlem Renaissance. This time, a black character, W.W., is made to look foolish by another black character who has some amount of power over him. I enjoyed this humour, but I probably would not if the roles were reversed; i.e. the whites coming off as superior. It seems that satire comes from the bottom up; only those without power can effectively make fun of those who have power over them. Even when Reed is criticizing black culture, he’s not doing it by having a white person belittle an African-American. A black character is always in a position of power, never the sole butt of the joke. 

Respectability

Coalhouse Walker and Harry K. Thaw have a lot of things in common. Both characters had their spouses “taken” from them, albeit in different manners; Sarah being killed, and Nesbit’s infidelity. They both sought their own personal justice through violence, but they were both treated differently through the law. Thaw shot Stanford White out of rage. He was upset and took action into his own hands. Coalhouse, when his car was destroyed, first sought legal recourse but there was no one willing to take on his case. They just told him to deal with it. Thaw acted irrationally immediately, Coalhouse only used violence after being told he would not get justice through the judicial system, and after Sarah died. After Thaw shot Stanford White, he was found guilty of temporary insanity. He was put in a comfortable and luxurious jail cell with plenty of amenities not given to regular prisoners. Coalhouse was described by father as “a peaceful man driven mad by circumstances not of his own doing.” Walker was seen as insane despite unsuccessfully going through legal recourse first and being far more respectable than Thaw. Father even described Coalhouse as “A peaceful man driven mad by circumstances not of his own doing.” While Thaw was deemed “temporarily insane” because of his money and race. These two characters represent the differences in perceived respectability based on race. Coalhouse is seen as respectable by the public because he is black, despite his actions, overall, were more respectable than Thaw’s.

Tateh’s Transition

Of all the characters in Ragtime, Tateh changes the most. He started as a poor immigrant barely getting by selling his paintings, and ended up becoming a successful movie producer. Tateh’s journey is representative of the American dream, but Doctorow’s representation of this is not entirely positive.
Tateh works a machine in a large factory, doing the same skill-less labor for days along with other workers who are doing similar mundane jobs. Before this, Tateh was an optimistic artist, who thought he could make a living with his art. His dreams were crushed when he realized he needed a more steady income to support his daughter.
During the strike, Tateh made his own artistic pro-worker posters, but he was told that they didn't “stir the anger.” So he switched to word art. During all of this, after work, Tateh is making art for his daughter. This is the art that he enjoys making, the silhouettes, and the flip-books. He made these to make his daughter happy, because he could not make what was happening in the art happen in real life. “What if the truth was that he could do nothing more for her than make pictures? What if they just went on this way in varying degrees of unrealized  hope?”
But, in a somewhat ironic twist, theses flip-books are what eventually lead him to his fortune. He abandons the strikers and focuses on his animation which eventually makes him very rich. He creates a fake baronship for himself to hide that he used to be a poor Jewish immigrant. He completely abandons his past life, and all the people and causes he believed in. Doctorow’s representation of the American Dream seems to be both positive and negative. Tateh did become rich and successful, but through luck and betrayal of his identity. There were many more immigrants in the book who stayed poor and true to their identity. Doctorow seems to be saying that in order to achieve the American dream, one must not only be lucky, but also betray their identity as an immigrant. There’s a contradiction between individual identity. In terms of the American dream, Identity is based on which groups you choose to associate yourself with. Tateh switched from associating with immigrants, to the rich. Even when he was working with the strikers, he changed his art to more align himself with that group.

Doctorow’s Treatment of Coalhouse

Doctorow portrays Coalhouse differently than most of the other characters in the book. This could be because Coalhouse is unlike any other character. He is not a famous historical figure like Morgan or Ford; nor is he completely made up like Father and Mother. Coalhouse is based on a character from an old fictional story.

Doctorow doesn't go into Coalhouse’s head like he does with Morgan and other characters who are real people. He chose to give small bits of information about Coalhouse by showing what was know about him at that time. Doctorow said “Here, given subsequent events, it is important to mention what little is known about Coalhouse walker Jr.” He could have easily made up facts about Coalhouse or dive into his inner psyche as he did with Morgan, but with the limited information the audience receives, Coalhouse feels like a much more real character. It made me feel like I was learning about Coalhouse through a history book or a newspaper of that time.

I feel more sympathetic towards Coalhouse just knowing these few facts. If I did know exactly what was going on in his head, I might be a little put off; but I don’t think this was Doctorow's main intention. Coalhouse is the most fictitious character, in the sense that he is a made-up charactered based on another made-up character, and yet he is portrayed through a historical lens; unlike the real historical characters. This is a more subtle example of Doctorow’s irony. He could be using this to make a comment on the relationship between history and fiction. Perhaps the treatment of Coalhouse as a historical character is suggesting that history is subjective; it doesn't really matter that he is made up, the audience feels like he is real and is just as significant as Morgan or Ford.