For my panel presentation I found an article that blew me away. It took everything I had been thinking and moved it up another level. ("The Dislocation of Agency in Don DeLillo's Libra" by Michael James Rizza)
In particular it talks about the control that the plotters have. It attributes the role of mastermind behind the plot to chance. No-ones really in charge but a series of coincidences. Thinking about this shed new light on history. It really is a tide, as we said in class. It's a tide though that we somehow manage to project our desires onto, attributing the various crashes of the wave upon the shore to our own actions.
Lee embodies this the most. He sees himself in third person, he views his life in terms of how people view him and acts on it. What he projects on the outside is what history picks up, but what he feels on the inside is what Delillo can only guess at.
These guesses are the basis of the unknown elements of history, what we perceive to be coincidence. Rizza mentions a multitude of Dellilo's other work in showing this theme, and it is truly fascinating. I look forward to presenting it in class.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Watching The Zapruder Film
In class we watched the Zapruder film on loop while a passage from one of Delillo's other books was read. It fascinated me, the passage about the disgust that people felt.
It just built up the certainty of the event, which was weird because every time it was a shock to see a man die. They would round the corner, and as far as I was concerned JFK was going to continue on his motorcade, then ,seemingly out of nowhere, his head explodes.
I should see it coming, I know he's going to die every time nothing will change the fact that he did die. But I can't help but be a little surprised everyrtime. The sheer coincidence of the film eventually began to sink in as well. The fact that JFK was there, on that day, and that Oswald (or whomever you may believe) took that shot is amazing. Every occurance in some degree is a result of a seemingly staggering amount of coincidences.
I can't determine if it's coincidence or the unknown though. Is my ignorance simply viewed by myself as coincidence. There is the undeniable fact that a bullet went through a mass that I labeled as JFK. By projecting emotions onto the scene I change the meaning of the scene. It's much more than just an assassination. It's a statement on everything from Cuba, to the shooter himself.
It just built up the certainty of the event, which was weird because every time it was a shock to see a man die. They would round the corner, and as far as I was concerned JFK was going to continue on his motorcade, then ,seemingly out of nowhere, his head explodes.
I should see it coming, I know he's going to die every time nothing will change the fact that he did die. But I can't help but be a little surprised everyrtime. The sheer coincidence of the film eventually began to sink in as well. The fact that JFK was there, on that day, and that Oswald (or whomever you may believe) took that shot is amazing. Every occurance in some degree is a result of a seemingly staggering amount of coincidences.
I can't determine if it's coincidence or the unknown though. Is my ignorance simply viewed by myself as coincidence. There is the undeniable fact that a bullet went through a mass that I labeled as JFK. By projecting emotions onto the scene I change the meaning of the scene. It's much more than just an assassination. It's a statement on everything from Cuba, to the shooter himself.
Libra's Value as a Historical Text
Reading Libra I've noticed that Delillo seems to take historical facts that are known and fabricate the unknown. He puts people in the places they were, at the times they were known to be there. But fills in the blank. We don't know how Lee grew up or his family life. But we still get a clear picture in Libra. Everything Dellillo inserts seems like it belongs.And there's, to my limited knowledge, no way to disprove anything he says throughout the novel.
This got me thinking. Once a historian knows every fact recorded about an event, isn't a novel such as Libra the next natural step? Delillo seems to know everything there is to know. He's literally only filling in the blanks which is motivation.
We know Lee shot the president, we know that in the end as it was said It's a bullet killing another man. But we don't know what makes these men. What to led to the cosmic coincidence that these two people were in the same city on the same day? Why did one want to kill the other? Understanding things such as this give us a better picture of humanity, and wast make us do what we do. In the end its what we really learn from history, it doesn't matter that Kennedy got shot, it matters why he got shot, and what the event will lead to in terms of motivation for the next piece of history.
In fact I've done a similar thing in my short story. I've been trying to explore the insignificant. What goes unrecorded and unnoticed can often be as big a part of history as anything else. This concept continues to fascinate me throughout Libra. I look forward to seeing what people think of this idea in class.
This got me thinking. Once a historian knows every fact recorded about an event, isn't a novel such as Libra the next natural step? Delillo seems to know everything there is to know. He's literally only filling in the blanks which is motivation.
We know Lee shot the president, we know that in the end as it was said It's a bullet killing another man. But we don't know what makes these men. What to led to the cosmic coincidence that these two people were in the same city on the same day? Why did one want to kill the other? Understanding things such as this give us a better picture of humanity, and wast make us do what we do. In the end its what we really learn from history, it doesn't matter that Kennedy got shot, it matters why he got shot, and what the event will lead to in terms of motivation for the next piece of history.
In fact I've done a similar thing in my short story. I've been trying to explore the insignificant. What goes unrecorded and unnoticed can often be as big a part of history as anything else. This concept continues to fascinate me throughout Libra. I look forward to seeing what people think of this idea in class.
Is Lee a Patsy?
Reading Libra I'm unsure of what to think of Lee. Is he stupid? or does he have an awareness most of us lack? After all I would be unable to think of myself as a cog in the machine of history. But then again I'm not much of a cog. I don't want to be much of a cog. I like to think that I'm in-control of myself, that I make the right choices rather than best ones.
But lee, he values himself as a critical cog in the machine. He likes to feel like he's important even if he doesn't necessarily agree with what he has to do.
Which begs the question, is Lee a patsy? To me the answer is no. Sure Ferrie may think he's playing him, but Lee seems to be aware of what's going on. He's willing to be their pawn. After all Ferrie does say something to the affect of Lee being a constructed identity that's already built. He doesn't seem to be a pawn but rather a piece of a large puzzle that is the entire conspiracy, along with his co-conspirators who seem to think that they're playing him.
But lee, he values himself as a critical cog in the machine. He likes to feel like he's important even if he doesn't necessarily agree with what he has to do.
Which begs the question, is Lee a patsy? To me the answer is no. Sure Ferrie may think he's playing him, but Lee seems to be aware of what's going on. He's willing to be their pawn. After all Ferrie does say something to the affect of Lee being a constructed identity that's already built. He doesn't seem to be a pawn but rather a piece of a large puzzle that is the entire conspiracy, along with his co-conspirators who seem to think that they're playing him.
Friday, April 13, 2012
The Apperal of Conspiracy
Libra is I'm assuming going to end with a different take on the Kennedy assassination, one of many hundred alternate theories a quick google search and youll be spending hours, or even days pouring through accounts of what "really happened".
Why is this so appealing to us, why are there entire communities that debate the trajectory of a single bullet for months on end? To me it's largely a comforting fact to feel like you understand a travesty such as the JFK assassination.
In class 9-11 was brought up as well. 9-11 is arguably one of the worst events in American history. Those who propose conspiracy theories are simply trying to forward their understanding. It's comforting to think that theres more to a massacre than a body count.
I can't help but think of Slaughter-House Five as I type that. It's odd the matter of factness with which death is treated by Vonnuget. It's unnerving to think that you can actually understand why something such as the Dresden firebombing or JFK assassination happened. Because to understand why something like that was or would be done, equates a certain level of your thinking with those who perpetrated the crime. And a conspiracy theory is just a way to push that understanding off another level putting another level of disconnect between you and the human being you're trying not to understand.
This is why Libra is so intriguing to me right now. Lee is presented as a person with hopes and aspirations the same as you or me, not some maniacal murdering pawn that got caught up in conspiracy. I hope the novel continues down this path as the ideas behind what could drive Lee to shoot a man, let alone the president of the united states is endlessly fascinating to me.
Why is this so appealing to us, why are there entire communities that debate the trajectory of a single bullet for months on end? To me it's largely a comforting fact to feel like you understand a travesty such as the JFK assassination.
In class 9-11 was brought up as well. 9-11 is arguably one of the worst events in American history. Those who propose conspiracy theories are simply trying to forward their understanding. It's comforting to think that theres more to a massacre than a body count.
I can't help but think of Slaughter-House Five as I type that. It's odd the matter of factness with which death is treated by Vonnuget. It's unnerving to think that you can actually understand why something such as the Dresden firebombing or JFK assassination happened. Because to understand why something like that was or would be done, equates a certain level of your thinking with those who perpetrated the crime. And a conspiracy theory is just a way to push that understanding off another level putting another level of disconnect between you and the human being you're trying not to understand.
This is why Libra is so intriguing to me right now. Lee is presented as a person with hopes and aspirations the same as you or me, not some maniacal murdering pawn that got caught up in conspiracy. I hope the novel continues down this path as the ideas behind what could drive Lee to shoot a man, let alone the president of the united states is endlessly fascinating to me.
Race in Kevin and Dana's relationship
Kevin and Dana have by most measures a very stable relationship, they do run into a rocky patch when Kevin's family expresses their displeasure over his marrying a black women. But nothing compared to him literally being forced to treat Dana as a slave.
Is it possible to ignore race after such an incident? Was it even possible before? To me even now, let alone 1970's America race is a part of any conversation I have I've been conditioned and do see race. I notice when in conversation whether I'm talking to a Black,White, Asian etc.. man. One of the identifiers of a person to me is what race they are.
Now I'm not sure the ways in which the way I perceive people has any impact on the way I act. I like to tell myself it doesn't but I can't shake the idea that I still do. Especially when talking about a racially charged subject, such as the recent Trayvon Martin Case I would chose my words much more deliberately if I was addressing the Apollo theater on the subject, as opposed to the Metropolitan Opera.
I can't speak for Kevin as a person, but I've seen very few people who escape such behaviors. It's impossible to avoid race when we previously used it as the prime measure of social standing. I'm still surprised at the strength of Kevin and Dana's relationship and really admire the amount of respect they treat each other with in such bleak situations.
Is it possible to ignore race after such an incident? Was it even possible before? To me even now, let alone 1970's America race is a part of any conversation I have I've been conditioned and do see race. I notice when in conversation whether I'm talking to a Black,White, Asian etc.. man. One of the identifiers of a person to me is what race they are.
Now I'm not sure the ways in which the way I perceive people has any impact on the way I act. I like to tell myself it doesn't but I can't shake the idea that I still do. Especially when talking about a racially charged subject, such as the recent Trayvon Martin Case I would chose my words much more deliberately if I was addressing the Apollo theater on the subject, as opposed to the Metropolitan Opera.
I can't speak for Kevin as a person, but I've seen very few people who escape such behaviors. It's impossible to avoid race when we previously used it as the prime measure of social standing. I'm still surprised at the strength of Kevin and Dana's relationship and really admire the amount of respect they treat each other with in such bleak situations.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Kindred's use of time travel
Kindred is very different from a book such as ragtime or slaughterhouse five in one large sense that I think made it the most "fictional" book we will read all semester. Which to me is the serious nature with which time travel is implemented in Dana and Kevin's life.
It's not that there's something I simply can't believe does exist in our reality such as as slaughter-house five and tralfalmadore. Tralfalmadore is a concept in the end that doesn't matter if its real to anyone but Billy. Whereas in Kindred time-travel is experienced and understood by multiple people.
Now I want to say this helps the novel, bu in the end its simply adding more distance between us and antebellum America. Which to me is the exact opposite of what Octavia Butler is setting out to achieve by breaking free from the traditional slave narrative, and using time travel. Dana is us, our values in a harsher time it shows us just how disconnected we are. yet while it does this it continues to push us further away showing that you would need something as supernatural as the time travel to even get a small glimpse of the Weylins plantation functioning as it once was, which in a larger sense is an "inside view" of the system that slavery created. The time machine just serves to distance us further.
But to me this isn't a particularly large failure, if you talk long enough you can construe it in such a way that it helps convey the books idea of distance, the idea that the only way we could get the best picture of early america is time travel. I may be reading the priority of butler's themes wrong, she may me value this idea of distance over portraying her story as one of the most realistic takes you'll ever get on slavery.
It's not that there's something I simply can't believe does exist in our reality such as as slaughter-house five and tralfalmadore. Tralfalmadore is a concept in the end that doesn't matter if its real to anyone but Billy. Whereas in Kindred time-travel is experienced and understood by multiple people.
Now I want to say this helps the novel, bu in the end its simply adding more distance between us and antebellum America. Which to me is the exact opposite of what Octavia Butler is setting out to achieve by breaking free from the traditional slave narrative, and using time travel. Dana is us, our values in a harsher time it shows us just how disconnected we are. yet while it does this it continues to push us further away showing that you would need something as supernatural as the time travel to even get a small glimpse of the Weylins plantation functioning as it once was, which in a larger sense is an "inside view" of the system that slavery created. The time machine just serves to distance us further.
But to me this isn't a particularly large failure, if you talk long enough you can construe it in such a way that it helps convey the books idea of distance, the idea that the only way we could get the best picture of early america is time travel. I may be reading the priority of butler's themes wrong, she may me value this idea of distance over portraying her story as one of the most realistic takes you'll ever get on slavery.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)