Panel Presentation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slaughter House Five Final Thoughts

I don't know exactly what to make of this book. It feels weird to call it an anti-war book, because writing such a book in the world of slaughter house five would really be just an anti-glacier book. But war is still portrayed as a horrible thing in the book.

I began thinking about this, why I couldn't just label slaughter house five as an anti-war novel. And I believe it is a result of the reality of Vonnegut's writing, he writes so earnestly it is hard to see him as having a message he wants to get across that's more than just his story. If war comes off as awful its because war for him was awful not because he wants it to be awful.

It this honesty that I believe is the best aspects of Vonnegut's writing he's writing about the world not about war. This has left me dumbfounded and made Slaughter-House Five one of the most memorable books I've ever read. Everything from the humor to the imagery to the font is done flawlessly. Why he would see the book as a failure in the traditional sense is astounding to me.

But when I began thinking about why Vonnegut saw the book as a failure I began  to think I could see what he meant. We're strapped to rail car staring out a tube and Vonnegut wants to unstrap us and free our vision. But in writing Slaughter House Five I believe he came to think that there was no way off the rail car, projecting the dissapointment onto his book.

Defining Billy's World Through Tralfalmadore

The most interesting part about me to Tralfalmadore is the frame it places Billy's Narrative in. It uproots the story form Dresden constantly placing you in a planet where such a horrible event is trivialized by an alien perception of our world. Making Vonnegut's so it goes mentality much more relateable.

I would view te book as rather callous in-fact if Tralfamadore wasn't added to the story, It reinforces the smallness of humanity. Were specks of dust viewing the world through a peephole and sometimes our perception gets skewed Tralfalmadore's there to bring us back down to earth, showing us the futility of what Tralfamdore view as the pitiful squabbles that are our wars.

As to whether or not the world is real I think back to Mumbo Jumbo and Orsis and Moses. The impact they've both had on the world is very physical making their existence just as tangible as any other historical. figure. A similar occurrence is the reason for the  apparent reality with which Tralfalmadore is displayed, to Billy its real and our world seen is through Billy's eyes making Tralfalmadore tangible in the eyes of the reader.

Slaughter House Five Initial Impressions

I am really impressed by this book so far Vonnegut's Dry Humor and word-play endlessly amuses me. It's honestly one of the funnier books I've read, and he seems much more intelligent than me often leaving me to pause in between breaks simply thinking about the implications of what he just said.

I also particularly enjoy the way hes presenting the anti-war novel rather than using emotionally manipulative mean to show us the horrors of war he simply shows us war for what it really is and lets the horrors sink in this is so effective. It allows readers to come to their own conclusions but Vonnegut is able to subtly nudge them towards the ideas he wants, and sometimes not so subtlety using humor to mask the fact that he has effectively told us how he thinks and wants us to think. In particular his description of Bobby's wife the way in which he describes her is quite comical, yet allows no room for free thought you're going to come away thinking shes a a fat slob no matter what. But that idea is essential to the thought experiment that is the rest of the story, and the person bobby is.

The moment I began having such thought s was the moment when the Germans stumble across the fighting Americans in the clearing. Vonnegut immediately dispels your image of them as Nazis by humanizing the dog and eventually the rest of the squad. Moments like this are truly the strentgth in this book and I look forward to reading on

Mumbo Jumbo Final Thoughts

It's hard to summarize this book to be honest I can not definitively draw any statement from Reed's writing. It's all a bunch of small parts that add up to a larger picture, take the talking android and the Idea of the quote saying Museum's are where "art goes to die". Both are statements on culture but no the exact same thing.

This is half the reason I love Reed, he doesn't feel that the complicated problems and ideas he addresses can be broken down into a simple sentence I could spout and summarize his ideas with. Mumbo Jumbo's not just about black culture, western civilization, or Jes-Grew it's a combination of the three blended together into a delicious literary smoothie, with undertones of racial commentary.

So If I were to attempt to make a thesis statement on Reed's behalf it would go something like this: Ishmael Reed in Mumbo Jumbo attempt's to break down the energy and idea of a cultural phenomenon using Jes-Grew and the tension between White and Black to gives us a picture of the defining principles behind all historical conflicts.

But I can't say I entirely agree with my made up theses, it once again makes it oversimplified which is obvious if you read Mumbo Jumbo Reed comically exaggerates everything, no he's not saying that white men cant take part in a black movement. He's showing the ridiculosness of most of the whites (or anyone in any movement that they arent really a part of) ina black movement. Making his points with his sledgehammer rather than a chisel. Which to be honest will leave a much large imprint on the reader

The organic nature of culture

The more I read Mumbo-Jumbo the more I feel as if I am reading a critique of western culture. In particular the way America is willing to try and reproduce any aspect of an upcoming culture the find fascinating and often the way we manage to butcher it.

Take the chitterling switch that occurs early on, rent parties being a real part of a cultural movement captivated those that weren't a part of it (White upper-class America) that they decided to try and reproduce. Of course without the nature in which the Rent Parties naturally occurred you get a cruel mockery of what they represent, essentially the black-face of the rent parties.

The other instance in my mind that stands out, of reproduced culture becoming a mockery of the original natural movement is Reed's depiction of a museum being the place art goes to die. Museums often try to capture the past and in the effort to do so restrict the culture they've capture to the past. I can't tell whether Reed's mocking museums inability to capture a whole movement here, or once again the impossibility of one person trying to understand a culture they aren't a part of.

Ragtime final thoughts

By the time I had finished ragtime I realized that reading the book in my mind gave me a more accurate picture of the early 20th century. Even though none of the situations may have been 100% accurate the accuracy with which Doctorow handles them teaches you as much about history as any paper on the period could. Granted you won't get a P.H.D. level of understanding from books such as ragtime, but for the plebeian with a basic grasp of history Ragtime is perfect. Because for me the best understanding of history isn't a string of facts, but a feeling for the time understanding why people did what they did rather than what happened with no grasp of the consequences or motivation behind it.

Take Tateh, the man is not a real historical figure but you can see how a man such as him would be attracted to Emma Goldman and various socialist movements. Understanding why these organizations were so influential in the working class will defiantly give you a better picture of the time period.

You can even see the perspective of the other side with Henry Ford and his invention of the production line, and the generally inhumane view he had of his workers. Giving me a picture I would be unable to receive in a textbook.

I don't know if the is perspective adds to the "truth" of the fiction or not. I wish I had the time to analyze the book historically and see if Doctorow's portrait of America is accurate.

Mumbo Jumbo initial impressions

I am utterly confused, totally and utterly confused by this book. I catch glimmers of the plot occasionally coming away form each nights reading with vague ideas of the reading rather than a plot summary. I like to think this is attributable to the chaos of the human experience, but on the other hand I don't feel like I have the ability to assert that life is inherently chaotic and have had no proof from the novel other than my confusion making me think I may just be ignorant.

I do like the writing though, the joviality that each passage is written with is one of he main reasons I am able to make it through each nights reading. The topic matter lends itself to such a style as well the voodoo belief system and New Orleans culture seem to fit perfectly into Reed's writing style. I also enjoy the randomly inserted uncaptioned photos and the vague relevance they often hold.

I am unsure as to whether or no the book will take on the form of a plot soon, the current lack of one is to say the least confusing. It may just be the overwhelming process of meeting each character in such a disjointed manner. Despite the density of the book I do rather enjoy and look forward to finishing it.

Ragtime's Comcial Reality

Doctorow's ragtime has a to say the least some humorous portrayals of early 20th century America. I couldn't help but at points to read the book as a wordy political cartoon. Especially in the way that such colossal figures collide, the way Houdini runs into a convicted felon whose name escapes me at the moment. And Emma Goldman seems to conveniently appear in the story when someone mentions her name. The moment I came to the realization that Ragtime is a really well realized political cartoon has to be when Ford and J.P. Morgan discuss going to Europe. Especially as Morgan unveils the sarcophagus and stands over it out of breath. This has created a believable world for me where such things can happen. It's similar to the discussion we had last semester on the lack of police in pulp fiction. The world has become so outlandish, that we become used to the reality and accept what Doctorow has to say. The loose base in history also helps with believability as there is always an aspect of irrefutable truth to each story.