What is Libra Trying to tell us?
After finishing Libra, I found that the book (ironically) doesn’t really care that much about actually solving the mystery that is the Kennedy assassination. Rather, it delved much deeper into what the assassination means, how it became more than just an interesting story, but a phenomenon in the conspiracy theory world, and a craze that is still ripe today. The assassination is not just described as a turning point in history, but rather as the intersection between reality and fiction. Nicholas Branch, the CIA historian who is trying to reconstruct the event, at the end of the novel starts to realize that all the facts don’t lead to a clear path, but rather even more confusion. With every piece of evidence, a new narrative seems to be pushed, rather than staying on track. But maybe that is the whole point?
Lee Harvey Oswald in the book isn’t portrayed as the clear villain in the story. Delilio takes a different approach, in a way humanizing Oswald to the reader, as a man who is trying to find somewhere to fit in, trying to create meaning in his life. He is trying to cement himself in history, in a way where it is known what he was trying to do. The book, by providing insight into Oswald and his personality through all the little things that aren’t mentioned in history, shines him a light where he isn’t a mastermind, but rather someone who got caught in a mess that didn’t initially involve him. Oswald being the storyteller in a sense and the scapegoat in the end of the novel is something Delilio had to balance throughout the story, and in a way led to the novels focus on not figuring out what actually happened, but rather fostering the craze of theorizing what actually happened.
Libra is more focused on what happened after Dallas rather than what happened in Dallas. The event’s depiction as a myth doing the rounds in pop culture and history seems to point out the lack of a clear cut story. Maybe that is the whole point of the novel. Maybe finding the real story isn’t what has dragged conspiracy theories to the present, but rather the chase of trying to muddle one of the most convoluted mysteries in the 20th century.
Hi Sri, I thought that it was really interesting how you described Delillo as not trying to solve the mystery but instead showing the craze of the conspiracy theory. In fact, Delillo seems to be playing with the reader by showing all the different nuances to the story and how so many of the parts don't make sense and how people interpreted those facts. I wonder if this book could have inspired other cultural conspiracy theory phenomenon books.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting take. I would note that the book does indeed spend the vast majority of its words attempting to assemble a coherent narrative about "what happened" leading up to 11/22, and DeLillo is only indirectly interested in the stuff about what it all means for American culture and history. But as you state at the start, in the end the novel does not try to offer a definitive "solution" to the plot--or, it DOES, in so far as DeLillo has constructed a pretty airtight account, but we are aware that this coherence depends on entirely invented and imagined details that are plausible but can't be proven. Somehow the "postmodern" nature of this event and the discourse surrounding it means that we have to be comfortable with this contingency, with the role of *fictionalizing* as a necessary way to bring coherence to what perhaps cannot be known.
ReplyDeleteHi Sri, i think you did a good job in talking about how DeLillo decide to keep the assassination as a mystery and deciding to focus on other aspects such as that of Lee Harvey Oswald by not painting him as this cold, calculated killer but instead saying that there's more to him than just killing Kennedy. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteHmm, very postmodernist take Sri. Its definitely an interesting idea that Libra is more about creating a crazy conspiracy story rather than solve the mystery. I do agree with some parts, especially after recalling something that Jay mentioned during class today, which is occam's razor. Occam's razor generally states that the more simple a theory is, the more likely it is to happen, and I find it interesting how elaborate the story of Libra is and that if one of the random plot points were to disappear, the whole plot would not make sense.
ReplyDeleteHi Sri! I really like your... subtle phrasing of the concluding line. I also really like how you talk about Libra as more of a sort of commentary on the formation of conspiracy theories themselves, especially the modern conspiracy as descended from the JFK assassination. Personally, I found it interesting how the narration stays away from post-assassination terminology when discussing pre-assassination events: Nichola Branch is allwed to talk about the Warren Commission and the Zapruder Film, but Raymo and Frank go to a "grassy embankment," not a grassy knoll.
ReplyDeleteHi Sri! Your conclusion that the 'chase' for the story is what matters most in very interesting. I wonder if Branch is indeed standing in for the reader: we keep digging for more, but there's just more and more confusion. Your conclusion is very postmodern indeed, and there's a point to be made about how one can essentially build up wild stories... does this make them all equally valid? Great post!
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I think the way Lee is portrayed in the story, not as a cold, calculating killer, but rather as a real human with thoughts and feelings, very much sets Libra apart from other stories that follow a criminal or killer. Instead of giving us one interpretation of them, set out as fact, DeLillo makes a point of heaping many contrasting perspectives onto us, forcing us to independently consider which to believe. It also encourages some interesting questions of morality, too: was Lee all that guilty, since a shadowy government agency manipulated an already unstable man into carrying out their plot? Or was Lee really the one doing the manipulation in some part, like he seems to want people to believe?
ReplyDeleteHi Sri, how DeLillo portrays Lee is incredibly fascinating to me. He is not shown to be a smart, strong, guy who wanted to do this from the start. Rather, his intelligence is questionable at best and someone who is easily manipulated. Weirdly he looks different in every photo and facts about him don't add up. I take this to be that Lee is an interesting character to be studied. Not to be looked up to, or even to look down upon, rather we should ask the question, "who is this guy?"
ReplyDelete