Zapruder film

I apologize in advance because unlike my past blog posts I will not be discussing the book as the main focus point. But after sitting in class and watching the Zapruder film about 50 times over and over, I feel as though I cannot not talk about it. I am willing to say that the Zapruder film is the most powerful piece of film in the history of film. It shows the gruesome death of the president of the United States of America, but there are reasons beyond this that I would call it the most powerful film. As I was sitting in class, I started to wonder something. What would have happen if Zapruder never took that film. The fact that the assassination is on film is not a matter of common occurrence. As we discussed, this wasn't a time when everywhere the president went there were 40 cameras on him. So what if Zapruder decided not to take that video. Would there even be a controversy? Would everyone have just accepted that the bullets came from Oswalds gun? Would the people crying conspiracy be the onces who were considered crazy? It is scary to think that one piece of film causes so much doubt. Film is supposed to shed light on a situation, but this film only raises questions. So if we can assume for a second here that if the filming of JFK's assassination were not captured a majority of the people in the world would believe that Oswald was the sole shooter, what other historical events are we wrong about? We don't have film of such a wide range of historical events and if this one film can bring up so many questions, what are we missing out on? The reason for the power of the Zapruder film is not what is actually on it, but rather the ramifications of what other historical events would be differently viewed if on film.
Overall, I am very happy that Zapruder did take that video. Because without it, maybe the JFK assassination would be another thing that nobody asked questions about. We would just say to each other "damn that Oswald!" without even knowing the possibility of a shooter on the grassy knoll. And I'm no ballistics expert, but that bullet sure looked like it came from in front of him...

the detail of this Novel

I am thoroughly impressed with Libra. It boggles my mind as to how much raw research must have gone into the writing of this book. DeLillo seems to have included EVERYTHING that we possibly know to be a fact about the assassination and the characters in this novel, as well as his own more post-modernist viewpoints and bending of what is known to make this book truly historical fiction. I cannot comprehend how much work must have gone into writing this novel. I used to have a fear for post-modernism which was that the idea that fiction and history are intertwined and closer to each other than we expect would be used as a cop-out to just make up whatever you want and claim post-modernism. But DeLillo has completely smashed this possibility. He has done as much work as a very good historian would have done to research and put together facts, but above and beyond that, he has created his own creative story as to what actually happened in a historical event that has no easy answers. So overall, I am very impressed with DeLillo. I am however a little disappointed in my enjoyment of this novel. I am having a hard time paying attention to what I am reading and understand what I am reading. The sheer amount of information that DeLillo provides the reader with is a little overwhelming to me. Other books such as slaughterhouse-five and Ragtime were much easier for me to understand and enjoy because of how they were written. But it almost feels as though Libra was written too densely; as if too much information is given to the reader. I am of course disappointed that I am not enjoying this book so much but once again in awe of the work that was surely put into it. 

Libra first thoughts

The first thing I thought to myself after reading the first portion of Libra is wow, there really are so many different methods of writing historical fiction. We have really seen an incredibly wide array of writing styles from just five different books. Ragtime started us off easy with a nice, predictable history book narration. Mumbo Jumbo went the exact opposite way and had the author give little notes every now and then signed by him; but wasn't everything in that novel written by him? Slaughterhouse-five was written by an author who discussed the book that he was writing as a failure in the very book that we were reading. Kindred was more similar to Slaughterhouse-five than any of the other books in that it involves time travel but didn't really riff on any historical figures; rather a historical time frame. Finally we have come to Libra. A book that is much more different than any of the others that we have read.

Libra's main characters are actual historical people; the main one being a name that is associated with the most mysterious murder in U.S. history. And the detail the book presents is almost too much. If I am being honest, I am having a few problems with completely comprehending the reading sections. It is not that the reading is too long each night, it is just that every page is extremely information rich. The pages I am referring to of course are the ones that involve the CIA agents. Often times I find myself lost in who is saying what, and having to go back and re-read the section just to make sure. 

I have always been interested in the Kennedy assassination from a young age just because of the mystery surrounding it. I look forward to what clarity Libra has to offer on the situation.

Who killed JFK?

This was the fist question we were asked to answer before even beginning discussion on Libra. And what a question it is! Obviously, nobody in the classroom knows who actually killed JFK but the question served as an excellent introduction to the novel. So, who did kill JFK? I didn't get a chance to fully flesh out my answer to the question in class so I thought I would discuss my thoughts on the matter here.
The official story, which only 10% of people believe in, goes that Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist from New Orleans shot JFK in Dallas and fled the scene. He then shot a police man and was arrested. The day after JFK's death, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby; a man who was so patriotic that he needed to kill the assassin before he could be put on trial.

I find this act of patriotism to be a little bit too suspicious. Jack Ruby is quoted as saying: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter, "Are these people in very high positions Jack?", he responded "Yes.". I believe the shooting of Oswald to be the main cause of suspicion with the official report. I believe that some organization, possibly the mob, organized the entire assassination and used Oswald as a puppet. They didn't want him to talk during the trials so they shut him up.

Of course there is absolutely no way to know what actually happened so speculation is the best thing that we have got. I am excited to read about the new twist on the assassination that Libra offers.

Excerpt from my paper.

For this weeks blog post, I want to flesh out an idea that I am going to expand upon in my response paper. I am going to talk about the scene in the novel involving Kevin proposing to Dana and a, according to many people in our class, troubling thing that he says right after. I am not sure of the exact quote, but Kevin says to Dana that they should get married and that she could even write his manuscripts for him. This is said to be troubling because Kevin views Dana as a lesser person as he thinks he is entitled to her services as a typist. I think that this can be view from a completely different angle; a little joke that one person said to another with no malice involved. We know that Kevin’s moral stances are very similar to Dana’s and very similar to our own moral code and therefore, progressive. With this in mind, it seems to me as though Kevin was just poking fun at her harmlessly; like all couples do. He had asked her to do this thing in the past (which she says had made her upset) so he pokes fun at her by offering her the opportunity to do it again. To say that this has some sort of malice in it is, in my point of view, naive. We know Kevin to be a pretty level headed guy who chooses to stay with Dana even with his own family disapproving. 
I think that needlessly bringing race into every situation does just as much harm as racism itself. Of course I am not saying that race plays no role in our lives, but what I am saying is that when you have a character like Kevin who demonstrably proves that race doesn’t matter to him, bringing up race for everything he does is just damaging. How can we ever move past racism if everyday human interactions that would be “fine” amongst people of the same race are only scrutinized when it is two people of different race. It is the person who is judging the situation that is even making race a factor at all and that is more harm than letting human interaction be human interaction.

Class' view of Rufus

In class we had a large discussion about the morality of Rufus and whether or not he is a good person. Many people in the class said that they have no sympathy for him at all and that he is a monster "regardless of time period". I think this view is misguided. I shouldn't even have to clarify, but I am by no means saying that Rufus' decisions and actions were "good". By our moral standards, Rufus is as horrible a person can get. But that is the point, we are judging him by our moral standards instead of his time periods standards. This blindness makes us miss a point that I think the novel was trying to make; the corruption that power brings.
We see Rufus as a child where he is a compassionate person. He starts out like most people are without a inherent racism or a genetic feeling of superiority. But as he his raised he is constantly bombarded with these viewpoints. It is not only told to him that white people are superior, but it is demonstrated to him that white people are superior. If these two things happen, how can you blame someone for growing up believing that white people are superior. And what is even more twisted about this situation is that Rufus isn't allowed to act in a way that we would consider to be normal. Even though he loves a black woman, the only way he knows how to demonstrate this love is through rape (because him actually marrying her as an equal is unheard of and not allowed). When you look at it this way it is pretty easy to see the sympathetic qualities of Rufus' life. He was never even given a chance to make the right decisions for himself. I am by no means trying to lighten the actual terrible things that Rufus does but at the same time, it is important to understand that people like Rufus are "doomed" to be terrible people from their birth.

First impressions of Kindred

From the little bit of the book that we have read, I once again see Kindred as a different kind of novel from the previous ones that we have read. I am starting to really enjoy this because the genres of postmodernism and history as fiction are in all of the books we have read but at the same time they are all radically different. Ragtime was more like a history book narration without much emotion shown by the narrator. Mumbo Jumbo was the exact opposite with the author often interjecting. Slaughterhouse-Five was even more different yet with a self evident, self deprecating narrator. Kindred is more of a traditional novel in my opinion. We have the elements that postmodernism is built on (with the time travel sci-fi and the historical fiction) but at the same time it follows traditional story telling. Also, there aren't many instances where you could jump out and say that something is historically inaccurate. Obviously Dana never time traveled but what I mean is that the historical aspect of Kindred is more in the setting than the events. In Mumbo Jumbo, Ragtime, and Slaughterhouse-Five we have specific events that we can dispute factually but Kindred's storyline strays away from this criticism. In this sense, Kindred is most like Slaughterhouse-Five because it is about fictional characters in a real setting (also the time travel bit).
Another way that Kindred is like more traditional stories is the actual plot. I have seen a few movies and TV shows where a character time travels and has to deal with ancestors or a time era that directly involves their existence. Unfortunately the only show that comes to mind at the moment is an episode of Family Guy in which Peter goes back in time and does things that make his kids not exist anymore but the storyline is a very familier one, unlike the other books we have read.
Overal, as all of the books we have read, I look forward to a change of pace.