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.

So it goes...

As I was discussing in my previous blog post, Vonnegut does something in Slaughterhouse-Five that has raised a lot of varied responses from out class. I am referring to his repetition of "so it goes" every single time that somebody in the book dies. Some people thought that this was very annoying, and it was a pet peeve of theirs. Others said that they found it to be callous and disrespectful (a view that I disagree with wholeheartedly). I think this occurrence in the novel deserves much more analysis.
The most obvious way to frame this comment at the death of every one is to look at it through the view of Tralfamadorian philosophy. It goes very well with the whole viewpoint that death is not an earth shattering event but rather just a moment on everyones timeline. When someone dies physically they never actually die because of the memories and experiences they have created for others. Saying "so it goes'' at the end of each death could be viewed as making the reader focus less on the actual death an more on the rest of that persons lives; it serves as a tool to put death in to perspective. By definition it has to happen to EVERYONE so why not just come to grips with it.
I certainly see this argument as playing a huge role in why Vonnegut chooses to write this at the end of each death. I see another aspect to it as well; a very chilling one. Every time Vonnegut wrote "so it goes", I almost got goosebumps because of how scary that really is. It reminds me of how final life is and that it will happen to everyone, and not in a huge dramatic sequence but more in the form of a whimper. I see this as a man that has seen so much death trying to cope with it, and that in itself voids the disrespectful argument invalid.

Slaughterhouse-Five

My first impressions of this book are a huge sigh of relief. After reading Mumbo Jumbo I have to say that this style of clear sentence structure will not be taken for granted. I can truly say that I enjoy reading this book. It's topic is one of very serious ramifications but at the same time Vonnegut mixes in humor which I appreciate. One thing I did notice is the repetition of things in the novel. When ever Vonnegut wrote "I am Yon Yonsin from Wisconsin" I was immediately sent back into the novel Fight Club in the way that the narrator often repeats "I am Jacks ____". Along with this comes the "So it goes" every time somebody dies.
Vonnegut's connection with history is very interesting. On the very cover page there is a veritable cornucopia of contradiction. He goes straight from talking about the validity of his novels to UFO's. The narrator seems to want to represent the war as truly as he can but does not want to make any claims of 100% accuracy. This puts Vonnegut in a comfortable position because nobody is going to be questioning every word he writes but at the same time the novel will have much more weight than a normal work of fiction; "he was there". I also want to note the strange way that Vonnegut keeps on saying the novel that we are reading is crappy and a flop. It is very strange to read about the very book you are reading as being an enormous failure when you know for a fact that it is not. These various things about the book have me very excited to read on, and I hope that it lives up to it's introduction.

Postmodernism strikes again...

After finishing Mumbo Jumbo I had a pretty big moment of clairvoyance. My first blog post was all about how confused I was by the book and all of it's small anachronisms, spelling "errors", and general non clear writing style. Now obviously, the book didn't remain an extremely confusing bunch of mumbo jumbo and I did get used to the writing style. The chapters about the egyptian story were especially an example of when I was fully grasping the things the books were saying. Anyways, the moment of clairvoyance that I had was that all of this was confusion and non traditionalism was quite intentional and an absolutely perfect example of postmodernism; I term I have strangely neglected to describe Mumbo Jumbo as up until now. But it all makes sense, from the first page Reed breaks all of the rules. Mumbo Jumbo is in every way a postmodernist novel. He doesn't use "proper" english, he doesn't spell out numbers instead using characters, and even when recreating a historical event he doesn't change the voice of the people who seem to talk in the same exact way that everyone else in the book talks. Another example of how non modernist this book is can be seen in the random pictures strewn about the novel. Some of which can be drawn to some relation to the text but most of which have no apparent relation whatsoever. This is heavily reinforced for me because in the first edition of the book, all of the pictures are completely different, which leads me to believe that the pictures don't hold too much meaning within them. Everything that Reed does seems to be postmodern because everything he does is not at all what would be expected of a novel. Mumbo Jumbo does not follow any of the rules that we have set for novels.

Mumbo Jumbo is a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me

I'm going to be honest here, the first part of Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed has been quite confusing to me. The reason for this may just be that my reading level is not as high as I once thought or just that we went straight from reading Ragtime to this book. Ragtime was about as clear cut a book can get. There weren't many points where I was confused as to what was actually happening in the narrative because it was written in a very clear, history book kind of voice. 
Mumbo Jumbo on the other hand starts out with the first chapter on the first page. Sounds reasonable enough but I really mean the first page; before all of the publication information which comes right after the first chapter. I don't know why this through me off but it did. Along with Reed's use of numbers. He often, but not always, replaces the word one with the character 1. Even when he isn't referring to the number one (which ideally would still be typed out). I always thought this writing style was something that was born with the age of computers and the instant gratification of texting (and texting abbreviations); but this book was published in 1972. 
I know these little alterations have no actual impact on the information being conveyed but it was these little things that made me do a double take and frankly annoyed me. Every book I have ever read was different than this so it is hard to suddenly switch. Hopefully I have an easier time with the rest of the book now that I am used to this style of writing.

What's the difference between Fiction and History?????

I have only really thought about this question thrice really hard in my life. Once at the beginning of this class, the second time in class today, and the third time tonight. Firstly I would like to say that before this class I would have balked at that question. History and fiction are opposites right?! Well, not so much. While I definitely do not hold a viewpoint of history that states it to be almost the same as fiction like some people in class, I definitely think the differences are worth discussion. Now to the first time I thought about the question really intensely. In class, on what I believe was the first day, this was the prompt. When I first heard it I thought AH, easy. But when you actually start writing, it's a pretty tough topic. I mean, what really is the difference? It's hard to define! So many of the things that I believe to be history are simply just that. Things that I believe to be as history. They are just stories that I have been told and that I have accepted at face value. I am by no means trivialising the work that historians have done to collect evidence and first person accounts of historical events and compile them into an understandable story for the masses but on that same note, the only thing I have ever seen is the story. The basis of my trust in these stories is that I believe the history books to be peer reviewed and I wouldn't believe my teachers would knowingly lie to me. I guess what I am saying is that history needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You always have to remember that history is not fact; it is simply what we believe to be fact. This is immensely complicated and I haven't even scratched the surface of fictions role in all of this.
On that first prompt day, I said that fiction is anything it wants to be. It can follow historical evidence to the tee or go completely wild and have no bounds to anything historical. I can't say that This changed at all for me. I still believe that to be my best definition of fiction. Now to relate fiction to history, that's a whole different ball game.
There are many different ways that fiction and history are intertwined. Most all of the settings and events of fictional novels are somewhat based on historical evidence. Rarely will you find a novel where everything is made up and if it is, some of the themes will surely be borrowed from history. That's just natural, history gives us as a people a definition. On that same token, a lot of history is fiction as well. What I mean by that is the way history is conveyed involves fiction. Anyone can drone on and one about the boring facts and dates about history but at the end of the day, that's all they will be; facts and dates. What makes history real to us is the story behind it. The dialogue and the emotion that is by definition fictional. Historical reenactments are by no means completely accurate and contain a ton of fictional aspects to them. While history is important, the things that will stick out in my mind are the fictionalized lines like "let them eat cake!".

Panel Presentation!

Before anything, I would like to say how amazing that first round of panel presentations were. Everyone seemed to be an expert on their particular article and engaged the class the whole time. You guys really made me nervous for my panel presentation.

Anyways, I would like to respond to the first panel presentation on the article by Bernot Ortenderf. This was the article that was somewhat overtly making fun of Cushing Strout. The main point from this panel presentation that really stuck out in my mind was the one involving Scott Joplin and how analogous he really is to Coalhouse Walker. The story of how Scott Joplin wrote an opera was discussed and to give a brief overview: Scott Joplin wrote an opera that he was very proud of. The problem was that people of the time couldn't accept the fact that a black person had written an opera. That just wasn't cool in their minds. So no matter how hard Joplin tried, he couldn't get anyone to show his opera. This frustration is very palpable in Coalhouse Walker as well.

The scene that draws this perfect parallel for me is when Walker is playing music for the family and father makes the crass remark of asking Coalhouse to play some of those Coon songs. You can almost feel the gasp as Walker explains that "coon" songs are played by white people in black face; he didn't play that kind of music. You can sense in Walkers demeanor that he wants to break stereotypes and boundaries. He drives a ford, he is respectable, and he even goes so far as to ask for legal recourse for vandalism (I mean that with as little sarcasm to be conveyed as possible). Coalhouse Walker may be based on a character from another novel, but it seems to me that Doctrow drew a few too many parallels with Joplin to be ignored. This is all so wonderfully wrapped up when the newspaper couldn't find a picture of Walker so they just printed one of Joplin; basically the same thing, right?

Father

Father is one of the most interesting characters in this book. Even though he can be explained away as just the friendly racist of the story, I think he is much more complex than that and these complexities are well exposed in the baseball game that he takes his son to. When he takes his son to the baseball game it is to connect with him, the connection father thought had been lacking with all of the Coalhouse Walker business happening in the household. When he goes to the game, he is shocked to find that the game is overrun with immigrants which he does not like at all.


He describes the experience as being nostalgic towards the days when he used to play baseball at Harvard. To me this is very interesting as it seems to pain him that he is nostalgic by a game that he no longer views as civilized; a game that is overrun with immigrants. Why would he be nostalgic to the years when he used to play the game the "right" way when he sees a bunch of immigrants playing it?


Another interesting aspect of father is the interaction that he has with Willie Conklin. When Conklin puts his hand on fathers shoulder, a seemingly innocuous gesture, father is shocked that Conklin would act in a way that deems them equals; a viewpoint that father certainly does not share. This interaction shows how inbuilt social status and class structures are to father. The chapter 29 description of his upbringing and the constant contradicting viewpoints father has within his mind are very interesting as the book unfolds. 

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is one of those words that about a month ago, I would have only used when I was trying to imitate someone as being snooty or condescending. It was a concept that I had no exposure to, other than just hearing the word used from time to time. What I could figure out from the word itself is that it is a movement that is literally Post-Modern. But then again, how can anything be post modern? Is postmodernism a movement of the future?
Luckily, these questions were somewhat put to rest in class. Discussion of postmodernism was truly helpful in clarifying what the movement actually is, and gave it actual substance in my mind. We discussed many parts of postmodernism, all of which could never be covered in one class or one blog post but the focus of this blog post will be on the part that was most interesting to me; the meta-narrative.
Meta-narratives are basically social constructs that everyone has. They guide our thinking patterns and the way we view other people and judge actions. This concept was incredibly interesting to me because of how meta meta-narratives are. What I mean by this is that someone who denies the existence of meta-narratives can be explained away by saying that they just have a meta-narrative that prevents them from accepting that there are such things as meta-narratives. To quote a recent stud prod play; "I mean, how meta can you get?". The concept of such a thing is very interesting to me and my interest is even furthered by how compelling the argument for meta-narratives is. I have been raised in a way that makes it impossible to relate fully with someone that was raised even a block away from me. Just the simple fact that people believe in different things and have different ideas of what right and wrong is proves that there is something at least similar to meta-narratives guiding our every thought.
The idea of meta-narratives alone makes the concept of post-modernism very interesting to me. Hopefully with the conclusion of Ragtime, I will have an even greater grasp on post-modernism.