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.