Are Books Like Libra Harmful?
Libra’s subject matter made me question the ethics of historical fiction when I first started reading it. Something about using JFK’s assassination for fiction felt a bit off. We’ve had other historical figures in previous books, such as Evelyn Nesbit and Houdini in E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime, but political assassinations felt a bit too touchy.
I think what initially made me feel iffy about E.L. Doctorow's depiction of Lee Oswald was how he set him up to be perceived as an underdog. The book starts off depicting Lee’s hardships, namely his bullying. He skipped school often due to bullying, and when he did, his bullies beat him up because they thought it was funny Lee sounded like a Yankee (DeLillo 32-33). Although I felt bad for Lee, I couldn’t help but feel like DeLillo was in a way trying to sympathize with someone most readers knew to later be a killer.
I remember later having a discussion in class about whether we found Oswald likeable or not. Diza was not super fond of him. She didn’t like how DeLillo painted him out as this poor guy who was coerced into shooting someone, and per her blog, she wasn’t exactly fond of how DeLillo was platforming an arguable attention-seeker. Why not focus on the person who died and what that event did to America? In that discussion, though, someone (I believe Kyle?) talked about how including Lee’s past humanized him. I think there’s some merit to that. Everything is caused by something, in Lee’s case, a rough upbringing among many others. There’s also some truth in that DeLillo never explicitly told us what to think of Lee, rather, he wrote with neutrality and let us form our own opinions.
Now that I’m close to the book’s end, I’ve decided that Libra’s subject matter is in fact too touchy, but it nonetheless has its purpose. Writing fanfiction (if you will) about someone’s murder is uncomfortable and ethically questionable, but those types of things make people think and discuss. Delillo’s rather neutral depictions of the different events in Lee’s life invites readers to come up with their own interpretations. As seen in the discussion about Lee’s likeability, it was still easy for readers to determine his hardships weren’t good enough to excuse his actions, and it was just as easy for other readers to say they understood Lee more. Books like Libra invite us to discuss how we understand morality and whether it’s productive to sympathize with people we know are wrong at the end of the day. Not very many people will disagree that murder is wrong, but the context that surrounds it is more than worth talking about.
Work Cited
DeLillo, Don. Libra. Viking Press, 1988.
Hi Sandaru, I see what you mean about the touchy nature of the subject. Considering how JFK was a president I think adds to the fact that more people are willing to write about it because he seems kind of unreal and out of reach. If this was written about a lesser known person, I think people would be more willing to question what was being written.
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! The way you engaged with other people and blogs is rather entertaining. I'm kinda with you the whole thing did read a bit like a fan fiction. I remember being struck in the middle of reading it that DeLillo probably is obsessed with guy lee -- look how many hours he's put into researching him and this book. Great post! I had fun working on the creative project with you
ReplyDeleteI'm frankly baffled by the idea that somehow political assassination should be "off limits" to writers of fiction. It has nothing to do with "endorsing" political violence as a strategy to acknowledge that these are significant events in history, and especially when there are implications of a more widespread conspiracy that may have been covered up by the government, it seems more like there would be a compelling public interest TO investigate and try to fully understand. I also don't quite get the idea that it is somehow in poor taste or "dangerous" to explore the life of someone who ends up committing a serious crime: does it really offer excuses or minimize the crime to examine the kind of life and circumstances that would lead someone to such a desperate act? Is it not inherently interesting that there was this guy from such humble circumstances who has so many social and emotional problems but who has also self-educated in Marxism and is going around taking the most unpopular positions on pretty much every issue? And aren't these ideological aspirations a significant part of the story, when his crime is political and involves such a public target? It's not like no one has written about Kennedy before, or explored what the assassination has meant for American culture. Indeed, 11/22/63 is portrayed as a mass-traumatic event in history, where "the whole country" was shocked into grief at the same moment, exacerbated further when questions about the official story started to arise right away. If this kind of stuff should be off-limits to writers of fiction and history, because the subject matter is so sensitive and it would be disrespectful to the victims to try to determine the truth(?), I guess I'm not sure what SHOULD be part of history.
ReplyDeleteIf we're going to suggest that historical events that involve mass violence and entail upsetting subject matter are off-limits to scrutiny and critical exploration, that might lead us into some uncomfortable territory. Holocaust studies are deeply upsetting, and involve the uncovering of unimaginable horrors, but I would balk at cutting off the discourse entirely and hiding the issue away. The same might be said of slavery: is Butler crossing some of these red lines for you by opening up that violent and depressing era of history? Should we just leave it alone and focus on stuff that is easier to digest?
Hi Sandy!!! I really enjoyed reading your blog post!! I completely agree that writing about a subject like this can be really (in your words) touchy. I loved the point you made about how the way Delillo wrote this subject, even if it is touchy, it was made for people to think about the topics that Delillo is writing about. Good job!!!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru,
ReplyDeleteI feel like Delillo does try to humanize Lee, and his given theory does absolve Lee of some portion of the blame, including the third gunshot during the shooting. However, Lee isn't made to be completely sympathetic, as we can see most clearly in the book as depicted in his domestic abuse of Marina, and from the fact that so many people in the class, in Fifth Period especially, wrote blog posts about his character flaws. Still, I agree that I similarly felt a little weird about enjoying the book as much as I did, given that it's about an actual murder.
Kennedy doesn't show up much in the novel, and people have a variety of opinions on him, including thinking that he is sexually attractive, which is a little strange and possibly disrespectfully to write about a dead president? When Kennedy does show up he's initially lionized as part of the scene the whole book has been building towards, but that scene also depicts Kennedy as a human with illnesss and fears who wants to please his people.
Still, I agree that Mitchell that fiction shouldn't be off-limits in this way, but I think there are also tangible differences to the ways we treat fictional characters and real people (at least for me), and I think that while reading it's important to remember that a) Kennedy, Marina, and Lee are/were real people, and b) this is DeLillo's interpretation of characters, which may differ from how these people actually are.
Hi Sandy, this is a super interesting take. It's so postmodernist to think that writing books that characterize Oswald like this could even create more Oswalds. It's funny to think of conspiracy theories as a form of historical "fanfiction," and I think your absolutely right that it seems Delillo attempts to make Lee a more sympathetic, almost loveable character with the way he is seemingly manipulated. I agree that it's important to remind ourselves that this little communism-obsessed young man is undeniable a murderer, and not someone we should take after. However, it's super interesting to analyze historical figures as characters - a huge moral gray area for sure, though. Great work!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru, this is a very interesting perspective, and I really like how you partially framed it around the responses of your classmates! Your blog kind of reminds me of something I thought about while reading Kindred. In a way, your perspective could be applied to Kindred, as it takes someone (Rufus) who did a really horrible thing, yet it doesn't portray him as completely evil, but rather as someone who was shaped by his time, and specifically by his father. In both cases, I agree that it's essential to remind ourselves that characters like Rufus and Lee did horrible things; yet, I don't think we should sacrifice fiction on these topics because of that (hopefully the two can coexist!). Good job!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! This is an interesting blog topic! I found it interesting that so much of the commentary about the novel centered around whether or not it should be written or shared. I feel like to an extent, deciding what is "too touchy" to write about is moving dangerously close to the mindset that teaching topics that are hard to deal with emotionally should be banned (i.e. not teaching about very important historical events with the fear that it will make people uncomfortable). I would argue that writing about this assassination is as valid as writing about any other historical event. Great Blog!
ReplyDeleteI think there are a lot of unethical ways to approach sad historical events, but this book is not one of them. It makes an example of one of the biggest conspiracies in American history, showing how you can dissect the details of history to create a fictional plot. It also doesn't make a joke of his death the way a disrespectful or inappropriate representation of this would. And generally, the censorship of difficult material never ends well. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI think one thing that DeLillo was attempting to do with Lee was try to understand why someone might assassinate the president. Turning Lee into an underdog allows for more freedom one on the writers side, and on the conspiracy side. I have seen things online of "how long do we have to wait before we can joke about this," and it makes me think. Many times I do laugh at the jokes or at least find them humorous, but my opinion on the ethics is still undecided.
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! I agree with what you said about the ethics of writing about Oswald in that way, but especially how there is still some benefits despite how it is a bit uncomfortable. Despite i's faults, Libra does spark discussion and continued questioning of history, such as in classes like History as Fiction. Great post!
ReplyDelete