In our final discussions of Libra, and specifically its portrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald, I'm struck by how much our collective perspective has evolved over the course of the novel. I know some other readers probably had more background knowledge on the JFK assassination and Oswald than I, which perhaps made it easier for me to accept DeLillo's narrative as something at least reasonably close to the truth. 21st century America especially really isn't interested in the details of Lee Harvey Oswald's existence; the crazed, lone gunmen is readily accepted as an explanation for various other high-profile assassinations. Though Lee would no doubt have found solace in the fact that every detail of his life was so extensively studied to piece together his motivations, his fate is undeniably a tragic one. This is not to say that Lee was a kind or especially sympathetic character, but DeLillo's exploration and interpretation of his psyche is so convincing and relatable in basic and undeniably human ways that the reader (or at least I) can't help but feel for him a little in the end. It's difficult to remove myself from the context of our class discussions and realize that we're talking about how funnily awkward and "classic Lee" an assassin of one of the most beloved American presidents is. Perhaps it is the will of the U.S. government that enemies of the state be so dehumanized and reduced to a few details. Lee's lifelong desire for an identity and greatness is not unlike the motivation that drives many heroes in other novels. The article my group and I presented today is also relevant to this, in that it portrays Lee as a result and manifestation of his society's violent tendencies. I certainly felt that Lee was molded and corrupted as the novel progressed, as his ideals receded to the background and his desire to make an impact through violence increased. It is uncomfortable to come to terms with the fact that even the most infamous criminals are products of their environment, but DeLillo forces the reader to acknowledge that in postmodern history there can never be a black and white narrative.
I agree that Lee is for sure a product of his environment, but also that a lot of his actions stem from a strange personality. Like he didn't have to smile after he got beat up or provoke people as much as he did when he was younger and older. It gives me the impression that even if he had a better life to start off with, he still might have been led to a similar fate.
ReplyDeleteDeLillo writes about Lee in a way that makes it surprisingly easy to cheer for him. It is hard not to admire his determination and dedication, even when it is directed at defecting to the Soviet Union and becoming a communist. Even when Lee becomes deeply involved in the plot to kill Kennedy, it is easy to feel sorry for him, knowing that he is going to be framed by the conspirators. This way of looking at Lee is completely different from the usual narrative, and as you point out, shows the point DeLillo is making about history.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your point about how Lee is a product of his environment, and is swayed by different people tempting him with his goal to someday go down in history. For some reason it made me think of a talk we had in gender studies how 90% of murders in the United States are committed by men. This is due to some unspoken stigma that men are suppose to be violent instead of vulnerable. Because Lee was raised in an environment where this type of behavior wasn't necessarily discouraged, I feel like he took it upon himself to prove not only his "manliness," but the fact that he deserves to go down in history among the men that came before him.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, I hadn't thought of that being part of Lee's motives, but I think it makes a lot of sense. It could help explain his interest in joining the military and his strange photoshoot with his rifle (using the weapon to affirm his masculinity).
DeleteIt's a weird effect, feeling bad for Lee going down in history as perpetually misunderstood--it feels uncomfortably like affirming the assassination. But if his we take the assassination as a given--it happened, it always will have happened, etc.--then there is something "tragic" in the way his Marxist/revolutionary ideals are so thoroughly dismissed by *both* narrative threads: he's either a "dupe of history," unwittingly carrying out the wishes of the powerful, or he's an emotionally unstable loner who has nothing in particular to say, simply making a grab at infamy. After reading DeLillo's complex but largely sympathetic portrait, we see a certain degree of accuracy in both narratives, but neither reflects the actual complexity of the case.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there is some unspoken assumption that in any case of these "lone gunmen", who were previously anonymous, there is something inherently, fundamentally wrong with them and the way they think. Maybe Libra affirms this -- that despite so many other people exposed to similar environments and consequences as Lee, only he had the unique combination of characteristics and quirks that would make him tick and ultimately lead to his somber fate. But at the same time we have to admit that he is a product of his environment, and by setting up a literal conspiracy theory, DeLillo makes that aspect so much easier to believe.
ReplyDeleteI think the way that Lee Harvey Oswald is portrayed in 21st century society is symbolic of how Communism was thought of at the time of JFK's assassination. We always think of Lee as this inhuman gunman, whereas DeLillo shows that Lee really could be a relatable human being. Similarly, Communism was always thought of as unquestionably evil, even though as Lee shows, it is actually just a different way of modeling government.
ReplyDelete