I find it sort of strange that, despite the fact that this entire novel is about the Kennedy assassination, the president himself really doesn't make an appearance in the book until he's shot in "22 November," and even in that chapter he says/does almost nothing. I feel like DeLillo does this so that the novel focuses more on his conspiracy plot and less on the tragedy of the assassination—more fiction, less history, in a way. It's as though the person being shot and the consequences of killing that person are not nearly as important as the shooter himself and the planning that went into his action.
On the one hand, I think this makes sense for DeLillo's novel. There really isn't a need to give Kennedy a role and have readers get to know him as a character before his death because that would change the tone of the novel in a way I think DeLillo does not want. It always toys with a reader's emotions a little to watch a character they're familiar with die, whereas watching the death of a man whose name we know because of its historical significance but to whom we haven't really gotten connected throughout the novel is, in comparison, no big deal.
However, I feel like making Kennedy a more or less faceless man and thereby eliminating a lot of the emotional responses a reader would have to his death sort of messes with the historical context of this novel. Before reading Libra, I would undoubtedly have seen Kennedy as the sympathetic character and Oswald as the villain because that's what my knowledge of American history has taught me to see. When reading "22 November," however, Kennedy seemed more like a lifeless pawn than a man, and while I wasn't exactly sympathetic to Lee (I find him a little weird and intolerably stupid at times, although I don't dislike him), I did feel more connected to him as a person.
It makes me wonder who DeLillo wants us to see as the "hero" of this novel. Obviously he doesn't want us to ally ourselves with Kennedy and read the novel merely as a tragic telling of his death because if he did, he'd give Kennedy more of a voice and allow readers to get to know him before killing him off. However, it seems at odds with my historical knowledge of the assassination for Oswald to be the hero because, even if he is a sympathetic, deep character in many ways, he is still an assassin, isn't he?
Yet, somehow Lee is shaping up to be something of tragic hero. When Ferrie tells him Kennedy's motorcade is going to pass right by his office building in the first "In Dallas" chapter, it honestly does seem like Lee has very little choice in whether or not he kills the president. It's as though, like the Tralfamadorians once said, there really is no such thing as free will in his case, and for that I have not choice but to genuinely sympathize with him.
Maybe, then, DeLillo's point is that there's never a clear-cut hero and clear-cut villain, but rather that there are always more layers that add nuances and complexity to historical events. Generally speaking, this is an idea that I would agree with; it's just that I didn't really expect an author to try to convince me that someone who made an attempt U.S. president's life is actually a sympathetic figure, and I certainly didn't expect him to succeed.
On the one hand, I think this makes sense for DeLillo's novel. There really isn't a need to give Kennedy a role and have readers get to know him as a character before his death because that would change the tone of the novel in a way I think DeLillo does not want. It always toys with a reader's emotions a little to watch a character they're familiar with die, whereas watching the death of a man whose name we know because of its historical significance but to whom we haven't really gotten connected throughout the novel is, in comparison, no big deal.
However, I feel like making Kennedy a more or less faceless man and thereby eliminating a lot of the emotional responses a reader would have to his death sort of messes with the historical context of this novel. Before reading Libra, I would undoubtedly have seen Kennedy as the sympathetic character and Oswald as the villain because that's what my knowledge of American history has taught me to see. When reading "22 November," however, Kennedy seemed more like a lifeless pawn than a man, and while I wasn't exactly sympathetic to Lee (I find him a little weird and intolerably stupid at times, although I don't dislike him), I did feel more connected to him as a person.
It makes me wonder who DeLillo wants us to see as the "hero" of this novel. Obviously he doesn't want us to ally ourselves with Kennedy and read the novel merely as a tragic telling of his death because if he did, he'd give Kennedy more of a voice and allow readers to get to know him before killing him off. However, it seems at odds with my historical knowledge of the assassination for Oswald to be the hero because, even if he is a sympathetic, deep character in many ways, he is still an assassin, isn't he?
Yet, somehow Lee is shaping up to be something of tragic hero. When Ferrie tells him Kennedy's motorcade is going to pass right by his office building in the first "In Dallas" chapter, it honestly does seem like Lee has very little choice in whether or not he kills the president. It's as though, like the Tralfamadorians once said, there really is no such thing as free will in his case, and for that I have not choice but to genuinely sympathize with him.
Maybe, then, DeLillo's point is that there's never a clear-cut hero and clear-cut villain, but rather that there are always more layers that add nuances and complexity to historical events. Generally speaking, this is an idea that I would agree with; it's just that I didn't really expect an author to try to convince me that someone who made an attempt U.S. president's life is actually a sympathetic figure, and I certainly didn't expect him to succeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment