Libra is one big conspiracy theory. Yes, it's based in facts. But so are other theories. Yes, it's well-written. But so are (some) other theories. What makes Delillo more able to compose a narrative than Nicholas Branch? How can we trust a guy who's telling us we can't trust any narrative, especially one given to you by someone in power (aka, an author)?
I've struggled with this throughout Libra. We're told that 1) the Warren commission is widely distrusted, and 2) There's a strong possibility that fake evidence was planted by who-knows-who. If the Historic Diary wasn't written by Lee, why does Delillo depict him writing it? If Lee's mother later says (effectively) "What if he was replaced by someone else in Russia" why don't we laugh at her, because we were reading the book and we know he wasn't replaced? Libra occupies that space in between History and fiction that we've been talking about all semester, but it leads to some plot holes and cognitive dissonance in the story. We're told that we can't be sure of a narrative, yet we're fed a narrative (with filled-in characters like Win and Raymo) that is plausible, but no more proven than any other.
Since I want to make this a nice wrap-up blog, I'll connect this idea to a few other books we've read. What makes any of them any better than a series of tame, slightly-less-important conspiracy theories?
Slaughterhouse-Five: Sci-fi is taking a big conspiracy theory (there's this dude who can travel in time) and applying it to a reasonably familiar setting (WWII). Within that world, everything makes sense. But I somehow can't imagine someone getting a cult following about a poor, confused, undocumented guy who maybe traveled in time. Part of what makes Libra so interesting is that it's about mostly real people (and stand-ins for real people).
Ragtime: The little "bubbles in time" and slots where something could have concievably happened? Those are where conspiracy theories are born. Maybe Houdini crashed his car once. Not a very juicy conspiracy, but a plausible one. But some things (like the two Harries in identically named, but different prisons) are totally fudging the details without telling the reader, making it not even a fictionalized history but a close-to-history. Is there anything in Libra that's actually contrary to facts, not just made up? Let me know in the comments, because I can't think of any.
As others have said, this has been a fun class, if a lot of work. I'm excited to see where my meta, #postmodern reading ability will take me next.
I too am confused about how the postmodernist part of Libra works. At the end of the day, it is a well-written conspiracy theory presented as facts. DeLillo depicts Branch trying to deal with this influx of information and failing to get anything from it. I actually don't know if DeLillo actually believes this-or meant for this to be believed- or if he just thought this unclear patch of history would be a good setting for fiction, and that throws me off.
ReplyDeleteDid Ragtime fudge any details? I thought that it was a lot like Libra in that regard, taking historical facts and filling it in with fictions that can't necessarily be disputed. In any case, I would argue that Libra doesn't occupy a space in between history as fiction - after all, we have no way of proving any of DeLillo's history to be wrong. Therefore, it basically has as much validity as any other "factual" history.
ReplyDeleteThis is a gr8 post! I've always been skeptical of Libra making a joke about the ridiculousness of these conspiracies, because I realized this was a conspiracy narrative itself. Maybe the word conspiracy is too negative, but this book is so weird lol. I like that you brought up the other books. Cool ideas
ReplyDeleteI think DeLillo is trying to make a point with this conspiracy plot, rather than illuminate a specific plot itself. If three low-level FBI agents can somehow execute a plan to kill John F. Kennedy, can you imagine what higher-ups can do? Is it possible that the higher-ups were involved in the real conspiracy? If it's this easy to kill the President, how do we know that other events in US history weren't fabricated? As you can see, even though the book does a good job of illustrating one conspiracy theory, it opens the doors for many others.
ReplyDelete