Zapruder film

The Zapruder film was very shocking and graphic I had never seen it before nor did I know that a film of the Kennedy assassination even existed. The most graphic and heart wrenching event in the film is not the president himself being shot, but when the first lady leaps onto the back of the car reaching for a piece of his heading that has been blown off from the gunshot. Seeing this and her desperation was very sad. It was almost as if in that moment she thought that putting that piece of him back would save him, would keep him alive. This makes you want to cry and you have such sympathy for her in her desperate act.

I would also like to say that in seeing the film it does appear that the president was shot from behind and not from in front of him. The bullet appears to enter the back of his head rather than the front and it is difficult to see in which direction it actually exists.
Also interesting to see the number of shots. Before reading Libra and seeing the video I had always assumed that JFK had been killed with one direct shot to the head. But seeing the video you can see that he was shot 2 or 3 times. He leans over the first time he is shot and you can see concern on the face of the first lady, and some pain is somewhat visible on his face.

The film was shocking over all, and the fact that people could be more concerned about the conspiracy around the shooting and not the emotions and sadness is disturbing. You would really have to be an emotionless person to sit and watch and study that video over and over for hours upon hours.

Lee, Le, Li....

I find DeLillo's use of Lee's name throughout the novel is very interesting especially how well it all ties in with as character and are historically accurate.

Lee takes on many different aliases throughout the procession of the novel. This last and most important one to me is Leon. Leon is the alias who will be carrying out the assassination and is the one in cahoots with the other conspirators. Leon is also the name would go down in history if Lee had not been a recognizable figure and had people who knew him such as Ferrie and his family.

I also really appreciated the title Libra and tying in of the astrological sign and that Lee was a Libra. Considering that the astrological sign of the Libra is all about balance it somewhat ironic. As a  character Lee is not very balanced at all. He is more negative that positive. He is definitely more unorganized than organized. His organization prevents him even more from being balanced. Which in the end leads to his demise.

I have never really been one to believe in astrology and horoscopes but in Lee's case, I would say that it plays a role. His unorganized acts in the Kennedy assassination and the few hours after leading to his arrest make this very apparent. Lee fired his shots too early, leading to the plan not going the way it was supposed to. His cockiness and failure to comply with a policeman leading to him murdering the man also shows how unorganized he was. Lee didn't have a plan for escape. He paced for some time in a back alley rather than just leaving the scene of the crime and going far away. If Lee had been balanced which is the main theme of his zodiac sign he would have been more organized and would have gotten  away. I'm not saying that he would have gotten away with the murder of President Kennedy, but it might have taken longer for him to get caught.

Pictures of Characters

On seeing the actual pictures of Lee and Ferrie, I realized that they looked either a lot different than I had expected or somewhat similar.

Lee looked a lot younger than I had expected him to, but he was in fact younger than I had thought he was. I had always thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was just some angry 40 year old guy who had decided to stake out and shoot the president. I had never been the kind of person to feed off into conspiracy or be really involved in historical conspiracies. Seeing Lee, and the photos of him I could see that he was somewhat conflicted. His photos of himself holding his gun are especially revealing showing that he needs to somehow impress himself or maybe even his wife. There aren't many other people that would have seen the photo because there wasn't Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram back then. His mugshots also look kind of smug like, "what did I do wrong?". Lee really was just a conflicted character, he always wanted to do things his way and found himself to be much more important than he really was. He didn't want do things how people told him, but when he didn't things seemed to go all wrong. The photos of Lee also make him look very innocent. He has the slightest baby face, that really makes you question if someone like him could carry out such an act.

Ferrie looked just as creepy as I had expected him to. The toupee and his eyebrows were very amusing. Although I expected him to have a more narrow face and a creepy beak like nose. In this weird and terrible way he reminds me of this cashier at County Market who only works late at night and seems to always be there when Nikita and I go.  She has really bad drawn on eyebrows, that look like she might use a brown Crayola marker. Although Ferrie's photos don't really make him out to be the conspirator type either. They more make him out to be clown reject, a terrible cross dresser, or a pedophile. Especially the pedophile part, which makes the somewhat more intimate scene between him and Lee more believable.

Its always interesting to have your own interpretations of what a character might look like, but have an actual and historical comparison is even better.

Seeing Lee Harvey Oswald as an actual person rather than just a name, makes it very difficult for me to believe that he killed the president. Lee was very unorganized and just did things on  whim, he didn't really think things through. This can be seen when he shoots himself and when he attempts to assassinate the general. Both of these acts are done in haste and do not have the exact outcome that he had hoped for. He is allowed to stay in Japan after shooting himself but the wound only appears to be a mere scratch and nothing major. When he attempts to assassinate the general, he has the dates wrong. Further more when he does actually shoot the general he hits him in the arm, and to further more be belittled the general removes the bullet with a pair of tweezers as though it were a splinter

From his previous attempts at doing harm to others especially his previous assassination attempt just causes me to have some doubts about his success in killing the president. Even if Lee had been assisted and had help from others, he himself would have failed. He had such pride that he didn't use a  more advanced weapon and insisted on using his own that was old and outdated. He wasn't really a good shot which could be seen when he shoots the general in the arm. If he couldn't shoot a man who was sitting still, how could he shoot and kill a man that was moving.

I think that there may have even been 3 shooters. Two others to account for the actual shots that hit the President. It is highly unlikely that Lee managed to do it, maybe he did in fact shoot the president, but he didn't kill him.

First Thoughts on Libra

After just these first couple readings I find Libra to be quite interesting. At first I was a little confused about what was going on, because the novel jumps between two stories that take place in two different times but never gives us years. De Lillo leaves hints that are up to the reader to pick up on and some what develop a time setting from there. I was almost more confused than I was while reading Mumbo Jumbo.
Yet after getting some clarification in class, I have a better understanding of the story. I see that Lee had a some what troubled childhood and I am anticipating seeing how all of his childhood troubles lead up to his assassination of the president John F. Kennedy.
I also admire the writing style of De Lillo. When first reading i did not realize that the David Ferrie that Lee buys the gun from is the same David Ferrie that Win Everett calls on the phone. De Lillo connects the two stories in a way that I did not quite expect considering that Win Everett is investigating the possibility of an organization planning an attempted assassination on the president and not the case of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dana= Mammy ??

In their panel presentation, Will, Maia, and Shruti suggested that Sarah may represent a mammy like figure. I certainly did not agree with this, Sarah doesn't portray much of the stereotypical values of a mammy figure. Sarah may work in the kitchen in the house, but she doesn't play a major role in raising Rufus, and she has a deep hatred for Master Weylin rather than submission. After contemplating the thought that there may be representation of stereotypical mammy figure in the novel, I found that Dana appears to fit the mammy role.

Dana plays a large role in the raising and upbringing of Rufus. Even though she travels in time between the 19th century and the 20th century, Dana manages to see Rufus through numerous parts in childhood. Even in those short times, she seems to play a larger role than his own mother in his life. She saves his life as a child twice, when he is sick she stays with him and reads to him. She watches him grow up and tends to him, knowing that one day he'll grow up to follow in the foot steps of his father. Yet even though she knows this she hopes that somehow, she might have made a difference and just might be a little different. This can be seen when she tells Rufus not to call her a nigger. She is attempting to change his views on black people.

Further more to fit her mammy role, Dana is submissive to the will of Rufus. She may argue with him and say that she disagrees with his choices but at the end of it all, she has to remember that he is in charge and she has no say over what he does. Despite this dislike of his actions and his disregard of what she has to say, Dana still loves him. Dana still treats him with the utmost respect. Her going to Alice and telling her to go to him, further more shows just how submissive Dana was to Rufus. When Dana did call Rufus out on the things he was doing, such as selling Tess, he quickly snapped at her and she re-assumed her role.

Dana is the representative of a stereotypical mammy in the novel. She tends to Rufus and cares for him as a child, raising him and hoping that he won't be like his father. All the work that Dana does is in the house or in the kitchen, she only works in the field for one day. She is very submissive to Rufus, yet does not hold him in regard as her master, she sees him as family (which he is), but family that has authority over her. She fits the role almost to a tee.

Dana-Kevin vs. Rufus-Alice

The 2 main relationships throughout the novel are those between Dana and Kevin and Rufus and Alice. Although Rufus tries to compare them they are very different.

The relationship between Dana and Kevin is very loving and caring. Dana feels that she needs Kevin, it appears that he feels the same way about her. Even after they are separated for what to Kevin is years and for Dana is days all they can think about it each other. Well at least we know this about Dana. She worries about Kevin almost the entire time that she is not with him. Kevin while separated from Dana stays true to her and does not forget her, even after 6 years.
Their relationship may have its flaws but over all it is very good. They have the occasional tension due to their racial and cultural differences, but they don't let that get to them very much. Dana fears that Kevin will be changed by the 19th century and many times she compares him Tom Weylin, but she still loves him all the same. Even when he seems to be changing and they have their disagreements, such as when they see the children playing, and Kevin seems to think that it is just normal, but for Dana she is concerned to see children playing at such real atrocities such as "slave market" that she herself fears and finds revolting.

On the other hand, the relationship between Rufus and Alice is terrible. It is built and founded purely on desire and abuse. Rufus says that he loves Alice, but he has a very funny way of showing it. He rapes her numerous times, and takes her away from the man she really loves. Alice does not choose to love Rufus, nor does she ever really love him she wishes him death numerous times. Yet Alice must act as though she loves him, in acts of submission, because Rufus owns her. And that fact makes it further more difficult for Alice to love Rufus. How can one love someone that they are forced to love?? Is it not a natural reaction to reject things forced upon us?

Rufus tries to compare his love for Alice to the love that Dana has for Kevin, but the only real similarity is that they are both interracial relationships. Rufus and Dana both love people who are from a different worlds than their own, but in the case of Dana the love is reciprocated.

vonnegut in billy

In reading the novel Slaughterhouse-five, I couldnt help but feel that Billy was Vonnegut even though he interjects himself into the story at times, saying that he was that soldier who did certain things. I felt as though Vonnegut was Billy, he had written himself into this alternate world as a way to help him look back at the past, but to not become stuck there. Billy was unstuck in time and jumped from future to present to past, and so Vonnegut in creating Billy and giving him this ability in a sense gave himself the same ability. There are also many correlations between Vonnegut and Billy throughout the novel. Such as them both using the non-fiction novel to deal with the trauma that they experienced in the war. Not only do they use the science fiction novel but they both create their own alternate realities. It could be said that the book is Vonneguts alternate reality, and for Billy, his is Tralfamadore. Vonnegut and Billy also have trouble talking about the war, and remembering things about the war. Vonnegut himself says that when he sat down to write the book he had trouble remembering events that occurred. Billy himself after the war doesn't talk about it and avoids it in conversation when his wife Valencia asks him about it. The similarities between the two are daunting and really jump out to the reader. This causes the novel to have a somewhat autobiographical affect even though it is clearly fiction.

Mumbo Jumbo overview

After reading the novel I realized, that I liked the book even less after it was over. I really did dislike the book. I don't think that it was just too much of a confusing book to read and to comprehend, I think that it had more to do with the content. The only thing that I did like about the book was the back story behind the text. i liked how reed could bring in the Egyptian mythology and add his own spin to it, but still make it comprehensible and understandable. The rest of the book I could really have done without. Hinckle Von Vampton and the search for the text was all just uninteresting to me. I understood the Mu'tafika and their goals to return the "stolen" artifacts but it all seemed to not be very productive. I think Reed in writing such a novel to speak out against the oppression of Western Civilization, it was not as productive as it should have been. Reed got his point across as we discussed in class but you have to dig through so many layers to get to it. I think that the novel would have been better had Reed just said what he needed to say. There could still be a story line and a plot, it could all even have the same setting, it just could benefit from less of the confusing, abstract speech.

Initial reaction to Mumbo Jumbo

I honestly dislike this book to a certain extent already. I get that Ishmael Reed is in fact writing a post-modernist novel, but I do think that this novel would be somewhat easier to comprehend if he had in fact used the historical context as to what the Jes Grew epidemic is referring to. Reed gives us a time and a historical context placing this story in 1920, so why not continue with the history?? Why not just write a novel about the spread of jazz music through out the United States at this time?? Would it not still be a post-modernist novel if he did this?? There are still the fictional characters and the obscure language that is put to use through out the novel, there is also the real characters and events such as the election of the mayor.

I'm not asking Ishmael Reed to have written the novel like Ragtime with the historical illusions but still keeping the story factual to a certain point, no not all. I find that the novel flows more naturally than that of Ragtime. I think it was Nikita that said Doctorow seemed to just throw fictional and historical things into the story just to show us that he could do it. Reed on the other hand, it seems as though he just wrote the story. Of course there was thought behind it in order to make the Jes Grew epidemic representative of the jazz spread, but Reed does not seem to make an effort to put in historical allusions and the interaction of historical figures and fictional characters, everything just seems to all happen and fit together quite well.

The novel has this deeper meaning that one must uncover, referring to the Jes Grew representation of jazz music. Though personally I feel that the meaning could have been more direct. I did not really get this meaning until it was discussed in class. I knew that Jes Grew wasn't an actual disease, but I had no idea there was a deeper meaning to it. It's a post modernist novel... I learned from Doctorow not to suppose that characters or events are real, Colehouse Walker for example. My main issue is that Ishmael Reed isn't direct with what he has to say, and to make matters worse he writes in this made-up language. The book is so playful for it to have a deeper meaning, it's distracting.

Lack of emotion in the novel

After listening to the presentation that Maia gave in class today, I couldn't help but wonder how the novel would have really changed if there had been more emotion present.

The main area in which this occurred to me, which was also the main theme of Maia's presentation was the relationship between Colehouse Walker and Sarah. I would like to imagine them living with such romance as depicted in the presented songs.

The first song Maia presented, "Your Daddy's Son", gave a kinda history that i wished was present in the book. The song refers to Colehouse in being a musician had many women and there was no way that he could want to falling love with Sarah and raise a child. As much insight this provides into the history that Colehouse and Sarah have I would have like to have seen it portrayed in the novel, with more such as to how they met and how their relationship was. Was it just a 1 night stand or did they date for a few week/a couple months? In this song we do get the despair and the voice of Sarah as she is burying the baby in the garden, which would have been great to have gotten in the novel. After Mother finds the baby in the garden and take in both Sarah and the baby the first words Sarah speaks are when she says to send away Colehouse. She is not said to utter a word about the burial or to even provide an explanation for it. Even after the appearance of Colehouse there is not much mention of what drove her to feeling the need to bury her baby.

The second song "Wheels of a Dream" is the most compelling and what I really wish had been in the novel. It may seem somewhat backward that Colehouse should court Sarah after they had already had a child together, but I find it as a way of justifying what they did wrong the first time around. Though it is made evident that Colehouse was indeed in love with Sarah when he goes into his rage after her murder, but we don't really witness this before her death. I would have appreciated the story of Colehouse and Sarah more if there had been more of a romance between them. If they had maybe actually taken a day and went on a drive in his Model T or went on a picnic. If he maybe played a song for her on the piano. I also would have liked to have seen Colehouse, Sarah, and the baby represented as their own family. Colehouse and Sarah making plans for the future of their child and for their own future as in moving out of the family's home.

The lack of emotion in the novel and especially in the story of Colehouse and Sarah does not prevent us from making a connection with the character but it does make it more difficult. I don't know how I can sympathize with Sarah without knowing what she was thinking when burying her baby. Sure I can assume that it was an act of desperation, but how will I ever know for sure??

The crazy history-fiction mash up of Ragtime

I was reading the novel and after a while it just seemed like after every turn of a page, there was an allusion to a historical event or person. Though at the same time Doctorow develops his fictional characters at the same time as those that are actual historical figures. We are exposed to the fictional characters such as Mother, Father, Younger Brother, the little boy, and even Tateh and little girl. We see them develop personalities even though they are never given real names. Which I guess in this sense can be seen as one thing that does separate them from the historical figures. The historical figures we are introduced to are also molded with these fictional personalities and taking part in events that we can not say are 100% true.

Though with the appearance of historical figures we are allowed to form a time frame, yet with the event such as the presidential elections mentioned in the novel we can narrow down the time frame to exact years. The only date that is stated in the book is when Father built the house in 1902. From there on we are left to determine the time from such markers that Doctorow provides us with. The presidential election between Taft and Roosevelt for example allows us to put the time at 1908 for the events occurring in the 9th chapter. With the production of the first Model T at Highland Park, Michigan we can place the events occurring in chapter 19 in the year 1910.

Doctorow gives us times in very indirect ways in order to follow the story of Ragtime throughout history. This thus providing the historical aspect to the novel. Though where he differs from the average historical fiction novel is when the historical characters take part in non-factual events. The first account of this is Evelyn Nesbitt's interaction with Tateh and the little girl. There is no evidence that Evelyn Nesbitt ever took part in such things as slumming or ever had such encounters with a man or girl by the likes of Tateh and the little girl. Other such events are the interactions between Evelyn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman, the relationship between Evelyn Nesbitt and Younger Brother.

The mash-up of history and fiction that occurs in the novel is similar to that of a historical fiction novel but differs with the interaction of the fictional characters with the historical characters. Though at the same time it causes confusion as to what to believe to be historically accurate and what to see as fictional. This applies to both the events and characters.

What is the difference between history and fiction??

We ask this question, but is there really any meaning to it?? Is there really a difference between history and fiction?? Sure we might define fiction as a story, something that is created and constructed to be read for entertainment, it is not true of factual it's a mere fantasy. But can we really say that history is the complete opposite from this, or even different at all? History is what we believe to be true past events, that may tell us the story of why certain present events occur and may happen to reoccur as in the saying "history repeats itself".  But if we were not there to view such events and occurrences how can we say that they are clearly factual and actually happened?? Is history not the recounted events of such a historian who has decided to to tell the story of such events that happened in the past, whether they witnessed them or not??

Both history and fictions are narratives of events, they tell the story of event from the point of view of the narrator. In fiction we do not get the point of view of many more characters other than the narrator or the main character, the same applies to history. The narrator of history, could be considered to be the historian, they tell the events from their point of view and only their point of view. Historical figures may be quoted but there voice is not really expressed. History being only a persons point of view on events, it conflicts and contradicts other histories. So which one can be said to be the "real" history?? Its not possible for things to have happened exactly as a person says, due to bias and the human memory is not that reliable. So what is history except for the mere fictions of the past?? The characters can be proven to have existed, but not every single event can be proven to have happened exactly as recounted