What I have learned from reading Libra

1. This book is like my sleeping kryptonite. I don't know what it is about this book , but it can put me to sleep in about ten minutes flat, doesn't matter what mood I'm in. It's not that I'm uninterested, I think that this book just has some kind of magical power to it that I am not yet capable of understanding. I developed a method of arm waving that allowed me to read while staying awake at around the third chapter of the book that worked to get me through most of the readings that followed.

2. Vomit is a funny word and can easily be overused. Also Ferries is one weird dude.

3. Maybe there was a conspiracy and maybe there was a man behind the murder that was a much more interesting than I could have ever guessed a real man that may not have been insane, but rather completely knowing of what he was doing, just swept up in some false image of himself enforced by those around him.

4. I finally understand the reason for people being so into the JFK assassinations, it never really held that big of an interest in my mind, and I always thought that people obsessed with this story were just bat shit insane. While maybe they still are, this story has worked to show me the real significance behind such a conspiracy and the reasons why someone would obsess over it. I think it was a very useful book to read in this regard and it worked well in the course as it introduced a new way of looking at history. Fiction can be a great way to open someones mind up to new possibilities and to look at a situation with somewhat of a fresh start that can't otherwise be obtained.

Burial

I thought ending with the burial and the reaction of Oswald's family to the incident was a good way to finish the book. Also the inclusion of all the other possible links to conspiracy theories like the deaths of the many people associated with the killings soon after the murder of the president was a good touch.This chapter really worked to build my sympathy for Oswald. Presenting this view that he was sent down the wrong path, one that basically selected him for the task of shooting the president. From such an early age it almost seem he was picked out for the task. We compare him to his normal brother Robert who never got caught up with anything like what Oswald had. It really works to back up this idea that Oswald was almost powerless to his own situation. The images of Oswald on his roof looking at the stars and his happy love for his dog that his mother recalls really works to build a sense of sorrow for Oswald, almost like it almost wasn't his fault he shot the president. It's odd how we can feel such sympathy for someone who killed such a man as the president of the united states. 

This chapter does a good job of recapping the general events of the story for me and coming up with a good way to frame the possible conspiracies in the readers mind so that they can come to there own conclusions  about Oswald and the murders. Conclusions that I think its fair to say couldn't be reached through digging meticulously through facts and other such random bits of information on the murder. 

Jack Ruby chapter

So after reading the second in Dallas chapter I have a few things to talk about, first of which was my initial response when reading the chapter: how can the word vomit be used so many times over the course of a few pages. How am I to believe that this man is so patriotic that he finds himself vomiting all over due to the fact that the president has been shot. This part seemed a little far fetched for me, but at least it enforced Ruby's character, but I felt it took away from the seriousness of the chapter as a whole.

I found it very interesting to see the mental process that Jack Ruby goes trough when coming to the conclusion that he will kill Oswald. Jack Ruby seems as though he almost didn't want to kill Oswald, even given his ridiculously over patriotic identity. We find him giving himself excuses for not being able to complete his murderous duties. "Jack realized there was a Western Union only half a bock from the Police Courts Building. Lucky for her. If he hurried he could wire twenty-five dollars to Brenda then go shoot that bastard Oswald....he was running late. If I don't get there in time, it's decreed I wasn't meant to do it." (436) Not only is Ruby seemingly looking for a distraction that may stop him from having to commit the act, he is also fairly confident that he will be hailed as a hero for his crime. That he will be tried and sentenced to death doesn't even occur to him. Although I guess this too may fall in line with the general mindset and panic that ensued after the shock of the president being shot. Maybe this was Delillo's way of showing us the rashness of people that are faced with such a sudden and unexpected tragedy. That humans are prone to this kind of pride filled attacks that don't have any thought behind them. I bet that if Jack Ruby had looked at the situation from a distance he may have come to the obvious conclusion that Oswald would be sentenced to death anyways and that he could have been a key piece in finding out the truth behind the conspiracy and those involved, bringing further justice to the situation rather than the single man blame that may have come from the actions of Jack Ruby. 

The desire for balance

I have been perusing a number of JFK conspiracy sights as of late and I have been questioning what makes the story so interesting to so many people. I have seen so many just absolutely ridiculous websites that talk about every little detail of the shooting and Oswald, but after a while the facts do tend to add up. You can tell that Oswald had shot both JFK and governor Connally are both shot by Oswald by the same bullet. I heard somewhere that there were around 3000 pieces of evidence to back up this conclusion. So why is it that so many Americans refused to believe what was told, why was the commission being confronted with trying to cover up something when you can tell pretty easily what happened. Its been over 40 years and people are still trying to prove the conspiracy, yet still no solid evidence have been found. I think that people who are so into the JFK assassination want to think that the world just isn't so chaotic. The president couldn't just be killed by some guy with a gun like this, there had to be a set up there had to be some logic behind that. If these people can find some conspiracy it would comfort them in a strange way by knowing there was something besides this and by the same bullet. I feel that a lot of the conspiracy theories are made by people who want to think that there was something big at stake. They do want to think that some nobody can kill someone as big as Kennedy. I heard a great explanation somewhere,  I can''t remember the source but it stuck with me. It said  that if you put 6 million murdered Jews on one side of a scale and the Nazi regime on the other side they would balance out the biggest crime next to the biggest criminals. However, if you put the murdered president on the scale across from some low life like Oswald, the scales would be extremely unbalanced. People want balance and putting a conspiracy theory next to Oswald balances everything out real nice.

Family Ties

One subject I never had the opportunity to touch on in my Kindred response paper was the importance of family in slave culture. Kindred as a hole seems to value a strong family connection like one brought on by the slave culture. The family that Dana becomes a part of welcomes and shelters her from judgement by other slaves on the plantation. Family really is important to the slaves, its what kept them together and the strong bonds of love made slavery a little more bearable.

As with all things that may bring some joy to the slaves, it is used against them. As the Weylin family shows us one more aspect of what slave life really meant. The people you love may be sold off if they become to close to certain people. Isaac and Sam are both sold off after they pursue a closer relationship with the people near to Rufus, whose childlike attitude selfishly demands he gets everything he wants.Margret Weylin sells off Sarah's children for the sake of having more spending money, the concept of which is so morally unjust that it hurts to even think about it. The pain one would go through from being permanently separated from your kids so the person who owns you could have some extra spending money is really expresses and captures the true tragedy of slavery, that not even your own children can be considered yours rather they belong you tour master.

Environmental influence

Throughout Kindred we continually see this theme of change brought on through the gain of power. Mainly through Rufus. When we first come into contact with Rufus he seems to be an innocent child that, while somewhat aware of his white status, is still good friends with the freed blacks and slaves he comes into contact with. When he was young his conscience led him to believe that he should treat these black people with some respect. Although this soon changes, as we jump through time Rufus becomes increasingly aware of his status, and this respect diminishes. Rufus's mind set slowly changes as he slowly adopts the belief that he is meant to be treated in such a manner by black people much like his father demanded. His status is natural to him and the only way, their becomes this no other alternative mindset going on in Rufus's mind. I see this as a direct result of the amount of power Rufus is granted, as he ages he is given more rights to control Dana and other slaves as he begins to fill into the role of his father as the next slave master despite Dana's efforts to stop the transformation.
I think Kindred may be presenting this idea that most humans, even those who seem immune to such behaviors at first, like Rufus in his early days, can easily be corrupted by circumstance. While many of us believe strongly that we would abhorred the violent acts of the slave masters and reject the cultural norms if we too found ourselves in the situation Rufus is in, we can never prove that we actually would. Maybe it is human nature to become accepting of such practices after coming up in an environment that so easily accepts this social hierarchy. I believe that Butler is attempting to look at this argument from a new angle rather than simply saying, "oh I would never be OK with slavery!" and ending the discussion there, it seems to be more of a starter for thought about an a discussion about how susceptible we are to our environment and how little control we may actually have over our own conscience since so much of it is enforced by our peers and a general cultural identity that often boxes in our way of thinking.

Returning to the present for good

Last week we had a bit of a long discussion about Kevin and Dana's final journeys to the present and how they are left scared from their travels and experience. Dana, looses an arm after it materializes into the wall and both Dana and Kevin are left with mental scars from their extended times in the south and long separation from both each other and their time period. However, we are left questioning for what reason Butler decides to take Dana's arm away.

The way I see it, there are several possible explanations, the concept I most agree with is the idea that Rufus has taken part of Dana away, leaving his own mark on her. As she has taken away his life, he takes away a part of her by clinging to her until the end, forcing her to remember her murderous act that she performed. This murderous act that seemingly had to occur. With this explanation I am left wondering why Dana is materialized into the wall instead of her arm staying with Rufus. We are told that her arm goes into the wall at the exact point at where Rufus was holding her. So why have her arm go into the wall why not just leave it in the past instead of materializing into the wall and having the imagery of her violently yanking her arm in two? I also question why Dana's arm needs to serve as a reminder? Was her life spent in Maryland not already burned into her memory in a way she will never forget? Dana already is covered in scars from her brutal whippings by Tom Weylin, is this severing of the arm Rufus's own way of leaving his mark on Dana, a much more prominent and memorable one at that. While I highly doubt it is just a plot device is it possible that the materialization into the wall at the beginning of the novel was a good graphic manner to draw the reader in and to foreshadow some type of time travel in the early pages of the book before Dana goes back in time. Even with this possibility I feel that it was necessary to take something away from Dana in her final exchange with Rufus so this conclusion wouldn't entirely make sense. The murder of Rufus is something Dana seems reluctant to commit, but fate forces her; Dana doesn't have a choice, Rufus has overstepped his bounds and Dana must end his life based on her own principles even if she may not really want to see him dead as she definitely holds some lingering connection to Rufus as evil as may seem at times.

I think it would have made an interesting sequel story if instead of forcibly yanking her arm and tearing her arm's connection to the wall as painfully as possible, she found some way to cut around her arm, remove it from the wall and become some type of time traveling wall armed super hero. Butler is a sci-fi writer, I can't imagine why she would have ignored this possible conclusion when she wrote the ending and set up a great sequel. (It must be getting late if I'm writing something this dumb at the end of my blog post.)

panel presentations

I really enjoyed the panel presentations done yesterday by Simeon, Vivian, Claire, and Rodney. I thought they worked well together and helped me go into the mind of Vonnegut. I thought the things about post traumatic stress disorder were very interesting. I really did see the symptoms of PTSD in the writing style of Vonnegut, my Dad suffered with mild PTSD after he was parlayed in a motorcycle accident he says he often had reoccurring dreams about the accident and random flashbacks when he was sick which I found to really seem to be a like lot Billy.

I also found the quote Claire read from an interview of with Vonnegut to be quite striking that he would say he believed his own novel, which was amazingly popular, to be a failure on his part. I think we could easily have a long discussion as to why this novel was a failure for Vonnegut. I think Vonnegut's reasoning could have gone many ways and it is difficult to understand why Vonnegut may have said such a thing, but I am interested in exploring why. Vonnegut may have learned the true number of casualties that occurred at dresden. Maybe people didn't quite interpret his novel as they were meant to, maybe Vonnegut was trying to create an anti-war novel that was also not an anti-war novel. Vonnegut may have been going for a more neutral portrayal of war, given the prospective of the Tralfalmadoreans that we see saying that war and conflict are inevitable and unavoidable, they are merely part of the life cycle. I think this quote was a very interesting one and I would like to hear other opinions on in the future. I would also like to have a little more background on the context of the quote.

Blog post I didn't post because I didn't like it part 2: blaxploitation films

After reading Simeon's very well written post on the similarities of undercover brother and Mumbo Jumbo, I remembered recalled one of my favorite movies Black Dynamite. Black Dynamite is also a satire of blaxploitation films that were made popular with the release of Shaft in 1971. In the movie we see an action packed ride as Black Dynamite, a smooth talking, jive, kung-fu master played by Michael Jai White. The movie follows the typical blaxploitation style plot; the lead finds some plot by the white man to take down the black man and stop them from ever getting out of the ghetto. Our hero Black Dynamite comes to the rescue to kick but and get the orphans off smack. This was some a very good example of a blaxploitation movie as it contained all the similar plot circumstances and circumstances that would be expected in the genre, but it goes out of its way to mock the stereotypes that are magnified by the genre. I'm losing focus, but this is a good very funny satire of blaxploitation films. It shows the played up black stereotypical hero identity that was rose up after Shaft very well. I believe Ishamel Reed was also swept up in this wave of cultural definement and was at the forefront of bringing back this strong sense of black identity along with the black exploitation films may have attempted to do as his book was released in 1972. However, I believe that Ishamel Reed definitely made a much better version of a played up black culture movement then the black exploitation movement did.

Blog post I saved and didn't publish because I didn't like it part 1: Finding a text

I have been thinking about this for a while now and it has bothered me quite a bit. As we have heard numerous times throughout Mumbo Jumbo, Jes Grew is looking for a text, but why does it need a text. To me a writing down of Jes Grew and the spirit of Jes Grew seems impossible as it has been described. To write down Jes Grew seems as if it would limit the evolution of Jes Grew. Could someone actually interpret Jes Grew without limiting it with words? So why is it that Jes Grew needs a text that will define it and restrict the freedom of it that seems to be so important to the movement? What could a text possibly do for it? PaPa LaBas says that "If it could not find its Text, it would be mistaken for entertainment." Maybe a new Text would be a history of the evolution of the black cultural movement instead of a biography of Osiris's life. Maybe the text is something else the old text was described as not so much a text,but a series of dance moves, maybe this is less restrictive and free to interpretation then what a text is more typically thought to be?

Science fiction in Slaughterhouse Five

Recently we have gotten into the debate about the presence of science fiction in Slaughterhouse Five. The focus at the beginning of this debate dealt with whether the science fiction aspects takes away from the seriousness of the novel.
To answer this I believe it is important to evaluate how humor is used in the novel. Throughout the novel there have been humorous bits scattered about, the form of the Trafalmadorians comes to my mind in particular, clearly comparing an alien to a "plumber's helper" is supposed to be taken somewhat lightly, the aliens are the complete opposite of the typical alien image as they are basically one eyed walking hands. So yes this may take away from the seriousness of the novel because of the way humor is added in the science fiction parts of the novel. It could be said that the majority of the humor in he book comes from the science fiction portions of the novel and I think this may have been done on purpose. The science fiction sections of the novel have been the sections that have provided us with the most complex ideas. In order to not weigh down the reader too much I believe Vonnegut gives us these humors bits so that our understanding of these ideas of time, human insignificance, etc don't lead the reader down a path that ends with them jumping to extremely negative conclusions, instead the humor creates some balance that creates a neutral context for the reader when they attempt to make sense of these complex ideas.
 I think yes, the humor may take away some of the seriousness, but it is also essential to our interpretation of concepts in the novel.

Mumbo jumbo

Mumbo Jumbo so far has been exactly as it sounds in my reading of the book, it has been very jumpy and I have admittedly struggled to understand it. Many of the important things in the book seem to be extremely easy to skip. I find myself reading and then checking back after a second to reread a passage because it seemed like someone said something very subtly that was infact quite profound. I think the comparison of the book to someone clicking through the news is quite accurate at least for the first few chapters of the book as it throws information at you very quickly and you need to almost sort through it to find the actual relevant news. I also wanted to state that I really enjoy the wavy font in the book it is by far my favorite font Reed uses.

I also noticed a history vs fiction argument appearing on page 37 where Abdul talks about his poor school education, stating that "I always wondered why the teachers just threw knowledge at us when we were in school , why they didn't care whether we learned or not. I found that the knowledge which they had made into a cabala stripped of its terms and the private codes, it's slang, you could learn in a few weeks." I think this effectively states the argument of what real history is in the minds of both Doctorow and Reed, they believe that there are two types of history, one that is nothing but fact with no background or deeper understanding and one that attempts to put you into the situation in which the history occurred so that one can understand the depth and significance of went on. By viewing the environment and culture in full, through the use of "slang" and "private codes", one can begin to come to an understanding of what really went on behind the facts that have been presented. Since it is unusual for the small surrounding details of that slang to be expressed in most historical records one must recreate an environment that represents the time in which you want to know about even if it becomes a little played up so that one can see the importance of things more easily.

History and fiction differences

After the discussions in class I believe that my understanding of the differences between history and fiction has  actually gotten worse; no longer are the two completely separate ideas. The line between what is history and what is fiction has become blurred in my mind and the idea of being able to separate them now seem preposterous.
 I realize that some may disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think it will ever be possible to dissect the differences between history and fiction in a broad context, possibly even in ragtime. Elements of both history and fiction are so interwoven within each other that it is impossible to distinguish them and that's how they were meant to be. I believe furthering the discussion of attempting to distinguish the two is pointless since they can both take so many forms. There is no need to even attempt since it will only spur a debate that can't possibly end with some ultimate realization, because there simply can't be one. This is just the nature of such concepts; the concepts of history and fiction were created with the ability for them to be defined in different ways so that they could work together in the way they do. That is why ragtime works as well as it does, because it can balance the two without making the events seem awkward or questionable.

Coalhouse Walker

I'd like to start this blog saying that I wrote it last week and never realized I hadn't published it until now.

As readers should we be sympathetic to Coalhouse walker at this point in the novel? My thoughts have been on both sides of the argument at times and I would like to bring together what we know about him so we can come to some conclusions. We know that Coalhouse has lost several things near to him, his car, his ability to marry Sarah when he had the chance, Sarah herself, and perhaps most important, his identity as an citizen and not just a black man. Of course it is easy to feel sympathetic to someone who has lost so much,but can we continue to be sympathetic after his actions of revenge? Can his cause be justified as being a spark that may ignite future change on the road to complete civil liberties for those of color. I believe that while getting a great deal of attention, the actions of Coalhouse will do nothing but reinforce stereotypes of inferior and violent black people. It also strikes me that Coalhouse is directing his attention at people that were not at all involved with the situation. Sympathy only lasts so long and I think that my sympathy for Coalhouse has ran out right now and I believe he truly has gone mad.

Is Ford being depicted in a negative light?

In class we had quite a heated discussion over chapter 18's depiction of Henry Ford. One side seemed to argue that the book backed Henry Ford, while the other saw him as an arrogant ass. I thought that E.L. Doctorow saw Ford as a man set aside from the general public, one with a great intellectual gift. Ford is quite clearly on a level different from the factory workers surrounding him. Ford has an image that they cannot compare to.
The way Ford spends a minute to rejoice his success with the factory workers was seem by many as an act of arrogant superiority by many in the class, however I saw it as a testament to his dedication in that he would only allow himself a minute to celebrate one of his greatest successes before his demanding work ethic told him to get back to work.
Some argued that Ford was very full of himself and thought of the factory workers as machines. The comments early in the chapter seem to support a conclusion that maybe the average factory worker was a bit of a "fool" in comparison to Ford. While Ford is superior he maintains his image by celebrating their success with the factory workers and does not degrade them for being incapable of doing the same work as him. The chapters about J. P. Morgan seem to solidify this as Morgan and Ford are portrayed as these extremely gifted people, completely unlike the rest of the world. Ford recalls his odd ability to understand how things work without every being taught, an instance that seems to solidify his status. I believe that E.L. Doctorow did see Ford as a smart man and is not trying to depict him as an arrogant ass, but rather as someone that can't help seem slightly arrogant due to his unnatural genius.