I read the author’s note at the end of Libra and one
sentence that really stood out to me was:
In a case in which rumors, facts, suspicions, official subterfuge, conflicting sets of evidence and a dozen labyrinthine theories all mingle, sometimes indistinguishably, it may seem to some that a work of fiction is one more gloom in a chronicle of unknowing (DeLillo).
In a case in which rumors, facts, suspicions, official subterfuge, conflicting sets of evidence and a dozen labyrinthine theories all mingle, sometimes indistinguishably, it may seem to some that a work of fiction is one more gloom in a chronicle of unknowing (DeLillo).
This reminded me of a conversation we’ve had in class a couple times of whether a certain aspect of the book is real or not, specifically if it is a “real” conspiracy theory. In other books we’ve also debated whether events happened or characters existed, but Libra takes it to another level because instead of asking if DeLillo is using historical events, we are asking if he took people’s ideas that differ from the historical narrative and used them in his book, and we classify that as “real”.
In Ragtime, Doctorow often used “pockets” of historical
space within his narrative. For example, Morgan and Ford were in a secret
society that nobody else knew about, which is why it was never recorded in
history. Although Doctorow writes these scenes in a way that it’s impossible to
say it didn’t happen, it is still possible for readers to be fairly certain
that such things didn’t happen. Libra differs because there is already so much
uncertainty and paranoia around the assassination of JFK, like DeLillo pointed
out in his author’s note. Because of this, instead of seeing the unlikeliness
of strange events like I did reading Ragtime I am more likely to buy into the
idea that this happened just because I really have no idea what did happen.
This uncertainty of history or, as Nicholas Branch
discusses, the difficulty distinguishing between pattern and paranoia, I think
is another idea of what a postmodern history looks like. The true narrative,
the government report, is not at all widely accepted and lots of people have
their own idea of what happened, or have no idea but still don’t believe the
report. Postmodernism is about not accepting the so-called truth, which is seen
with the numerous conspiracy theories that have popped up. I think it is
interesting that while DeLillo seems to not buy into the official report of JFK’s
assassination, he also isn’t trying to find the truth while writing Libra.
Another quote from the author’s note is:
But because this book makes no claim to literal truth, because it is only itself, apart and complete, readers may find refuge here (DeLillo)
Maybe postmodern history isn’t about truly understanding what happened in history, but it is about how we react to those events and what discourse around those events shows up in society? Let me know what you guys think.
Finding out "what happened" is a much more Modernist thing. A postmodernist way would be to accept that it's inaccurate to assign "truth" to one particular narrative, but that each metanarrative is consistent within itself (e.g. creationism vs. evolution: creationism is easily "disproved," but only using the ideas of evolution). As DeLillo says, Libra doesn't make any claim to be true. But it's a consistent narrative, albeit one that nobody specifically believes to be true.
ReplyDelete-Reed
I didn't think about it until you pointed it out, but what Doctorow does in Ragtime is like what DeLillo does in Libra: they both use real characters (though some in Libra are fictional) and put then in situations which are likely historically inaccurate, but can not be proven so. The only real distinction is that DeLillo's story is plausible and widely debated, while Doctorow's is understood to be false, no matter whether it can be disproven or not.
ReplyDeleteI think one interesting thing about postmodernist historical events, specifically the JFK assassination, is that the more information we have, the less we really feel like we know. People are really good at seeing patterns where none exist, but maybe everything does follow a pattern, like a giant metanarrative.
ReplyDeleteI think DeLillo is actually doing something very similar to Doctorow and is also created bubbles in history. However, instead of hiding the historical events in such a way that no one else would know about them, DeLillo gives the idea that we didn't learn about this because of cover ups by the CIA.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Doctorow and Delillo are doing something very similar as well. However, I feel like Doctorow flaunts the postmodernist part more than Delillo. Doctorow intentionally puts random characters in connection with one another, and essentially instigates the reader to "prove me wrong". I feel like Delillo deliberately lays out the relationships between characters with a far less confrontational tone than Doctorow.
ReplyDeleteI think that Doctorow using 'pockets' of history is kind of a more deliberate way of using history as fiction. It's almost as if he's not trying to convince the reader that the events in "Ragtime" could've been possible. However, DeLillo intertwines facts with fiction very well in "Libra" that it gets confusing about what is true and what is not. For example, we know that George de Morenschildt had a relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, but we're almost certain that Evelyn Nesbit never knew Emma Goldman.
ReplyDelete