One of the most compelling things about Libra thus far for me has been the rich characterizations of the different people in the novel. It's clear to me that DeLillo really did his research on these people and I find myself having a hard time picking out the fictional characters from the people who were actually involved in the events surrounding the assassination of JFK.
The prime example of these characterizations is the myriad of individuals that make up the CIA team who are plotting to have a shooter take a shot at the president (but miss) and the people that they are working with to further this plot. Win Everett and Lawrence Parmenter are the chief conspirators of this plot and they each have their own finely detailed backstories and motives. Everett is a CIA agent who, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was "exiled" to teach at Texas Women's University. He is a "true believer" and really hates Fidel Castro and his Communist revolutionaries. Parmenter is also an ex-CIA agent and Bay of Pigs veteran who shares some of Everett's feelings on the Cubans. But these characters are the fictional ones!
The real characters are even more outlandish and difficult to believe. For example David Ferrie is a crazy maximally skilled mercenary airplane pilot (he is described as being able to "fly the plane backwards"). Not only that he was arrested for "crimes against nature" (referring to his homosexuality) but he is also apparently a little bit of a pedophile. To top it all off he has a strange condition that prevents him from growing hair on his body and as a result he wears a bad toupee and pasted on eyebrows.
Besides just the the depth of their characterization and the amount of detail provided about these people, DeLillo's focus on these other players in the assassination really helped me put aside my existent knowledge of the events that occurred and become absorbed in the plot of the novel. Because of this focus on other characters being paralleled with a depiction of Lee Harvey Oswald in his youth, I almost missed the scene where he was mentioned as a promising prospect for the shooter. Parmenter is having a conversation with George de Mohrenschildt (another unbelievable character who actually existed and played a role in the actual events of JFK's assassination) and George offhandedly mentions a young man by the name of Lee that could work for the plot. Juxtaposed with the "In [location]..." chapters I knew it referred to the Lee we were seeing as a child. But because of the spotlight being turned away from the Lee Harvey Oswald that I recognize as "the man who shot JFK" I almost didn't make the connection that this was the same man.
I came into this book with a bit of apprehension about reading a story that I thought I already knew a bit about. But DeLillo's detailed and in depth characterizations and focus on seemingly everyone but the adult Lee Harvey Oswald, allowed me to get past what I knew and become absorbed in the storyline that he presents. I'm excited to see what happens next.
When I first delved into this book, I knew almost nothing about the Kennedy assassination. Watching the Frontline documentary helped give me a good framework for understanding it, and now that we're really delving into the book, DeLillo's vivid personalities are really giving me an excellent sense of the story he's trying to tell. I'm constantly getting tripped up by what's fictional and what's actually historical, and I certainly think that's a testament to the believability of his story.
ReplyDeleteThe use of fictional characters with real events and characters really creates an interesting place for the book. We are able to view how a conspiracy theorist would use the facts to make a plausible story, and DeLillo takes it to another level by incorporating these fictional characters who also seem like they could be real. It makes it so the Lee seems like just another guy who got caught up in the plot and it will be interesting to see how Lee gets used in the CIA's plot in the book.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, DeLillo's decision to include such outlandish historical figures in his narrative makes it hard for the reader to distinguish between the real and fictional characters in Libra. This may also serve to get the reader to question the truth behind the simple, "realistic" explanation of the assassination of JFK, and consider the strange, but in many ways equally viable alternate theories.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Ferrie's obsession with cancer, which DeLillo presents (again, with historical basis) as going far beyond a typical interest in matters of health. In this way, Ferrie is a reflection of a kind of "conspiracy thinking"--one more element in this novel where there's the constant suspicion of something going on just under the surface, invisible but consequential and lethal. The way DeLillo writes about Ferrie's personal "cancer research," he almost sounds like a kindred spirit to some of the conspiracy theorists who later would examine his own life in great critical detail, convinced that there's much more to the picture than the surface reveals.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting how DeLillo combines elements of conspiracy theories, shadowy councils, secret missions, etc. with totally mundane day-to-day events. While we get all these outlandish characters, we also get things like Win Everett eating breakfast with his wife. It makes the wild conspiracies more believable, but also seems like DeLillo's poking some fun at conspiracy theorists.
ReplyDelete