Demystifying a Legend
Don Delillo’s Libra sets to reframe people’s view on the assassination of JFK by creating a plausible plot and showing all the events leading up to November 22, 1963. Another way he reframes people’s already established knowledge of the assassination is by treating Lee as a protagonist, and letting readers get to know him as an individual instead of a mythic character.
First and foremost, Don Delillo doesn’t call Lee how most do, which is Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee’s full name carries a lot of gravitas, and connects him solely with the assassination of Kennedy. Libra talks about Lee’s life before the assassination, so instead of being referred to by the name with an already attached story, Delillo uses Lee so readers can get to know him as his own person. Delillo plays around with the idea of mythical names in history with Francis Gary Powers. He even has Lee make this ironic observation. “Once you did something notorious, they tagged you with an extra name, a middle name that was ordinarily never used. You were officially marked, a chapter in the imagination of the state. Francis Gary Powers. In just these few days the name had taken on a resonance, a sense of fateful event. It already sounded historic” (198). Detaching Lee from Lee Harvey Oswald lets us see Lee the person, instead of Lee Harvey Oswald the legend in American History.
Outside of being an ex-marine who liked marxist ideology, I did not know much about Lee’s character and life. In Libra we get to see his mannerisms, his dislike of authority, his ego, and his daddy issues. We see his dichotomies between being a sharpshooter or whiffer, an intelligent person or a dumbass. Previously, my view on Lee Harvey Oswald was that he was a random unsatisfied civilian with unclear motives who just so happened to change the course of history. Libra helps us better understand how exactly Lee might have ended up in his position by showing how his background, starting from childhood, shaped his life.
The creation of a plot made by former CIA agents and people with ties to Cuba is an interesting scenario created by Delillo to explain what really happened behind the JFK assassination. But personally, I was more interested in learning about Lee instead of Lee Harvey Oswald. Just like he always wanted, Lee ended up being an infamous name in history. However that name and its story ended up completely surpassing Lee’s goal of being a visionary marxist. Delillo unveils the personal nature of Lee by diving into his life and separating him from Lee Harvey Oswald.
I also really didn't know anything about Lee Harvey Oswald other than him being "the guy who killed JFK." That, and I was sort of aware of the JFK conspiracies, but I never allowed myself to go down that rabbit hole. But, I was kind of glad to have Libra portray him just as "Lee" and give us insight as to why he thinks or acts the way that he does. Seeing the ways that he developed over the story are what honestly hooked me more too. (By the way, Happy Graduation, Maggie, I'll miss you!)
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I just mentioned this on Khuyen's blog, but I think the humanization of Lee Harvey Oswald was a really interesting choice on DeLillos part. While reading, I was also more interested in who he was as a person and his story. I'm really glad DeLillo wrote it like that and gave us a chance to learn who he was and thus what created the Oswald we know today.
ReplyDeleteHi Maggie, nice post. I think that "Lee" and "Lee Harvey Oswald" are pretty much two different people throughout most of Libra, and only by the end do they converge. Lee Harvey Oswald is a creation of Win Everett and David Ferrie's manipulation, who only truly becomes a part of the conspiracy plot towards its climax. Of course, regular Lee is still a weirdo but is a much more complex person than he gets credit for due to his association with the plot to kill Kennedy. The messy combination of Lee's full person with the person Ferrie and Everett set him up to be creates a very confusing picture by the end of Libra, and in the end, the only thing anyone can focus on is what Ferrie and Everett want them to see. Nice post.
ReplyDeleteNice post! I agree with the above people that telling the story of the Kennedy Assassination from Lee's perspective significantly deepens people's understanding of Lee. Personally, I found myself finding slight similarities between Lee's and my personalities and belief systems. For example, there was once a time when I was in the heights of radically following the stoic philosophy (ex. intentional pursuit of pain and hardship, extreme courage for doing the "right" things) and was fully convinced that I would "change the world" in the future (I still hope that I do, at least to some degree). Though I've come far since this period of my life, I found myself weirdly admiring certain aspects of him (ex. how he manages to get himself into the Navy at the age of 16-17, how he independently works his way through the Marxist book). As a result, I found myself engaging more deeply with the storyline of Libra by placing myself in the shoes of Lee.
ReplyDeleteHi Maggie, I like how you brought up his name first. It is true that even people who knew very little about the Kennedy assassination (such as me) still recognize the name Lee Harvey Oswald. The name holds the weight of what he did, but throughout most of the book, he had not yet done the assassination yet, so using a different nickname helped us understand him as a person, not as the 'Lee Harvey Oswald' figure.
ReplyDeleteI love that point DeLillo makes, about how once you're "historical" (especially for something notorious), you get the "full name treatment." Francis Gary Powers was presumably known to friends and family as "Francis" or "Frank" or "Francis Powers" in formal situations. Mark David Chapman (assassin of John Lennon) presumably was known as Mark Chapman or just Mark. One obvious reason for this convention is to clearly distinguish THIS Mark Chapman or Lee Oswald from OTHERS with that same name (add the middle name for clarity). But it does have this "aura" of "history" around it--and we glimpse this legacy of Lee's when, at the end of the novel, as he's buried in a secured grave under the name "William Bobo" (Lee's final psuedonym), his mother overhears two boys uttering the name "Lee Harvey Oswald." This is the moment Lee has become "historical."
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely true that once you do something notable enough to put in a history textbook, the media will add on that extra name on you. An ultimately, it's what Oswald wanted. He wanted to become historically notable and he ended up being remembered by so many people. I can also appreciate the way DeLillo separates Lee from his title of Lee Harvey Oswald and makes the readers see him as a real person and not aa celebrity.
ReplyDeleteI think it was a great choice from Delillo to dive deep into the character of Oswald, and calling him just by his first name was jarring to me when first reading it. I guess most of the book is meant to jarr the reader and question preexisting notions. Even with the extensive information we get on Oswald's childhood, soviet ties and such his character remains frustratingly mysterious. It's crazy that Oswald really got what he wanted in the end, and I wonder what was really going through his head when he was killing the president. I wonder if he regretted his decision at all?
ReplyDelete