Who is the victim?

So I just finished the book, and I have to say that even though the book was about the assassination of Kennedy, Kennedy wasn't actually really too much a part of the book. Because of how much build up suspense to the actual shooting, it seemed to say how the actual shooting and the person being shot was not actually as important as the build up to the shooting. I felt like this book was more fiction than history.

I believe that Delillo should have provided more emphasis on Kennedy. There are many different perspectives given by different characters in the story and I just feel that a perspective given by Kennedy would have provided a different feel to the story which would lead to a more complex story. From what I have read in Delillo’s story, I almost feel no regret to the death of Kennedy, which I feel is something that Delillo does not want. However an argument to my opinion is that if Delillo does give a perspective of Kennedy which ultimately ends in his death, this touching subject could stir mixed emotions with the reader.
 
This book does seem to already play with the mixed emotions of readers. Before reading this book I would have definitely thought that Lee was the bad guy and Kennedy was the good guy. However now that I read Delillo’s take on the story, I kind of feel a little sorry for Lee. Ya, there were some times where I thought Lee was kind of stupid and arrogant like when he believed his diary was to be read by the masses. But, the way the book plays out I can’t help feel kinda bad for Lee for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It almost seems that Lee is a victim in this story. I guess that Delillo is maybe trying to say that there is actually no good guy or bad guy, but something influenced by something we just can't control.

Fate

So during class one day we were showed the assassination of Kennedy. I had heard a lot about what had happened. How there was his wave to the public, the multiple gunshots, and Jackie  climbing into the back of the car. The tape was more surprising than I would have thought. I thought I was prepared for the most of it. However, the moment the first gunshot was fired caused me to flinch a bit. Even though you could not clearly see everything that was going on when Kennedy was shot, I felt a sense of importance. A sense of importance in the fact that history would be greatly affected by this event. Watching it over and over again caused me to feel a bit uneasy, but for some odd reason I just could not stop staring at the tape.

I find all this very interesting and there just seems to be so many coincidences for there not to be a conspiracy. I find it strange how someone would be filming the entire Kennedy assassination even though video cameras were quite rare in that time. I also find it interesting how the camera seems to be in the correct angle as to not give a clear indication of where the bullet was being fired at. From the video arose even more speculations such  as the possibility that Kennedy actually was never shot. The way that everything happened seemed to give off the aura that fate played a part in the assassination of Kennedy.

I feel that in relation with the book, Lee plays a crucial role in the flow of history. Throughout the book Lee seems to have this attitude that he is able to do anything. It is said that he is a good Libra, because there is a balance towards him. Lee seems to be the tipping point that allows the fate of Kennedy’s assassination.

Well these are just my opinions.

The Assassian

In Libra the most interesting character is without a doubt Lee Harvey Oswald. Most people probably already know Oswald as the man who shot Kennedy, however Libra gives us a side to Oswald that we never knew.

The title Libra is named after the astrological sign symbolizing balance and harmony. Throughout the entire book Oswald seems to be searching for his own balance in society. This search eventually leads to him assassinating the president.

We follow Oswald through many stages in his life. We start with Oswald when he was a kid and his talks with his mother. Oswald then becomes stationed with his fellow Marines at a naval base in Japan. However once becoming a soldier, Oswald defects to Russia. It seemed as soon as Oswald got to Russia, he then wants to return to America. As soon as Oswald returns to America his discharge is deemed as dishonorable.The FBI start causing trouble for him, his boss fires, and his attempts to enter Cuba was refused at the Cuban Embassy. It seemed that Oswald just doesn't really fit in anywhere. Oswald seems to have so many different identities, however each of these identities just don’t seem to fit in. Oswald almost seems like a child in some cases as he just does what he wants to do.

I also find it interesting that Oswald keeps a diary which he believes will be studied in the future. Even though Oswald does not really have a place he belongs, I can see that by thinking he has a important diary, it shows his ambition to do great things .

Oswald is a very interesting character and I believe Delillo’s depiction of him is very unique. I very much enjoy this mysterious and somewhat crazy side to Oswald. I so far very much enjoy this book.

A New Book

So I realized I wrote this blog awhile ago, but never really posted it, so I guess i'm sharing my initial reactions to Libra.

My first thoughts of Libra were uncertain ones. I did not know what to expect transitioning from reading about slavery to about Kennedy’s assassination. Before reading this book I did not really know much about Kennedy’s assassination, nor did I know why there was such a big hype of his assassination. I did not know why people found it finding to find the “truth” of Kennedy’s murder despite that the fact that we already know who did it.  

So the book starts off with many different storylines which made the story hella confusing. I had troubles piecing together who was who. One thing I had trouble with is I had trouble following the conversations of people and would get lost with who was who and what was going on. Even though we are spending more time reading this book it just does not seems enough. Just when I feel like I am about to understand the characters something crazy happens and suddenly there is random stuff happening in the future?

Despite the difficulty in understanding what is going on, I still enjoy this book. I think that the plot is interesting by giving us the perspective of Kennedy’s shooter, the CIA, and the mob. It really feels like reading an old-spy novel. I don't know what to expect yet. The book seems to not yet have pieced each component together yet, leading for me wanting to know more about just how Kennedy’s assassination in Dan Delillo’s story.

The impact of Kindred

Kindred by Octavia Butler is a book that infuses the aspect of history with science fiction. Butler takes two important times in American history: the period of slavery and the year of 1976. Butler uses time travel in order to show how the past has shaped and continues to shape the present.

    I believe that Butler specifically chose the year 1976 because it is the year where the United States celebrated 200 years of freedom. I believe that Butler uses these two different setting in order to show how important the past is to understanding the present.
    There are further similarities with the characters. Butler creates a double of Dana with Alice. Rufus even goes as far as to think that they are the same person. Rudus uses Alice for his physical desires and Dana for emotional comfort. “He likes me in bed, and you out of bed...all that means we’re two halves of the same woman” (229).  By establishing a relationship between the past and present, Butler not only gets the perspective of a free, twentieth-century black women's challenges in the nineteenth-century slavery, but also also a view on the nineteenth-century black woman’s life in slavery.
    Dana seems to be naive as she doesn't know the severity and harsh reality of a black women in nineteenth-century slavery. As time passes and she meets Alice, Dana begins to realize just how much Alice has to suffer. As time passed Alice “adjusted, became a quieter more subdued person. She didn’t kill, but she seemed to die a little” (169). This viewpoint on nineteenth century slavery really hits the crucial aspects of just how terrible slavery was and shows just how we have moved on.
   

Changes in Dana

Dana is the main character in the book Kindred. During the book there are some notable changes about Dana due to the circumstances of her traveling back into time. My first impressions of Dana were not that strong. I felt that she did not really have a purpose in life. Sure she wanted to become an author, but that goal was not really close. Instead she spent most of her days searching for odd jobs to earn money.

As Dana began spending more time in the nineteenth century my views about her changed. At first she seemed strong, she fought against all the opposition she was up against and won. An example of this would be when she started teaching some slaves how to read and write. This stood out to me especially because of how brave I thought Dana was. However, these actions may have been her naivety that she brought with her from the future.

As the novel continues, Rufus gets older, and with that Rufus gains more power as a white male on a plantation. Rufus is no longer that innocent child that we first met at the start of the book. Dana however looks more and more like any other female slave on the Weylin plantation as she does not age.

Near the end of the book it felt like Dana just kind of gave up. She becomes more submissive as she learns what society thinks of slaves. Rufus begins ordering her around doing stuff, and even blackmailing her. She does not have much power to do otherwise. It was only at the very end where she finally could not stand it and she kills Rufus. I guess this just shows how much change Dana goes through as she experiences these traumatic events.

A scar

The book Kindred started off faced-paced as we learn that the main character has lost her arm. However we do not know how she loses her arm till the very end of the book which caused me to feel that this book was very interesting. The ending of the book however was something unexpected to say the least. After murdering Rufus, Dana’s arm merges into the wall as she is transported back to her own time.

Even though Dana had also gone through a lot of physical abuse such as from whippings, I do believe that the most pain she went through was herself.I believe that Butler made Dana lose an arm to compare all her mental struggles. Her feelings toward Rufus are very complex. She has been with him ever since he was a little kid, saving him numerous times from drowning, burning, and getting beat up, however as Rufus starts growing older and becoming more like a slave master, Dana no longer knows what to really think towards him. Dana also had to worry during that five year period where Kevin was alone in the past. She had to worry whether or not Kevin would stay the same, or become influenced by the white supremacy. I do not think that anyone could just normally go back to their way of living, and the physical symbol of this lost arm is a good way to remind her. I agree that slavery leaves a big impact, and the lost arm is Butler showing just how much of an impact it actually made for Dana.

Book Review

So after finishing Slaughter House-Five, I have to say I really enjoyed reading this book. There are so many reasons why I liked this book. I guess my first reason I liked this book was I guess the fluidity while reading it. At first I thought that I would be totally confused because of the science fiction aspect of time travel, however Vonnegut uses time travel to his advantage to jump from each part of the story that Vonnegut feels is related in some way.

I guess the aspect of time travel leads me to my second reason of why I enjoyed this book. I was surprised that an author would be able to make sense of a a historical sci-fi book. The introduction of the Tralfamadores brings up many points that I think Vonnegut wanted to share. "The Tralfamadorians...can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them." What I take from this is moments like death are just bad experiences and that there will always be war, we cant stop it.

I enjoyed how this is a anti-war story that does not really focus that much on the war. What we do see are the spilling of emotions as we see the wreckage of Dresden, the poor horse, and imagine the taste of syrup that brought so much joy to the old man. This small book contains so much information filled with so much knowledge and emotions. As my first time reading this book I definitely did not notice all of the finer points, however I definitely enjoyed reading this book.

Historical Sci-Fi?

Never would I have thought that I would take a historical sci-fi book seriously. Slaughter House-Five changed my idea about this. Science fiction plays a huge role in the book. I believe that Vonnegut uses sci-fi in order to alleviate the total seriousness of war. An example from the book that I believe supports this argument is the story written by Trout. The Gutless Wonder tells the story about a robot who would use burning jellied gasoline on humans, but the only things the humans cared about were its bad breath. I think that Vonnegut uses this example of sci-fi to show how ignorant some people are about war. The use of the Tralfamadore helped allow me to see war in a different light. I believe that Vonnegut takes advantage of using aliens to convey the important points of how war is silly, yet inevitable. As an author writing about the dreadful nature of Dresden, I believe Vonnegut also uses sci-fi in his writing as a means to escape the harsh reality of having to relive the war while writing the book. Even though the idea of using sci-fi in a historical fiction book seems quite far-fetched and silly, Vonnegut cleverly combines the two aspects of what is real and what isn’t into a believable story that changes my ideas on war.

Three words

I am writing a blog for history as fiction class. So it goes. In Slaughterhouse Vonnegut continuously uses the phrase “so it goes”. So far in the book Vonnegut has used this phrase over and over after the death of someone. At first I had different thoughts of how I took Vonnegut using “so it goes” over and over. At first I had to say I thought that this was very rude. I felt that Vonnegut was disrespecting the dead by just glossing over the details. Even though we are not properly introduced to the soldiers that get shot early in the book, it still felt that when Vonnegut quickly ended the scene with “so it goes” the importance of the men were just forgotten. However when we discussed the importance of the words “so it goes” during class, my opinions about this line of words changed. I feel that Vonnegut does not want to dwell on the past traumatic events. Even though the deaths of these men might be painful, we should continue to move on. This idea is shown with the story of Lot’s wife who turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back. I feel that by continuously repeating this line of words, Vonnegut is reminding us of the importance of the people who died. Another way I see the importance of these three words is it shows just how threatening war can be. I feel Vonnegut is making the point there will be death, “so it goes”.  I now see just how powerful these three words are.

Jumbled Mumbling

My first thoughts of Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed were not good ones. I found this book to be simply just weird. The first chapter of the book was before the cover page. If I was not told where the first chapter was I would have totally missed it. Some people might say that this might be a unique characteristic of the book having themes related to the title, however my first impression of this was I found the author was trying to hard in attempt to be unique.

After reading the first nine chapters I had to say I was kinda lost. I did not understand what was really happening in the book. It was not until around chapter five where I started kinda understanding what  Jes Grew was. In the book Ishmael refers to Jes Grew as a type of epidemic which at first I had thought was some sort of sickness. I am still not to sure what Jes Grew exactly is, but my best guess is that it is maybe a type of dance? There are many references to native Americans which also tie into Jes Grew. There seems to be more information that we are not given yet.

As I am an impatient person I can not wait for the book’s plot to move on. At this point I find this book quite dull and confusing. I cant say I am the only one as most of the people in my class also agreed to the points I stated above. There are many subtle things that the author does in his writing which I am looking forward to when I further read the rest of the story. I can’t wait to see where this story takes us.

Houdini

Okay, so upon finishing ragtime, a lot of questions entered my head. One of them being what is the point of Houdini. I mean throughout the book I was always wondering how Houdini would tie into the main story dealing with the family. However the only part in the book where the story intertwines is in the beginning when Houdini crashes his car and is invited in by the family. The only reason I believe Doctorow created this scene is to show just how he can manipulate these characters in anyway he wants.

My views on Houdini recently changed though when I heard the presentation from Milee, Sarah, and Christina on an article they were presenting. Their main point on Houdini was that Doctorow used Houdini as a symbol for the Jews. Because Jews were commonly used blackface in minstrel shows, this relates to Houdini who under went ridicule while performing his magic shows. Another main point that I took from their presentation is that Houdini is used to relate the struggle of the Jews and the Blacks with symbols of Houdini hanging upside down from a rope which could represent lynching.

While my sudden reaction to these points was wow I would have never thought of that! I believe that his the points given strongly help provide further meaning behind the book, and provide Houdini with some use in the book. Despite this, I still feel somewhat doubtful of the importance of Houdini. The points given seemed like somewhat of a stretch. I feel that Doctorow did not mean for Houdini to relate the struggle of the blacks and Jews. I feel that Doctorow simply just wants to show the struggle of Houdini with the death of his mother and how he overcomes it. I feel that the other points were somewhat try hard.

In the end, I still come to the conclusion that Houdini is still not that important in the story. He provides some interesting back story, but even without him I feel the story would just carry on.

RIght or Wrong?

Okay, so the story in Ragtime has finally emerged, and in the center of it is this man named Coalhouse Walker.

So who is this Coalhouse Walker? In short he is a well-known black pianist gone Rambo. The cause of Walker’s trouble begins at the fire station where he is stopped to pay the “toll”. At this point I believe Walker is just annoyed at the ignorance and racist nature of these men. However I believe Walker has already gotten used to these types of people in his pursuit as a musician. The early 1900’s was a time filled with hardships for African Americans, and this is just another one of those examples.

So what makes this encounter different? Well first Walker’s car is trashed by these people, but I do not believe the issue is of his car. I believe the main problem behind all this is his pride. Walker seems to be a man who carries this sort of aura of confidence and even a bit of arrogance that is not normally seen in an African American. This is shown by Walker entering the family’s house uninvited and him driving a brand new Ford car like he is some big shot. You can always buy a new car, but you can’t buy pride.

This issue soon escalates when Walker burns down the Emerald Isle Firehouse. Whether or not this is justified is up for debate. On one hand he killed innocent bystanders, on the other hand he is trying to get his point across that you can not treat African Americans like this. The side I have to take is not in favor of Walker. At first I was rooting for Walker who was polite and cultured in his attempt to win back Sarah. However Walker seems like a brand new person. I believe there are other ways that Walker could have gotten his point across, like non-violent protest. Walker’s rebellion does no one any good. It even said that African Americans did not want anything to do with Walker. I believe Walker’s hatred has gotten the better of him, and now he can not think of anything besides revenge. There might be reason for his anger, but revenge is never the answer.

First impressions

 (I wrote this blog last week except apparently blogger did not save my draft, and I did not see until now...)

Upon picking up the book Ragtime, I was not sure what to expect. I mean the author of the book is E.L. Doctorow, is he supposed to be the doctor? On the cover of the book, it also cited E.L. Doctorow to be the author of City of God, which seemed to me to be a very crazy and even a bit arrogant of a title. But as they say you can not judge a book by its cover.

As I began reading, I was confused. Who is the narrator? The story is told in third person causing some confusion to how this person is telling this story. The narrator seems so far detached from the story, however he seems to know about everything going on in the book. In some sense it seems like the narrator is some sort of godly figure looking down at his people. I can’t say I do not like this sort of narrative, but lets just say it leaves me with a sense of confusion.    

Something I do like so far is how Doctorow seems to know how to get his point across. One way I noticed he does this is by randomly having historical people show up randomly and have them interact with other people randomly. An example of this is the when Doctorow brings Freud into the story. He makes up a story about Freud which may or may not be real, however Doctorow comes out with a meaningful conclusion behind the story which can be summarized by: “America is a mistake, a gigantic mistake”. One thing you can not miss while reading Ragtime is the irony in Doctorow’s writing. After telling of the horrible times the poor had to endure, Doctorow switched things up completely telling how the rich were throwing lavish dinner parties to sympathize to the poor and “The proceeds were for charity”.

One thing that I can not just get used to yet is the plot. There seems to be no real storyline or no real main character. Everything in the book seems to be so spread out and confusing. Even though Doctorow brings to life all these historical figures, he uses them so randomly in the telling of his story.

Even though I am almost already half-way through the book, I am not even sure yet as how I think of this book.