History and Fiction

At the beginning of this course, Mr. Mitchell told us to write in our notebooks comparing history and fiction. I said,

History is true while fiction is not. Fiction has more freedom of imagination while history is contained to events that have actually taken place. Fiction could foreshadow or reflect on history, and both are comprised of amazing stories. History can have the effect on you that a well written fictional book can, but fiction can't replicate the fact that history actually did happen and it is real. 

Additionally, I wrote that when I think of history, I think of the Civil War and the Industrial Revolution, as well as other things I have learned  in history class. However, when I think of fiction, my mind goes straight to different novels that I've read, whereas with history, books rarely cross my mind. 

I also wrote a post explaining how my views of history and fiction had changed after reading Ragtime. I said that fiction and history were more intertwined that I thought before, and that you can fill in holes in history using fiction. I also said that fiction is the future history, and that fiction is just history that hasn't happened yet, even science fiction. 

After taking the entirety of the course, my view on history and fiction have changed again.
I do still think it is very cool how fiction can be used to fill in the holes in history, and that fiction can be incorporated into history to create for a totally possible just not historically confirmed narrative. History and fiction are deeply intertwined within each other and the two can be so deeply interlaced that it is hard to even tell the difference between who is fictional and who is a part of history, like in Libra. History can also create an interesting setting for a completely fictional plot like the time travel in Kindred. Additionally, the combination of history and absolutely crazy fiction can form an intricate storyline that involves social norms, civil rights, and the rightful location of art in Mumbo Jumbo.

I think that every fictional piece of writing was written with history in mind to an extent. Either with novels like the ones in class, where history is directly referred to and followed, or in the opposite instance where you try to stay away from history and make new ideas and events.

No matter what, history and fiction will be together. Even when learning about history, some facts may ultimately be wrong, and will be fiction, and all fiction is based on history, and if not based on history, it is writing new history that has yet to happen.

DeLillo's use of two narratives and fictional examples to explain

So far, while reading Libra, I have read the "In 'Setting'" chapters better than "date" chapters. This is most likely because in the setting chapters I have a better idea of what will happen next, since I know the general course of Oswald's life after watching the Frontline documentary. However, I do equally enjoy the date chapters, because they introduce an unpredictable and conspiratorial storyline to Oswald's life.

As the two kinds of chapters merge, it is interesting to see how Oswald's largely nonfictional narrative combines with the largely fictional narrative. I am amazed at how smoothly DeLillo transitions Oswald into a fictional life with a nonfictional outcome (that of shooting the president).

I really like that in the setting chapters, DeLillo creates events that fill holes in Oswald's life, using the date chapters to help. I also think it's really cool that DeLillo clears up many areas of interest that are not covered in the Frontline documentary. For example, the documentary shows a mug shot of David Ferry, looking extremely creepy and kind of like a naked mole rat or something. However, it doesn't really explain the reason he looks so physically abnormal. Additionally, it talks about how there were rumors swirling that Ferry sexually assaulted his cadets. In Libra, DeLillo addresses both of these issues using explanations as well as examples to help us understand that involve most likely fictional events. To confirm Ferry's supposed relationship with his cadets, DeLillo has him rape Oswald, showing us that he most likely raped his cadets. On a slightly more humorous note, DeLillo explains that Ferry tapes hair on the hairless spot where his eyebrows are, but going over the top and making him look flat out scary. It does surprise me, however, that DeLillo explains that Ferry realized he looked extremely abnormal and actually embraced it. From my impression from the documentary, I would think Ferry was a man who wouldn't ever admit his physical shortcomings and instead be power hungry and extremely insecure. However, this is not the case. He walks right up to Oswald completely naked and proceeds to rape him.

In all, the merging of two initially separate narratives creates for an interesting combination of history within fiction and fiction within largely history, in the end merging to form one giant historical event with fictional twists. The nonfictional holes in Oswald's past are filled with interesting and assumed fictional events that combine to create an interesting and captivating story.

Thoughts on Jack Ruby

Jack Ruby is a very peculiar character in Libra, emitting many different qualities that are difficult to analyze, which makes him a difficult person to read. He acts like he genuinely cares for his strippers, beating up men who touch them, yet he also seems to have engaged in sexual (harassment?) acts with some of the strippers, as well as going way too far in beating a man who touches on of his dancer's bottom to a pulp. The first thing I think of when noticing this kind of behavior is Rufus from Kindred. Rufus seems to mean well in his heart, yet always finds himself doing the wrong thing like raping Alice or something. Ruby seems to have fallen in similar situations, even when he lets the homeless into his club. When he lets these people into his club, his club loses "class", and he fails to receive loans, which plunges him further into debt.

I suspect this comparison to Rufus will continue to the end of the novel because, as we know, Ruby does kill Lee Harvey Oswald and spends the rest of his life in jail. Rufus gets killed by Dana even though he isn't being all that violent with her, and is just sort of admitting his feelings for her. He isn't doing anything as aggressive as we've seen him do before, but he isn't being extremely gentle either. Rufus had been extremely violent over the course of the book, which ultimately led to his demise. Ruby goes through a similar phase. He kills the man who killed the president. It is obviously justified to be extremely mad at Oswald, but walking right up to him and shooting him is going a bit far, just like Rufus went a bit far in showing his love of Alice and Dana (by raping them).

In the end, I believe that Ruby is as patriotic as it appears, because he does go as far as too kill the president's assassin. I also believe that Ruby is a softy in an unfortunate situation as a strip club owner. The owner of a strip club sounds like one of the roughest jobs out there, being in charge of controlling rowdy men, as well as who enters your club, and who the dancers are. Because of Ruby's gentle soul, he cannot refuse the poor beggar and welcomes into his club, knowing it isn't good for business. He also realizes the ugly side of stripping, and that his strippers live tough lives and don't make much money. He helps them when they need it and protects them against perverts.