Did someone say conspiracy theory?

One aspect of Don Delillo's novel Libra I've really been interested in is the effect of conspiracy theories, and how they connect so well into the blurring of history and fiction we have been studying throughout the course. Despite the fact that there is actual film footage and real witnesses of the assassination of President Kennedy, it is still considered one of the most well known conspiracy theories of the twentieth century because there is still so much room for interpretation of what actually happened that fatal 22nd of November.
Although Delillo is simply piecing together common conspiracy theories revolving around the case through his novel, we are given a fictional element to the story by really getting into Oswald's head and trying to understand his pretty unusual life through his perspective. By seeing Oswald's life play out through his eyes, I found myself at times sympathizing with Oswald. He dedicates his entire life to molding himself after great men in history, making it his goal to similarly go down in history as well by any means necessary. And once he finally accomplishes his goal after he shots Kennedy, it's hard not to feel some sort of satisfaction for Lee as the protagonist of the story. However when we stepped back and watched the actual shooting itself in class, it made me realize Lee's actions didn't just impact the plot of novel, but hurt so many people across the country in real life.
Not only did the conspiracy theory effect the country by causing society to question the reliability of our national security and what truly goes on behind the scene/what else could potentially be covered up, on a more personal level, the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" going down in history forever impacted his family we grew to know throughout the novel. When Lee is shot and killed, his wife became a widow, his children lost a father, and his mother lost a son. Whether they want to or not, his family has to live with the shame and disgust his actions brought to their family name, and how this would effect the course of the rest of their lives. Even worse, they have to live with the fact that they have no idea what really happened to Lee. While the Kennedy assassination for some may be simply an interesting subject to look into the missing part of history, for Lee's family, its an entire missing piece to their family history.

   

Reflections on Kindred

After finishing Octavia Butler's novel Kindred and discussing various scholars take on the book through different articles in the panel presentations, there is one quote that stuck out to me the most. During one of the presentations, a group quoted Butler reflecting on her own work, stating something along the lines of, "I would like to kill all the white people that contributed to our oppression, but I would have to start with my own relatives." I think this point really gets to the heart of the novel through all of the complex relationships, such as Dana's constant struggle between trying to make Rufus a better person vs. insuring the future of her family lineage through rape. Butler's point especially highlights why Americans are so uncomfortable talking about slavery, that whether you agree it was right or not, it directly effects most all American's history.

In the panel presentation, the speakers also brought up an interesting point on how today it is popular to view all people through a "colorblind" lens. That is that slavery doesn't exist anymore, therefore all people are treated as equals regardless of their skin color. While times have definitely  changed regarding racial equality since the time of the Antebellum South, racism is still  a very prominent issue in our modern day society. Not only among blacks vs. whites, but from prejudices and stereotypes involving numerous other races as well. In addition, viewing all people through a colorblind lens would deny people the right to racial pride within a given culture. One aspect of  Kindred I would have liked to learn more about, is Dana's experience with the unique aspects of African- American culture of the time. I think adding this would have made Dana's ties to the slave community stronger, as well as more realistic for the reader.

One thing I really learned by reflecting on this novel, is that although there can be a hazard in looking back in time, there is so much forgotten history to be shared. One reason I think Butler had Dana return back to the plantation in the 20th century time in the very end of the novel, is to show how much of a hidden history there can be in the most unlikely of places. This point is solidified by Dana loosing her arm, symbolizing her literally and figuratively leaving a piece of herself behind, lost forever in the forgotten history.  

Keeping up with Rufus Weylin

While Butler's novel Kindred can easily be seen as an anti-slavery book based on the horrifyingly accurate depictions of the life of a slave through a 20th century perspective, it is easily ignored that the novel can also be regarded as a coming of age book as well. Introduced to one of the main characters, Rufus Weylin, at a very young age, throughout the course of the story we see his character develop into the role of a southern plantation owner within the Antebellum south. However Rufus' upbringing isn't your average story of a privileged white boy. Throughout the course of his life, he finds himself mysteriously intertwined with an African-American women from 1976, who for some unknown reason has the ability to travel back in time whenever Rufus finds himself in trouble. Though Rufus can still be viewed as a white supremacist at heart due to how he was raised, his distinctions from his father Tom Weylin, your stereotypical plantation owner, can arguably be a result of Dana's influence.      

While I disagree with a lot of the choices Rufus makes, overall I feel pretty sympathetic towards him due to his extremely unusual upbringing. His relationship with Dana completely upsets his understanding of the accepted racial power structure between blacks and whites, causing Rufus to look for more out of slaves than the color of their skin. This can especially be seen when Rufus admits to saying he wishes he could marry Alice if he lived in Dana's time. I almost wish Butler would have had Alice and Rufus travel to the 20th century so they could be together, however Alice probably would not have been too thrilled about the idea. This can be seen in contrast to Tom Weylin's views on slaves, treating them as his property he can use as sex toys or even split up families and sell them.

Though it may have been Dana's goal to try and mold Rufus into a better person, she ultimately has an impossible conflict of interest with insuring her own existence. While she can preach to Rufus all she wants about respecting a person regardless of skin color, in the end, Rufus must still feel as though he has the power over Alice to rape her and have their child Hagar, Dana's relative. And even if Rufus does change his outlook, he would be viewed as an outcast in his community for going against the social norms. Therefore while Rufus could be deeply unhappy with his lifestyle, following in his father's footsteps and adopting his similar values can be seen as a survival strategy.

Even though Rufus and Dana's relationship is very peculiar, I think its interesting how easy it was for both characters to almost walk in each other's shoes. Dana is shocked and disturbed how easy it was for her to accept slavery, and Rufus and shocked and disturbed at how easy it was for him to see slaves as more than his property. Together there share an unusual form of mutual trust between each other, and even though Rufus threatened Dana with a gun begging her not to leave him, I wonder if their relationship will be able to look past the incident. However I do think it must have hindered their level of trust for each other, which I'm curious to see of this takes effect.

The Anti-Rolemodel

Throughout the course of the novel, I've found myself feeling very sympathetic for poor Billy Pilgram. He becomes a prisoner of war, witnesses one of the worst firebombings in history, marries a fat women for her money, and gets kidnapped by aliens and deemed insane for telling his story. But worst of all, due to his uncontrolled ability to travel in time, he knows everything both good and bad that is to happen in the future, and has absolutely no power to change it. While at first I was a bit taken back on Billy constantly having no desire to live, given his situation, I don't really blame him. However this begs the question, why would Vonnegut intentionally create this type of protagonist to tell his extremely serious and emotionally dramatic story?

The main reason I believe someone could possibly create Billy's unmotivated and detached persona as a protagonist, is to go against the idea of the traditional war narrative. In the very first chapter, Vonnegut admits he made a promise to Mary O'hare that he wouldn't glorify the horrors of war to inspire the next generation to feel like they need to prove themselves as men in battle in his book. With this promise in mind, Vonnegut seems to do everything in his power to insure Billy can not be seen as a hero. By the end of reading this novel, I believe Vonnegut's desired effect was to not have any reader aspire to be like Billy's character, creating almost an anti-role model. This is especially due given the science-fiction plot twist to the novel with his claims of the Tralfamodore planet, making Billy's life seem even more isolated and sad than ever.

While Vonnegut originally struggles with identifying his novel as an official "anti-war" book, I feel like the message clearly comes across through Billy's persona as a protagonist. By depicting such a sad, childlike, and almost comical figure to share his extremely serious story, Vonnegut is creating a different type of metanarrative that can be argued as more relatable to the actual type of young kid fighting in the war itself at the time.    

Is Twerking Modern Day Jes-Grew?!

When we are first introduced to the Jew Grew epidemic in the novel "Mumbo Jumbo" by Ishmael Reed, it is described as people doing "sensual things," "wriggling like a fish, doing something called the Eagle Rock" and the "Sassy Bump" in a state of "uncontrollable frenzy." The Mayor's reaction to Jes Grew immediately reminded me of one thing- and that is Miley Cyrus at the 2013 Video Music Awards. During her performance, Cyrus sings her popular song "We Can't Stop" along with all African-American singers and dancers depicted twerking on stage. For those of you who do not know what twerking is, it can essentially be described as shaking your butt relatively fast in an up and down, side to side, or cicular motion. However according to Urban Dictionary, it is also known as "whatever the hell Miley Cyrus' does." Not only is Cyrus seen objectifying these women's bodies such as by slapping their behinds, but in addition she culturally appropriates a traditionally black dance form, "twerking," dating back to hundreds of years ago in West Africa. One particular dance form twerking has been traced to, is a dance called mapouka from Cote d'Ivoire. Similar to twerking, it is known as"la dance du fessier" or "the dance of the behind," traditionally being used for ceremonial purposes. However eventually a more provocative version of the dance became popular among the  Ivoirian youth culture, and while the Ivoirian government attempted to ban the new dance form, it had already began to spread. Like Cyrus's performance, we see Reed highlight the issues of white culture appropriating aspects of African culture in attempt to feel "trendy" and "rebellious" in many ways such as through dance and song. So while Miley claims she "Can't Stop" twerking, I think Reed and a many others would agree it would be best is she did.

Link to Cyrus's Performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEBwvwhc4lM
Link to Mapouka Dance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zw7PCVGYr4&feature=youtu.be
Source Used: http://mentalfloss.com/article/51365/what-origin-twerking

Re-Invention of Self

One argument we recently brought up in our class discussion on themes throughout Doctorow's Ragtime, is the idea of reinventing one's self. I found this topic really interesting because in the very end of the novel, we see so many of the characters overcome some sort of drastic change as opposed to how Doctorow portrays them in the beginning.

One major turing point where we see a significant change in many of the character's, is the aftermath of when Coalhouse seeks revenge on the fireman volunteers and sets fire to the firehouse. While some may argue Coalhouse's character completely changes from this incident, I feel it only supports how much Coalhouse remains the same. Before the incident, we see Coalhouse come across as very respectable in his appearance, well put together in his presentation, and persistant in the way he courts Sarah. Yet after he carries out his revenge plot, he still comes across in a very put together manner. He still dresses very respectable and has his followers appear the same. In addition, the way he carries out his revenge plot is extremely well thought out and organized, and he is very persistent in making sure justice is served to those who deserve it. One of the main characters who is arguably impacted most significantly by Coalhouse's revenge scheme, is Mother's Younger Brother.

Though Coalhouse himself stays true to his character, Mother's Younger brother can especially be seen as someone who completely re-invents himself from Coalhouse's influence. In the beginning of the novel, Doctorow depicts Mother's Younger Brother as pretty foolish and hard to take seriously, however eventually we find out he is really lost and searching to find himself. Once his path is intertwined with Coalhouse, we see Mother's Younger Brother start to look up to him as the sort of role model he needed to find his purpose. After joining Coalhouse's crew, we see Mother's Younger Brother change not only in attitude, but in his appearance as well. He starts to dress in the same respectable fashions as Coalhouse, and even goes as far as to dress in black face to show his true allegiance. By risking his life to help Coalhouse seek justice, by the end of the novel Mother's Younger Brother re-invents himself into a character that is taken a lot more seriously, and with a lot more respect for his actions.

Race in Ragtime

In the first chapter of "Ragtime," Doctorow creates a very monochromatic view on race through the eyes of a stereotypical, fairly wealthy, white family. In New Rochelle, New York, there are "no immigrants," and certainly "no negroes" (4 pg). This statement is proven to become rather ironic, as some of the main characters of the novel are African- American.  However throughout the first half of the book, the issue of race in the early 20th century is rarely even discussed.  Once we are introduced to Sarah, her baby, and especially Coalhouse Walker, the reader not only learns the horrors of racism from the time period, but also gives us an insight on Doctorow's personal views on the topic as well.

One aspect of Sarah and Coalhouse Walker's story I find significant, is the fact they are the first characters we see develop in a cohesive arrangement of chapters from start to finish. This allows the reader to feel more sympathetic towards their story because it is easy to get drawn into. Sarah is depicted as "innocent," primarily following the standards of how a colored women should behave such as working in a low paying job as a laundry women. However, Coalhouse Walker acts as an outlier to the unspoken racial hierarchy, acting outside the limits of his race through the way he dresses, acts, and carries himself with pride. From his persistent courtship of Sarah every Sunday, the reader grows to trust Coalhouse Walker because of his respect and dedication for Sarah and his child.

When Coalhouse Walker is completely disrespected by the white firefighters, the narration is told through his own point of view. I find this choice of narrator to be reviling to Doctorow's own personal views on racism by depicting the white fire chief and workers as the "bad guys." While he could have easily written the scene from the perspective of the fire chief, he specifically chose Coalhouse Walker to show the horrors of racism. Because the novel was written in the mid 1970's after the end of the civil rights movement, racial equality in American was still a fairly new concept. While a typical white person from the time period of the early 20th century would probably hate the way Doctorow portrayed the racist scene due to the socially constructed standards of race of the time that blacks are inherently "inferior", readers from the 1970's to today would be horrified reading the scene through the fire chief's perspective because of the new shift towards gender equality. Through the racist scene, the reader is able to get an accurate idea of the challenges blacks had to face in order to be respected, and also see how Doctorow feels on the subject as well.