When I started reading Libra, I was expecting it to be a
conspiracy novel. In some ways, of course, it was − there was a plot, it tied
in with some real-life theories surrounding the assassination (the CIA was
involved, Jack Ruby was hired by the mob, etc.). However, the importance of the
plot faded away as the book went on. It felt like DeLillo put in a conspiracy
at the beginning because that's what readers would expect from a novel like
this, but then the rest of the book went on to show how implausible/unnecessary
a stereotypical crazy-conspiracy-theory-type plot would actually be. It
reminded me in some ways of Win Everett's description of how the CIA worked:
one group told another what their goal was, that group told another a general
idea of what to do, and then the final group, detached from the original
planners, carried out the actual operation. However, Kennedy's assassination is
a good example of how that type of plan can be corrupted: when Win allowed the
details to be worked out without his input, the whole plan quickly changed into
something totally different than he originally intended. Win's description of
CIA operations fits with a traditional "conspiracy" way of seeing
things: even though not everyone knew every single detail, many levels of the
CIA were working together. In contrast, the JFK assassination shows what
happens when you take the same kind of thinking and apply it in a situation
where nothing is organized and no one even pretends to have the same motives. Win's
problem was that he thought too much like a CIA agent and assumed everyone else
(Mackey, etc.) did too.
In some ways, the arc of Lee's life can also be seen as an
anti-conspiracy. He is obsessed with destiny and controlling forces, and they
are a major idea in the book. Throughout the book, Lee keeps falling short of
everything he sets out to do − being a Russian spy, being a good
husband/father, assassinating Walker, going to Cuba, etc. With what we know as
readers, it seems like Lee is fated to finally achieve something
"great" (some sort of
greatness, anyway), and his repeated failures only serve to emphasize this and
give it more impact when it does happen. There are so many strange coincidences
leading up to the event − Lee's job at the schoolbook depository, living in
Dallas before the plotters decide to assassinate him there, etc. − that we
instinctively look for a logical explanation. It feels like there should be
some divine force pushing Lee to be in the right place at the right time to
shoot JFK. Then all of this foreshadowing is undone in an instant when Lee
misses, and Raymo's shot hits instead. If Lee's entire life isn't leading up to
this moment, then what is it for? I think it would've been interesting if DeLillo had explored this some more.
Nice blog post! I found it interesting that this book focused on the power of coincidence, at times seeming to take it seriously while sometimes posing "coincidences" as something planned (specifically the many deaths that Branch comes across in his research.) DeLillo certainly does disprove the conspiracy idea of a single mastermind behind an event, as Everett is eventually undermined. It's interesting though that what is written in history is that Lee is the single mastermind behind the JFK assassination. According to DeLillo, Lee tricks the public by claiming the plan to be his, which seems to indicate that DeLillo may think it's silly to believe there is one person who knows everything in the assassination plan.
ReplyDeleteI found the ideas of destiny to be really interesting in Libra. Delillo seems to hint that fate might have played some role in Lee's decision to kill Kennedy and even in Jack Ruby's decision to kill Lee. This "predestination" calls into question the notions of free will for each of the killers and makes me wonder what Delillo really wants the readers to take away from this. In addition the idea of fate seems to play a role in the plot itself, with Everett's musings that plots have a way of ending themselves in death regardless of the original intentions of the plotters.
ReplyDeleteNote that DeLillo doesn't tend to use the word "conspiracy" in the novel (I don't remember it appearing at all, but if it does, it isn't often)--he tends to talk about the act of "plotting" instead. These are pretty much synonyms, but "conspiracy"--especially in the context of JFK--has certain connotations that I suspect he wanted to avoid (the more paranoid, Mason-mob-Illuminati-CIA-Soviet cliche of the all-knowing secret society that controls events). Instead, we have a plot, which begets a variation on that plot, which, thanks to a few lucky coincidences turns into a slightly different plot, which more or less goes as planned (only Lee didn't know the full plan).
ReplyDeleteThis is still a "conspiracy to kill the president", and it still goes far beyond the "official narrative" of the Warren Commission. But he deliberately does not deliver the kind of "conspiracy narrative" you'll see in Oliver Stone's movie _JFK_, for example.