Libra by Don DeLillo is framed as a secret history of the assassination of John F. Kennedy by a historian named Nicholas Branch. His second appearance in the novel is placed in the chapter 26 April, in the middle of conversations between various figures involved in the conspiracy that is being built up by DeLillo (and probably will be built up by Branch within the novel). Branch goes through a list of deaths of people associated with the JFK assassination seemingly in increasing order of ludicrousness (from getting shot and getting their throat cut to death by karate chop and head being split open by an ax). Branch then bemoans the extravagant amount of information he is faced with and wonders how he can get down to writing his history.
Although the discussion of the deaths is actually factually accurate (Jim Koethe, a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, was indeed killed by karate chop), I sort of got overwhelmed by the sheer ludicrousness of the deaths that I questioned if that was true. When I did find DeLillo got his facts right, it added to the main point of that passage, which was to showcase the sheer impossibility of putting together a truly comprehensive history of the JFK assassination. We kind of understood this coming in, but DeLillo basically acknowledges that fact by including this passage. Branch being a secret government historian is simply DeLillo giving us a reason to take Branch's history as fact within the context of the novel.
I found the juxtaposition of this section and talk about Win Everett's conspiracy and the people involved in it to be curious. As we are getting more engrossed and caught up with Everett's conspiracy, we get this reality check of a passage sort of reminding us that the "history" of the JFK assassination we're reading in Libra is not actually factual. By acknowledging the impossibility of making that sort of history Libra becomes aware of its fictional status (metafiction) and reminds us as readers that the novel is an exercise in imagination). I feel like this juxtaposition basically gets us as readers to be more imaginative about Everett's conspiracy rather than taking Branch's words for granted and encourages us to fill in holes ourselves.
That's pretty much speculation on my part, so let me know how I completely misread this scene.
Although the discussion of the deaths is actually factually accurate (Jim Koethe, a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald, was indeed killed by karate chop), I sort of got overwhelmed by the sheer ludicrousness of the deaths that I questioned if that was true. When I did find DeLillo got his facts right, it added to the main point of that passage, which was to showcase the sheer impossibility of putting together a truly comprehensive history of the JFK assassination. We kind of understood this coming in, but DeLillo basically acknowledges that fact by including this passage. Branch being a secret government historian is simply DeLillo giving us a reason to take Branch's history as fact within the context of the novel.
I found the juxtaposition of this section and talk about Win Everett's conspiracy and the people involved in it to be curious. As we are getting more engrossed and caught up with Everett's conspiracy, we get this reality check of a passage sort of reminding us that the "history" of the JFK assassination we're reading in Libra is not actually factual. By acknowledging the impossibility of making that sort of history Libra becomes aware of its fictional status (metafiction) and reminds us as readers that the novel is an exercise in imagination). I feel like this juxtaposition basically gets us as readers to be more imaginative about Everett's conspiracy rather than taking Branch's words for granted and encourages us to fill in holes ourselves.
That's pretty much speculation on my part, so let me know how I completely misread this scene.
It's hard to distinguish the fiction and the facts in the story because so many of the facts related to the assassination are as you said, ludicrous. The list of deaths that DeLillo gave is crazy, and yet they are all true. I definitely agree that DeLillo's combination of fiction and nonfiction makes the reader consider the odd coincidences in the real history of the assassination.
ReplyDeleteYour implication that Branch will probably at some point uncover Win's conspiracy plot is interesting. Personally, I've viewed the Branch sections as piles of information (mostly if not completely true) that historians have struggled through for decades now. Do you think Branch is going to uncover that there was a framing plotted by Win? I think Branch's regular interruptions are more to show us that this novel is one potential "truth" to events, but there is really no way to know.
ReplyDeleteI guess that my assumption that Branch eventually uncovers Win's conspiracy is pretty unfounded. I've basically read Branch as sort of a representation of DeLillo and that Branch's history will sort of become something analogous to the novel itself. I definitely agree that Branch represents the metafictional aspect of the novel in the way you said. I just feel like DeLillo has to somehow connect Branch with the rest of the novel in a more tangible way.
DeleteI like your classification of this section as metafiction. I agree, and think it is also calling out the arbitrary nature of any narrative in a very postmodernist way. Branch is faced with an overwhelming quantity of facts, and must identify a coherent narrative that ties them all together. The story told in Libra is one, but this section shows that there could be any number of others.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I find really meta about the Nicholas Branch character is that in some senses he is tasked with the same thing that DeLillo is while writing Libra. Both of them have to go through so many crazy, conflicting details and try to shape a narrative out of them. And then while DeLillo is doing this, he writes in someone that is doing the same thing.
ReplyDelete