And no, it isn't senioritis.
I actually am dreading the moment where Lee dies. I especially don't want Lee to narrate it.
I'm not really sure why I am so dreading this moment. I mean, I know that it is coming. I know Jack Ruby is going to do it. I know that. I've seen the footage. I've seen the t-shirt parody of the scene. It's coming, but I don't want to read it.
No offense to Don DeLillo, but this actually kind of surprises me that I'm reacting this much to something in the last 30 pages. His book hasn't stirred up passionate thoughts in me all along, sending me frantically to this blog to explain my burning thoughts. It has been kind of a slow read with some long and confusing (and therefore occasionally sleep-inducing) sections.
Lee is interesting, but not all that lovable. Marina would be likable I think, if we ever really got to know her. The conspirators are all strange, but also kind of distant, kind of untouchable. I don't know, maybe the fact that it is May of my senior year has something to do with the detachedness I've felt with this book, but I really think it is something to do with the writing and the plot and the historicalness of everything.
It is sort of like watching a movie you've already seen. You want to fast forward through the boring scenes and in the good scenes you aren't quite as captivated as you were the first time. You're a little cooler, a little more distant, and little more critical.
That's how I've felt reading Libra. I've already seen this story unfold and so I've got this critical distance which prevents me from falling in love with any of the characters because I already know their destiny and so I don't have hope for them, I don't believe they will change or grow because I have already seen where they end up.
It's actually pretty weird. It isn't very often that you know the ending of a book before you get to it unless you're reading a very standard plot children's book. But this one, I've know the ending for all along.
So anyway, now that I've explained why I don't want to do my homework, I guess I had better go finish it.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Can you trust the news?
Early this year, we spent a week or two in history talking about the JFK assassination and watching a documentary about it made with footage from the actual event and subsequent news coverage.
One of the things that really stood out to me was just the chaos at the police station, all the reporters everywhere and the police trying to get through this massive crowd of people with microphones. I started to wonder about what news is, as all the reports they released that had such gaping holes in information or made such jumps and twisted the story.
When reading Libra, it was really interesting to imagine what Lee thought during all of that. On page 417, it is described this way.
I also like how Lee keeps pointing out that they were all shouting questions but no one was listening to his responses, they couldn't hear.
But it gets really interesting when you are inside Lee's head and he is thinking about they ways he could play the story. Does he name all the names? Does he take any of the guilt?
This is just a "History as Fiction" moment. The character is consciously playing with history, considering whether to reveal more or less of the truth. It just reinforces that even what people say can be leaving out important information or slanting a story a certain way.
This has really struck me as I have been working on my own piece of post-modernist historical fiction and as I write even basic news for the Online Gargoyle. When I look at what is recorded in newspapers (historical for my semester project or contemporary stories I edit), it is so slanted by what people say and what the author chooses to included that it makes it hard to know what actually happened.
I mean, how many times as an Online Gargoyle author have I had to leave out information because it wasn't "relevant" or succinct or publishable, and yet that information could change the way you understand the story? Probably more than even I think.
And then the news stories that I've been reading for my project, it is amazing how many of them contradict each other about very basic stories about how the dishwasher was invented. You would think that the inventor must have told two stories, the way the articles divide so neatly between two narratives.
I bet somewhere out there there is a novel that totally plays with the idea of the newspaper as a frequently cited source of "history" and how really newspapers often print a lot of fiction as well.
One of the things that really stood out to me was just the chaos at the police station, all the reporters everywhere and the police trying to get through this massive crowd of people with microphones. I started to wonder about what news is, as all the reports they released that had such gaping holes in information or made such jumps and twisted the story.
When reading Libra, it was really interesting to imagine what Lee thought during all of that. On page 417, it is described this way.
"Hell and bedlam. Crowds jammed clear back out to the hall. Reporters still trying to press in, just arrived from the East Coast and Europe, faces leaking sweat, ties undone. The prisoner stood on the stage in front of the one-way screen used for lineups. His hands were cuffed behind him. Reporters shouting out to him."
I also like how Lee keeps pointing out that they were all shouting questions but no one was listening to his responses, they couldn't hear.
But it gets really interesting when you are inside Lee's head and he is thinking about they ways he could play the story. Does he name all the names? Does he take any of the guilt?
This is just a "History as Fiction" moment. The character is consciously playing with history, considering whether to reveal more or less of the truth. It just reinforces that even what people say can be leaving out important information or slanting a story a certain way.
This has really struck me as I have been working on my own piece of post-modernist historical fiction and as I write even basic news for the Online Gargoyle. When I look at what is recorded in newspapers (historical for my semester project or contemporary stories I edit), it is so slanted by what people say and what the author chooses to included that it makes it hard to know what actually happened.
I mean, how many times as an Online Gargoyle author have I had to leave out information because it wasn't "relevant" or succinct or publishable, and yet that information could change the way you understand the story? Probably more than even I think.
And then the news stories that I've been reading for my project, it is amazing how many of them contradict each other about very basic stories about how the dishwasher was invented. You would think that the inventor must have told two stories, the way the articles divide so neatly between two narratives.
I bet somewhere out there there is a novel that totally plays with the idea of the newspaper as a frequently cited source of "history" and how really newspapers often print a lot of fiction as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)