Maybe There Isn't a Secret Motivation: Why Libra is So Uncomfortable
Although Libra may not be an entirely accurate representation of the past, it illustrates the perpetuation of violence and societal strife through simple human life events. Lee Harvery Oswald is clearly a troubled young man, in the novel and real life. But if we imagine that everything included in Libra is true, we can see how he falls into the path he follows. He may be a political radical but his underlying motivations have little to do with righteousness and everything to do with feeling important and loved. His childhood was less than loving, and as he goes throughout his life trying to become infused in the USSR and then Cuba he constantly attempts to find solace in older father figures. Even his attempts to be adopted into communist society seem to come from a place of desperation to be included and a part of something he deems important/long-lasting. I would say he wants to be a part of something bigger than himself but I think instead he wants to be something bigger than himself.
Why is it that people are so fascinated by conspiracies surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald? Because it is impossible to accept that he alone could’ve altered the course of history as part of a psychological spiral. There is comfort in believing that there was something greater behind his actions, but if you look deeper you will see this is no real comfort either. Let’s imagine that the conspiracy is 100% true, on the surface this might make the assassination
.webp)
more palatable: JFK was killed as part of a larger series of events. But when we look at each original and secondary conspirator we see how personal their motivations are. The Bay of Pigs, Cuba, their own personal trauma and struggle to accept the past. We get a scene in which Delillo divulges Win Everett’s underlying worldview and motivations. “He didn’t need announcers telling him what Cuba had become… the more people who believed as he did, the less pure his anger… Please let me sleep but not dream. Dreams sent terrors you could not explain.” (148) Everett is angry and traumatized, he says himself that he isolates himself creating an echo chamber of rage. This man ultimately came up with the idea to turn the plot against Castro on JFK. Simply put, one person’s emotional struggles can send nations down paths of destruction and desecration.
.webp)
The conspirators discuss nearly missing JFK, and even intentionally hitting a bystander or secret service member to “validate their credentials” (223), and Lee is driven to shooting two political figures (General Walker and JFK), all because of underlying resentment for the events of their own lives, not in any attempt to help the world or find true political ideals. Violence is an impossible cycle which constantly multiplies, carried on in the hearts of those who have been victims, bystanders, or somehow involved, until it escapes and buries itself in someone new.
You're getting at one of the more "inconvenient" elements of the Oswald Factor in many of these conspiracy theories, AND in the official lone-gunman narrative: Oswald is certainly ideological and political, and he is certainly obsessed with the USSR and then Cuba. The historical record is clear on this point. And yet, JFK doesn't really make sense as an obvious target for him, ideologically. Oswald is not at all upset that the Bay of Pigs was such a fiasco--that's GOOD news for Cuba. He is also on record as admiring JFK, noting all these parallels between their lives (which he talked about with Marina), and he approved of Kennedy's actions on civil rights. In DeLillo's novel, the plotters (Mackey and Ferrie especially) have to exert effort to "get Oswald worked up about Kennedy," to give him some kind of motive, and the idea that he does this extreme thing just to get a visa to Cuba does make more sense than most lone-gunman theories.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, ideology ends up having little or nothing to do with Oswald's motivations in the end, as you note: why is it somehow MORE disturbing to posit that this entire tangled mess of historical and speculative narratives is really just the result of a misunderstood loner with emotional problems? What if there IS no underlying narrative?
Hi Olly!!!!!!! It is interesting that we tend to ignore the possibility that Oswald had no help in the assassination of JFK. There is no way he could of pulled off something like that all on his own.....right? However it doesn't seem plausible looking at his background with the USSR and his connection to Cuba. Was there something else besides JFK that drove Oswald to assassinating him, perhaps just 15 minutes of fame? GOOD JOB!
ReplyDeleteHello Olly! I really like how you put into perspective a large possibility of the truth of the assassination lying in Oswald acting on his own accord. The idea of the cycle of trauma being a piece of evidence for this, as well as how you talk about the convenience (or interest) in blaming large scale events like this on a government or something similar is super interesting! Thanks for the blog and great job!
ReplyDelete