Something core to most conspiracy theories is questioning he normality of an event. That being, is something that happened just a coincidence that isn't very unlikely, or does it have some aspect of abnormality to it and as such is of more importance. DeLillo plays around with this idea in several situations. The first time DeLillo brings something like this up is during a Nicholas Branch scene where he is looking at the deaths among those associated with Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby. DeLillo starts out the scene by writing, "Somewhere in his room of theories, in some notebook or folder, Nicholas Branch has a roster of the dead. A printout of the names of witnesses, informers, investigators, people linked to Lee H. Oswald, people linked to Jack Ruby, all conveniently and suggestively dead. In 1979 a House select committee determined there was nothing statistically abnormal about the death rate among those who were connected in some way to the events of November 22. Branch accepts this as an actuarial fact. He is writing a history, not a study of the ways in which people succumb to paranoia. There is endless suggestiveness." What this does is try to shut down the idea that there was anything strange about the death rates. I find that interesting because Libra is a conspiracy novel, so it shutting down something like that seems counter-intuitive. Still, DeLillo goes on supporting the fact that they weren't anything special by talking about the methods of killing and how they were completely unconnected. My question is, why would DeLillo, after showing how these killing are normal, go on to give details about each one, in a say similar to someone trying to make something of them would? And I think the reason he does so is to show how easily the human mind makes patterns and jumps into paranoia about certain things. Even after he explained that there wasn't anything statistically off, when I read the part where he describes several of the deaths, I can't help by be suspicious. My mind automatically makes the connections and says that there is something going on even though I know there isn't really.
DeLillo also brings up some coincidences during a scene with Lee and Ferries. During that scene he portrays the coincidences as exactly that, just coincidences, and shows how David Ferrie uses them to manipulate Lee. By doing this he is once again saying that these coincidences people point to aren't really all that odd, but at the same time is pointing out the coincidences as if to say, "still it seems like there us something strange about that doesn't it?" This once again shows how we really can't help connecting certain things.
This really speaks to the nature of conspiracies, and how the suspicious nature of the JFK assassination really leant itself to it
ReplyDeleteI do think DeLillo is referencing the nature of conspiracies and how people use some farfetched "evidence" to promote their conspiracy and being overly analytical of certain facts. But at the same time I think DeLillo actually thinks there is something fishy about the Kennedy assassination because of the way he wrote the death accounts.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel like DeLillo dismisses the convenient deaths. I think instead it is just to add additional suggestion to the reader's unconscious. Somewhat like if you think someone is outside your house in the night and you hear a noise, even if you have a rational explanation for it, you kind of at the same time attribute it to the imaginary visitor. About the Kennedy and Oswald coincidences I definitely agree. There were probably 1,000s of other people who share just as much with Kennedy as Oswald or more. For Oswald to be convinced is somewhat disappointing. Well written and thanks for making me think.
ReplyDeleteThe official claim that there's "nothing statistically anomalous" about the string of deaths (under some suspicious circumstances, depending on your level of paranoia) works two ways: it does try to "shut down" the implication that there might be anything unusual going on here ("nothing to see, folks, please move along")--but at the same time, it inherently plants the seed, makes us wonder whether there may indeed be anything statistically anomalous, something to see here. DeLillo prompts the reader's suspicions even as he depicts Branch reassuring himself that there's nothing unusual.
ReplyDelete