Can We Trust Darl?

One issue that having so many different narrators creates is the conflicting points of view.  We as readers must decide which narrator is more trustworthy in each situation.  However, this is even more complicated when Darl narrates, as he seems to have some kind of omniscience or ESP.  How he knows about events happening while he is not present is not explained at this point in the novel, and probably won't be.  Therefore, as readers we must decide whether or not these seemingly clairvoyant sections are reliable or not.

The way that these sections are written it does not seem that he is retelling what he was told by someone else, someone who was present.  Instead, he seems to be observing the scene much the same as a third person omniscient narrator would.  The only difference is that his narration of what is happening far away is interspersed with bits of what his happening to himself, Jewel and the wagon.  I think that if we can trust what we hear from narrator in this book, we can trust Darl as well.  He seems to be Faulkner's way of putting an omniscient narrator into this book without disrupting the structure of narration by all the characters.  If this is true, then perhaps these clairvoyant passages are in fact Faulkner speaking directly to the reader without the intermediary step of a character narrator.

Regardless of whether or not this is Faulkner's direct narration, there is little reason to distrust Darl.  He seems to be one of the most objective of the narrators, and nothing he says about events when he is not present is incorrect, as far as we know.  He is certainly less opinionated than Cora, who narrates everything against Anse.  He and seems to be more reliable than Vardaman, who tells us his mother is a fish.  Which narrator do you trust most?  Is Darl's long-distance narration reliable?

Odysseus's Pride

It seems to me that if Odysseus had simply walked in to the city of Ithaca and announced his return to the suitors there would have been very little resistance.  The majority of the suitors lack the will or bravery to openly challenge such a renowned hero.   Even if the most ambitious suitors chose to fight against him, they would not be able to defeat Odysseus, for most of the city would be happy to see their hero and back him.   He could still punish the suitors as he saw fit, probably killing the ones who "deserved" it.  With this in mind, why then does Odysseus pursue this roundabout plan of disguising himself as a beggar in his own home?

He chooses this scheme partly because Athena wants him to take revenge in an aesthetically pleasing (and bloody) way.  But, I think that the main reason that he chooses this roundabout path is that he wants the suitors to have the "oh crap" moment as he reveals himself to be the beggar who they mistreated, and the suitors realize that they are about to die.  It is this feeling of absolutely dominating the suitors physically and psychologically that Odysseus craves, that his pride demands.  As a hero who is mostly praised for his tactics and wiliness, he cannot be satisfied by just driving the suitors away by revealing himself or taking them unawares and killing them in their sleep.   He seems quite vain at some points in this story, especially when he asks a bard to sing about his own deeds, so it makes sense that he wants this plot to be impressive and clever enough to be sung about by bards alongside his other exploits.

The idea that a person is only great if others recognize them as great seems to plague Odysseus throughout the epic.  It gets him into trouble with Polyphemus, first when he demands gifts after already taking many of the cyclops's possessions, then later when he cannot resist telling Polyphemus his real name and revealing how he tricked the cyclops.   Both of these actions have serious consequences for Odysseus and his men.  If he had followed his mens' advice, they could have taken what they wanted from the cyclops's home and left without trouble.  However, because of Odysseus's greed and need for glory, many of his men are eaten, and Odysseus barely escapes with his life.  However, he obviously does not learn from this since as soon as he is back on his ship and away from shore he taunts Polyphemus.  He needs the cyclops to know that it wasn't "nobody" who blinded him, it was the great hero Odysseus.  Because of his pride,  Polyphemus is able to throw boulders at the sound of his voice, narrowly missing their ship.   Furthermore, this whole encounter with Polyphemus angers Poseidon and is therefore the reason that Odysseus takes so long to reach home, which is why there is this issue with the suitors in the first place.

Is it right for Odysseus to kill all the suitors because of his pride?  Does he deserve respect for his exploits, or is his overdeveloped sense of pride the source of all the conflict in the Odyssey?

Xenia

The greek word "Xenia" does not translate perfectly.  Host to guest hospitality is part of the concept, but the ancient greeks placed an equal emphasis on how the guest treated the host.  Xenia is the concept of the proper host-guest relationship, characterized by respect, courtesy, and gift giving on both sides. Obviously, the host will usually have more to offer the guest, such as food, drink, a bath, and a place to sleep.  In return, it is considered very important that the guest do their best not to be a burden and to reciprocate in any way they can.  One reason the greeks placed such a high importance on Xenia is that they believed gods walked among them in disguise, and to mistreat such a guest could incur divine wrath and potentially vengeance.  This idea was deeply set in ancient greek culture, and thus we must read the Odyssey with the knowledge that Homer's audience would have been familiar with the concept of Xenia.

I think that with this background information in mind, Telemachus deserves more respect for his own actions that are not prompted by Athena.  He is beset by suitors who throw the idea of Xenia out the window, however when he sees a newly arrived stranger, who happens to be Athena, Telemachus immediately attends to the stranger's every need.  I think that the ancient greek audience would have responded very positively to his actions, especially in contrast to the actions of the suitors.  The suitors are a perfect example of bad Xenia.  They are a huge burden on the household of Odysseus, in fact it seems that they try to be a burden.  This direct clash with the concept of Xenia would be horrifying to ancient greek audiences, and certainly would make Telemachus seem better in contrast.

He also demonstrates this in the role of a guest when he visits King Nestor and King Menelaus in their homes.  He is very courteous to them, and fits into the role of a visiting prince surprisingly well, considering that he has never been prepared for this role.  He certainly demonstrates that he is deserving of respect for his Xenia, regardless of whether or not he should be respected for what he does carrying out Athena's plan.  Although Telemachus's journey is micromanaged by Athena, his exemplary Xenia is his own.

Free Will in Libra

I think that the question of whether or not Lee has free will is central to this book.  We go in to this book knowing that he killed President Kennedy, what see along the way is why he did it.  In the beginning Lee certainly seems to think he has free will because he is very conscious about his goal of becoming a historical figure.  He takes initiative towards the goal, reading Marx and doing everything he can to become the man he wants to be.  This action on his part suggests that he believes he has to do such things to reach his goals, not just sit back and let destiny take it's course.

However, David Ferrie, Lee's handler/friend, sees life very differently.  In New Orleans, Ferrie takes Lee to see a friend named Clay Shaw.  The first thing this man asks Lee is when he was born, and we find out that Lee was a Libra.  Through Shaw, we get DeLillo's interpretation of what it means to be a Libra.  

He said, "We have the positive Libran who has achieved self-mastery. He is well balanced, levelheaded, a sensible fellow respected by all.  We have the negative Libran who is, let's say, somewhat unsteady and impulsive.  Easily, easily influenced.  Poised to make the dangerous leap.  Either way, balance is the key." (315)

In this book Lee seems to fit much more cleanly into the second of these two types of Libran.  He is certainly unsteady and impulsive, as shown by his attempts to get out of the army, defection to the Soviet Union, and shooting of General Walker. Also, it seems that he is relatively easily influenced by De Mohrenschildt to shoot Walker and eventually by Ferrie to shoot Kennedy.  Finally, the "dangerous leap" he is poised to make is undoubtedly the assassination of the president.  However, it also seems that the "positive Libran" is what Lee wants to be, respected by everyone and in control of his life.  I think that Lee was certainly smart enough to recognize at least some of the parallels between what Shaw said and his own life.  Therefore, when Lee asks Ferrie "Do you believe in astrology?" a few minutes later, this indicates that Lee is seriously considering the notion of astrology and fate.

When David Ferrie attempts to convince Lee to go through with the shooting he uses the argument of fate and coincidence, presenting it as something Lee has got to do, rather than a choice he has to make.

"You see what this means.  How it shows what you've got to do.  We didn't arrange your job in that building or set up the motorcade route.  We don't have that kind of reach or power.  There's something else that's generating this event A pattern outside experience.  Something that jerks you out of the spin of history." (384)

If this argument helped sway Lee towards shooting Kennedy, and I think it definitely affected him to some extent, then Lee must also believe that there is some element of fate in life. What do you think Lee believes about fate/destiny?  Does he believe in free will?

Bonus: Writing about free will naturally made me think of the song Freewill by Rush, which has quite interesting (and relevant) lyrics.

"Libra" as a Title

It is not very clear why Don DeLillo chose to call his book Libra.  Libra is a fairly well known zodiac sign, referring to the constellation with the same name.  The constellation is purportedly a scale or balance, with 2 weighing pans suspended from a horizontal beam.

This is said to symbolize balance, peace, and fairness.  Within the context of DeLillo's novel I think it is interesting to consider why he choose "Libra" as his title as opposed to some other zodiac sign, or anything at all really.  This book really doesn't seem like the kind of story one would title "peace" or "fairness" since it is, above all else, focused on an assassination.  In addition to the violence, DeLillo also extensively discusses how the powerful CIA officials make their own rules, planning a failed assassination on their own president to further their own purposes in Cuba.  Parameter at least is in this plot for direct monetary gains if Castro is overthrown.  This makes it odd to title the book with a symbol of fairness and equality.  

Perhaps the title refers more to Lee Harvey Oswald's beliefs and how he was actually a relatively fair person, as can be seen by his obsession with the marine handbook.  However, he also disregards these rules that he memorizes better than anyone else.  Oswald is also a perfect counterexample to the idea of balance.  His life is defined by the unbalanced nature of his mental state.  On one hand he is a dedicated communist, reading Das Kapital at an early age despite his dyslexia.  On the other hand he is unstable enough to attempt to attempt to shoot Major General Edwin A. Walker, just because of the influence from a man he met for only one day.

I think that either I am missing something huge, or DeLillo has something in store for us later in this book to warrant such a title.  Or, perhaps the point of such a title is to deliberately contrast with the plot to highlight the imbalance, the unfairness, of the events depicted.  Why do you think DeLillo chose such a title?  Is it too early in the novel to make such a judgement?

Kevin's Most Important Trait

I think that Kevin is the most interesting character in Kindred.  He tends to say things that make the difference in race between him and Dana very uncomfortable.  However, he also seems to be the one character in this book who can completely ignore the race of whoever he interacts with, and as a result of that has trouble seeing that race does matter to many people.  After finding out that Kevin is Dana's husband, Sarah says,

“Your husband … he’d get in trouble every now and then ’cause he couldn’t tell the difference ’tween black and white.”

Despite the irrelevance of race in society being, I think, a major goal of racial equality, it seems that this is not  a desirable characteristic in Kevin, a white man married to a black woman.  When he talks to Dana after they see slave children playing a game resembling a slave auction, Kevin minimizes the horror of slavery, sounding similar to how I think someone arguing the paternalism side to slavery would

"This place isn't what I would have imagined. No overseer. No more work than the people can manage ..."

While the things he says are somewhat true, he temporarily overlooks the slew of reasons that slavery, even at this relatively good plantation, is a terrible thing.  Dana instantly reminds him of these reasons.  Although I don't think Kevin actually believes slavery is acceptable in any way, remarks like this are what make his sense of race seem flawed.

It could be said that the friction that arises because of his "colorblindness" is because society is not colorblind as a whole in 1976, and certainly not in the antebellum south.  But, for a society to become colorblind as a whole I think that this disregard of race needs to start with someone and then spread.  If that is true, then perhaps Kevin's awkward remarks should be taken not as something to be looked down upon, but rather as a sign of one of the best parts of his character: the ability to completely ignore race.

135,000

As was brought up during the panel presentations today, there is still a lot of uncertainty regarding the dresden bombings and the exact number of people killed.  I did a bit of research and found that there was recently a German historical study of the bombing, partly as a response to the use of this event in far-right radical propaganda.  The results were published in this book, although it is written in German.  From reading the summary given online it seems to be a very thorough and scientific study, which I think presents the most accurate numbers on Dresden.  These numbers are at least 22,700 dead, 20,000 of which can be listed by name.  The upper estimate is no more than 25,000.

Vonnegut's source for his 135,000 figure was The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving.  Vonnegut did not know at the time that this source was far from an accurate history.  It is now widely known that David Irving is a holocaust denier and deliberately misrepresented history in order to downplay Nazi atrocities and exaggerate allied ones.  In writing this "history," Irving used a falsified document created as Nazi propaganda as his main source, and it was from this document that he got his number of 135,000.  It is a shame that Vonnegut was influenced by such a terribly inaccurate historical source.  

In All This Happened, More or Less: What a Novelist Made of the Bombing of Dresden by Ann Rigney, the article we discuss in our panel presentation, the author argues that Irving's book had a greater impact on Vonnegut and Slaughter House Five than just the number it gave. In the opening pages of his book, Vonnegut writes "It wasn’t a famous air raid back then in America. Not many Americans knew how much worse it had been than Hiroshima." This comparison to Hiroshima apparently stems directly from Irving's book, and, through the popularity of Slaughter House Five has been brought into the popular perception of these two bombings.  Vonnegut's unintentional propagation of these misleading figures and arguments are very misfortunate and in the eyes of some take away from the powerful anti-war message of this book.  I think that just because Vonnegut got his numbers wrong and (mistakenly) said that one WWII bombing was worse than another does not reduce the power of this book's message.  His denunciation of war in general is completely unaffected by the details about which bombing in war claimed more lives.