No Final Answer (Libra)
I wanted to focus on the very unique ending of Libra by Don DeLillo . The ending to this novel is honestly not what I was expecting. I thought the assassination would happen and all loose ends would be tied up, however this was not the case and I think that was very intentional. Instead of giving the reader a definitive answer to who “really” killed John F. Kennedy, the ending DeLillo created feels like many plots mushed together. Lee Harvey Oswald drifts towards his role not as the mastermind behind the assassination, but as a man created from isolation, ideological influence, and a desperate need for some kind of meaning. Nothing is resolved once the assassination happens, honestly it raises more questions than it answers and just further amplifies the uncertainty behind it.
What really jumped out at me in the ending was the contrast between the assassination act itself and the endless attempts at explaining it. Nicholas Branch, who was tasked in writing the secret behind-the-scenes of the assassination, really channels this struggle in his character. Surrounded by endless documents, theories, and contradictions, he can never just assemble one single narrative. The closer he dives into this event, the more the story starts to fall apart, and his research hits a dead end. His work becomes less about discovering the truth and more about facing the holes and limits of knowledge behind this case. Through this, DeLillo suggests that history, especially very traumatic history like an assassination, resists clarity. It thrives in an uncertain setting, which can be extremely hard for historians.
Finally, Libra ends by entering a new focus from the event to its aftermath and the stories we tell. The novel argues that conspiracy is not just only about hidden plots, but some kind of need within ourselves to organize chaos and randomness. We get fixated that nothing can happen by coincidence, there must be some answer. Characters in the novel search for patterns because the randomness feels uncomfortable, especially under high stakes like this. This resistance of any kind of closure reminds me of Kindred and the type of stain history can leave. DeLillo suggests that this assassination is a wound for Americans that will never heal due to its unclear answer. The real legacy of the JFK assassination is all the interpretations that can be formed from it.
Hi Alyssa! Honestly I hadn't thought much about the ending of Libra until I read your blog post, but I think you do a good job of tying everything together and connecting the ending to the larger theme of the novel. I think that understanding that sometimes we don't need or get to have an answer is a good way to wrap up the novel. Great Blog!
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting perspective! We've talked so much about the different perspectives history can be told from, and I think it is definitely true that with the different angles of a story, there is also a lack of clarity. I think this book is really cool in showing us how a lot of information can actually be more harmful than helpful, because Branch gets stuck in the intricacies instead of seeing the story in one specific way. Great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Alyssa!! I was kind of ready for school to end by the time we got to the Libra's ending, so it wasn't something I really paid super close attention to in isolation. It was such an interesting way to approach the end of a novel, and especially since everybody knows the book's leading up to the assassination, I appreciate DeLillo's choice to do something unexpected. Great post!!
ReplyDeleteAmong the many fascinating ambiguities at the end of this novel, I always think of the depiction of Lee in his cell, assuming that this will be his life now, that "Lee Harvey Oswald" will be his subject of study, and he will host historians, psychologists, politicians in his cell, explaining himself and his role in history, "naming every name" (he actually doesn't know too many names). In a weird way, I sort of WANT this future for dumb old Lee--it seems fully plausible that this is how he would view the situation, see the silver lining to his life sentence. And of course, the fact that NONE of this happens ends up leaving readers with the tantalizing possibility of what more we could know if only Oswald had not been killed by Ruby. And for many readers and critics of the assassination, Ruby's explanation of his motives doesn't really add up--it too much resembles a classic mob hit, eliminating an inconvenient witness before he can "talk." So along with Branch, we are left with the silence of Oswald and the mental deterioration of Ruby after the fact--taking who knows how many secrets to the grave with them.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you focused on the ending and how unresolved it feels, because that’s one of the most frustrating but interesting parts of Libra. Your explanation of Nicholas Branch and his inability to find one clear truth made the chaos of the assassination feel very real. I also thought your point about conspiracy being a way to make sense of randomness was strong and connected well to the idea that this event still feels like an open wound in history.
ReplyDeleteHey Alyssa, I loved how you discussed Libra's ending--I especially liked your point about how the uncertain ending seems to emphasize the uncertainty historians must face in history, having to determine how to engage with mysterious events like this one without bias and give the truth. It's very true that we always seem to want an answer, as if to give us some form of calm and clarity and discuss it in more detail in order to heal these events so at the very least, we know what happened. Amazing job!!
ReplyDeleteHi Alyssa! I agree with what you said about the ending, and especially with how it ties back to the affect the JFK assasination had on the American people. I think the book almost continues the legacy of the effects of the assasination, and by reading it in class it allows for another generation to wonder what really happened. Great post!
ReplyDelete