Video Evidence

To me the JFK assassination is most remarkable because of the sheer amount of visual documentation that exists on Lee throughout his life. I first noticed this watching the Frontline Documentary on Lee, and was continually struck by just how often they were able to find photo documentation of  where he was and what he was doing at various points in his life. This of course culminates in the famous Zapruder film which catches the moments before, during, and after Kennedy's assassination. Such evidence before that time would have been considered quite rare, and a valuable piece of evidence in any investigation. And while the Zapruder film certainly has been the backbone for much of the investigation into the assassination, and has helped with ballistics reports, it has also become one of the most (if not the most) controversial pieces of film in the twentieth century.

I think in our current day and age we take it for a given that for most any major event that may happen on any given day there's a pretty good chance someone filmed it. This is due to the widespread use of recording devices, but in addition to that many of these devices are connected to the internet and often make their content available for my viewing pleasure, as well as millions of people around the world. In my opinion the Zapruder Film could be viewed as the harbinger of the visually documented era. And while this may to large degree mean that people can be better informed with first hand documentation, but it also leads to even greater levels of skepticism of the extent to which seeing something happen really means you understand what's going on. It's remarkable really that I can hop on the internet and from the safety of my room watch video footage of war zone action in Libya. It's also remarkable the extent to which imagery can be manipulated, and in many different ways too, not just the photoshop method. In other words while it may be the case that my generation has come to expect an almost omnipotent range of vision throughout the world, I think we've also come to accept the fact that in many cases a simple video falls woefully short of a full explanation.

The distance from History

In a book that focuses on bringing out the human nature of the larger than life historical figure of Lee Harvey Oswald I've continually found myself drawn to him and how I can relate to him and the way he feels throughout the novel. Probably more than any other character in the book I recognize the desire he has to be part of something bigger, to enter history and be recognized. Not to say that I condone the way he's went about doing it, but he really did succeed in catapulting himself into the international spotlight, and he's stayed under a similar level of scrutiny and attention for many decades. His frustration with his lack of a voice and general depression with the state of politics lends a very sympathetic air. To put it bluntly, I can understand why he might have felt so strongly a desire to be a known figure in history when the world has otherwise snubbed him most of his life.

As a result I can't help but compare myself in various ways to Lee. One of the most interesting reflections I have is on the extent to which I, as an individual similar to Lee's level of notoriety for much of his life, might be able to enter in to the limelight as he was able to. Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about him I find is the extent to which he is able make himself known without actually having anything particularly noteworthy about him. He's not especially good at anything--while he makes an earnest effort to stay educated and inspired he's by no means a genius, and he has no wealth to speak of that could be leveraged. In fact as I was first reading Libra I was almost annoyed by the extent to which Lee believed he would become a figure of historical controversy. And yet here we are.

While there is a certain extent to which Libra plays with the idea of Lee being driven by "the universe", but I think an even more interesting angle is to consider the idea that there really is nothing special about Lee apart from the fact that he has a desire to make himself known. To what extent would it be possible for me to become the next Lee Harvey Oswald? And I don't mean to suggest that I have plans to assassinate anyone, but the question of how far removed from "history" any of us really are is a legitimate question. I would say that in our contemporary context, with the advent of the internet, being famous is easier than it ever has been. Yet, I think most of us live our lives without any expectation of ever being a part of mainstream history. What Delillo--and even Adam Gopnik when he remarks on the connection between the seedy basement plotter and the president himself--makes us ponder is what really is the distance between the common place person and the historical records. Perhaps that separation is merely one that we live our lives never deciding to try and break out of?