Time to look back on all the books we've read this semester. I'll rank them in a Top 10 list sort of way, except that there are only 5.
5. Libra
DeLillo's novel comes in last in the rankings largely due to two things: first, his writing style really threw me off, and second, I am bored out of my skull by conspiracy theories, largely because I am satisfied with the explanation that Oswald did it alone. My inability to separate the fictional Oswald from what I know of the historical Oswald probably also kept me from fully enjoying the book. It got much better towards the end, with the various threads of the plot coming together in a grand mess of an assassination, but I feel that Libra would have been better if it had more in common with Mumbo Jumbo and presented its conspiracy in terms of absolute ridiculousness. DeLillo seems to be taking his own writing a bit too seriously.
My favorite part was probably Weird Beard. Or the Jack Ruby chapters, since he had the weirdness to fit into Ishmael Reed's world.
4. Kindred
Knowing ahead of time that Butler did not intend this to be a science fiction novel saved this book from suffering the fate of Never Let Me Go*. Even so, this book gets #4 on the list because I felt the story was stretched out too much and I never felt invested in the characters. Mostly the characters.
I'm not entirely sure how to explain why, so I'll just give some examples: I felt no pity whatsoever for Rufus. Dana had some nice cynical moments, but just as many where she seemed incredibly naive. Kevin seemed like an add-on. The character I could empathize the most with was Tom Weylin, who at least had a twisted moral code.
Maybe this all boils down to my general dissatisfaction with emotional characters. I like self-repression in fiction. I like it when characters throw away emotion because something needs to get done. Give me Mrs. Dalloway and Bruce Wayne, but keep your Romeos and Juliets at home.
The main problem I faced with this book in class discussion was that I took this book fairly literally; I felt that with the heavily plot-based narrative, a lot of things didn't have to have any hidden meaning. Time travel? Well of course it's time travel and not Dana imagining the past while studying genealogy! She LOSES HER ARM.
My final criticism is that for such a horrific subject matter, Kindred just doesn't have the bleak tone required to pull it off. There's too much of a sense of finality (due to the reliance on plot) in the semi-hopeful epilogue.
3. Slaughterhouse-Five
Third, second, and first place in this ranking are all very close, so their placements are somewhat arbitrary.
Slaughterhouse-Five was the funniest of the novels we read; after all, it's about a massacre! Reed and Doctorow have more subtle humor with a few laugh-out-loud moments, but Vonnegut goes all-out with writing that veers towards Douglas Adams.
Billy Pilgrim seemed like a much more varied character than any of the other protagonists we encountered, shifting from super chill (everything was pretty much all right with Billy Pilgrim) to silently weeping to just plain bewildered.
And who doesn't love telepathic toilet plungers?
As with Kindred, I took this novel literally, and got really defensive when an article for a panel presentation suggested that Billy Pilgrim wasn't really unstuck in time.
2. Mumbo Jumbo
Reed's style and formatting choices threw me off initially, but I came to enjoy the weirdness and lack of standardization. I didn't find the overall story all that exciting, but each scene was fun to read on its own. Mumbo Jumbo packs a lot into a small space and doesn't take itself too seriously, so it doesn't feel drawn-out like some of the other novels.
I'm having a hard time pinning down exact reasons for liking this novel, so I'll just say that it was fun to read and felt more substantial than Libra or Kindred.
1. Ragtime
I love cynical narrators. I love stuff that's too weird to be made up. I like Doctorow's writing style. What more is there to say?
For one thing, characters. Even though we're not always inside their heads, I was more invested in the characters in Ragtime than in anyone in the other books. Goldman is rational. Houdini is repressed. MYB knows exactly what he wants to do, but doesn't know why. Coalhouse is self-destructively emotional, but finishes up nicely. It just boils down to Doctorow and his characters having brains that function similarly to mine, though with different starting values.
Another thing I like about Ragtime: it's so bleak! Everyone dies or gets deported or vanishes except for the abusive, patriotic psychopath, while history just keeps rolling on. Great ending.
I thought Doctorow's story was strange before I read any of the other novels for this class. Now it seems pretty tame. This is good because it kept the story easy to follow while still allowing for entertaining craziness and hidden references (like "Warn the Duke").
------------------------------------------------------
* I went into Never Let Me Go expecting it to go really deep into discussing the ethics of cloning and societal reactions to clones. Instead, it was basically a story about people with terminal illness having relationship problems. The cool premise about citizens whose only purpose in life is to replace other peoples' organs was just an excuse to have the main characters die young.
I will not go so far as to say that the film The Island did a better job at this, though.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Arch is part of a conspiracy!
This is inspired by one of Izzy's blog posts, the link to which is below:
http://parchedforprose.blogspot.com/2014/05/pieces-of-puzzle.html
Anyway, let's go about analyzing the mysterious person known as "Arch Stuart Robison" in a conspiracy light...
---------------------------------
Item 1: Fake names
Just what is he hiding? This blog is written by "ArchR," but the corresponding Google+ account is "CUBirding." There certainly seems to be an implication of stalking. He will C U when you are birding. Potential connection to NSA surveillance. Login names for Scratch and NaNoWriMo accounts point to association with David Zindell novels and the United Sates Navy.
Item 2: He regularly walks around with binoculars and a camera.
Seems suspicious to me.
Item 2.5: He walks around with binoculars and a camera near areas with signs that say "Keep Out: Disease Control Area."
Suspected connection to biological warfare research.
Item 3: Frequently visited websites
He follows several suspicious blogs, including "Goodbye Twentieth Century." Possible connection to Y2K virus. He is also active on a set of internet forums that include posts about the procedure of killing hospital visitors and installing car bombs. If discussing these things with half a million other psychos isn't a sign of conspiracy involvement, I don't know what is.
Item 4: Acquaintances and connections
Met with the mayors of multiple German towns while traveling abroad; additionally, was allowed access to city archives in one of these towns. Has family members who worked for corporations that did contract work for the military, including radar and missile design. Is friends with someone who has a special access permit to the grounds of the Clinton nuclear power station. Worked for a summer with a group of scientists planting tracking devices in the bed of a river.
Item 5: Lack of a driver's license
Eighteen years old and still not allowed to drive? How un-american. In lieu of a driver's license, he has identification documents that allow him to cross national borders and electronically unlock doors.
Item 6: Entertainment choices
Plays Spore and Civ V video games, indicating a possible god complex. Has spent hours playing flight simulation games, pointing to secret pilot training. His main character in Super Smash Bros Melee was previously Zelda, which can only be interpreted as a sign of mental instability.
Disturbing themes appear in his list of favorite works: his favorite movie features a protagonist who commits war crimes; one of his favorite stage productions involves an attempt to violently overthrow the government; he has recently read books featuring early 1900s anarchists, the JFK assassination, and portrayals of Western civilization as the embodiment of evil.
Item 7: Past encounters with authority
Stopped by a US Border Patrol agent in southern Texas; no arrest. Accosted by a member of the Los Angeles Police Department for loitering near airport property; no arrest. Confronted by a US National Guard member for stepping into a restricted area near US military facilities; no arrest.
Item 8: Publication subscriptions
Subscribes to Audubon magazine, which may have connections to clandestine ecoterrorism. Also receives EAA SportAviation (more evidence for Aerospace involvement). Is a member of the "Lego Club," and thus may be receiving bribes from or doing corporate espionage for a Danish toy company.
Item 9: College choice
Is planning on attending a college he had never heard of until the year he applied. Seems rather abrupt. What sort of special offer was involved? Investigate CIA campus recruiting programs.
Item 10: Coincidental similarities to Oswald
Has bad handwriting. Has an older sibling. Wears T-shirts. Does not show his teeth when he smiles. High hairline. Knows specifics of 1950s military aircraft. Reads encyclopedias like they're Tom Clancy thrillers. Knows that a killdeer is a bird. Likes to make puns. Might get a job in Aerospace.
While no conclusion can be drawn at this point, it is very clear that the subject is involved in shady conspiratorial activities.
-----------------------------------------------
...and just for fun, we have a little game: one of the pieces of evidence I mentioned (one of the sentences, not one of the topics) is completely made up. The rest (though perhaps not the interpretations of them) are factual. Try to guess which one is an attempt to mislead obsessive investigators.
Have fun!
http://parchedforprose.blogspot.com/2014/05/pieces-of-puzzle.html
Anyway, let's go about analyzing the mysterious person known as "Arch Stuart Robison" in a conspiracy light...
---------------------------------
Item 1: Fake names
Just what is he hiding? This blog is written by "ArchR," but the corresponding Google+ account is "CUBirding." There certainly seems to be an implication of stalking. He will C U when you are birding. Potential connection to NSA surveillance. Login names for Scratch and NaNoWriMo accounts point to association with David Zindell novels and the United Sates Navy.
Item 2: He regularly walks around with binoculars and a camera.
Seems suspicious to me.
Item 2.5: He walks around with binoculars and a camera near areas with signs that say "Keep Out: Disease Control Area."
Suspected connection to biological warfare research.
Item 3: Frequently visited websites
He follows several suspicious blogs, including "Goodbye Twentieth Century." Possible connection to Y2K virus. He is also active on a set of internet forums that include posts about the procedure of killing hospital visitors and installing car bombs. If discussing these things with half a million other psychos isn't a sign of conspiracy involvement, I don't know what is.
Item 4: Acquaintances and connections
Met with the mayors of multiple German towns while traveling abroad; additionally, was allowed access to city archives in one of these towns. Has family members who worked for corporations that did contract work for the military, including radar and missile design. Is friends with someone who has a special access permit to the grounds of the Clinton nuclear power station. Worked for a summer with a group of scientists planting tracking devices in the bed of a river.
Item 5: Lack of a driver's license
Eighteen years old and still not allowed to drive? How un-american. In lieu of a driver's license, he has identification documents that allow him to cross national borders and electronically unlock doors.
Item 6: Entertainment choices
Plays Spore and Civ V video games, indicating a possible god complex. Has spent hours playing flight simulation games, pointing to secret pilot training. His main character in Super Smash Bros Melee was previously Zelda, which can only be interpreted as a sign of mental instability.
Disturbing themes appear in his list of favorite works: his favorite movie features a protagonist who commits war crimes; one of his favorite stage productions involves an attempt to violently overthrow the government; he has recently read books featuring early 1900s anarchists, the JFK assassination, and portrayals of Western civilization as the embodiment of evil.
Item 7: Past encounters with authority
Stopped by a US Border Patrol agent in southern Texas; no arrest. Accosted by a member of the Los Angeles Police Department for loitering near airport property; no arrest. Confronted by a US National Guard member for stepping into a restricted area near US military facilities; no arrest.
Item 8: Publication subscriptions
Subscribes to Audubon magazine, which may have connections to clandestine ecoterrorism. Also receives EAA SportAviation (more evidence for Aerospace involvement). Is a member of the "Lego Club," and thus may be receiving bribes from or doing corporate espionage for a Danish toy company.
Item 9: College choice
Is planning on attending a college he had never heard of until the year he applied. Seems rather abrupt. What sort of special offer was involved? Investigate CIA campus recruiting programs.
Item 10: Coincidental similarities to Oswald
Has bad handwriting. Has an older sibling. Wears T-shirts. Does not show his teeth when he smiles. High hairline. Knows specifics of 1950s military aircraft. Reads encyclopedias like they're Tom Clancy thrillers. Knows that a killdeer is a bird. Likes to make puns. Might get a job in Aerospace.
While no conclusion can be drawn at this point, it is very clear that the subject is involved in shady conspiratorial activities.
-----------------------------------------------
...and just for fun, we have a little game: one of the pieces of evidence I mentioned (one of the sentences, not one of the topics) is completely made up. The rest (though perhaps not the interpretations of them) are factual. Try to guess which one is an attempt to mislead obsessive investigators.
Have fun!
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
On snipers...
The topic of snipers feeling sympathy for their victims came up in class today. Oswald certainly seems like he doesn't want to take the shot--he likes Kennedy, is glad that Jackie looks good for the immortalizing photos, and feels sorry for hitting Connally. Is this strange for a sniper? Isn't the long range shot a way of distancing yourself from your victim, unlike Ruby's incredibly personal killing of Oswald? You're just supposed to pull the trigger and hit someone really far away.
When this topic came up in class, my mind jumped to some other source I had read/seen/heard that argued the opposite: due to the highly accurate nature of sniping (aiming at specific body parts) and the close-up view offered by a scope, snipers are by necessity emotionally invested in their target--and thus the really good snipers are the ones who can push aside their feelings and pull the trigger knowing exactly what they are doing: taking a life.
Trouble was, I couldn't remember what work of fiction this was from. Was it Enemy at the Gates? I've only actually seen a clip of that movie in Mr. Butler's class. What else do I watch that would go in-depth about sniper psychology? The episode of Quantum Leap in which the protagonist inhabits the body of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Eventually I remembered that it came from the anime series Area 88. I'm not a big consumer of anime, but I watched this series in its entirety while I was sick one time after stumbling across numerous references to it on the Wikipedia page for "aircraft in fiction." I mean, who doesn't love a TV show that consists mostly of what-if battles between Cold War-era fighter planes?
While perhaps not as deep or literary as other sources (and not terribly realistic in its depiction of the nameless sniper, who has the timing and precision to pull off a serial assassination you'd expect from a murderous Rube Goldberg, plus a gun with high-explosive bullets), the eighth episode of Area 88 has a few things to say about snipers and war photographers.
If you don't care to watch 23 minutes of airplanes, explosions, and odd choices of background music, the discussion of sniper psychology starts around 6:56. The audio is Japanese, but there are English subtitles.
If we were to put these fictional long-range shooters on a spectrum, Oswald would seem to be at the "ineffective softie" end and Area 88's sniper at the other, with Raymo in between. Raymo has the precision and focus during the shooting, but as soon as he gets the shot off and sees Kennedy's head explodes he goes into a sort of out-of-body adrenaline mode. The anime villain is little more than a self-aiming gun.
Even with his pseudo-remorse, Oswald pulls the trigger, satisfying Shinjou's assertion that a sniper "does what he does fully understanding that his action leads to the enemy's death." It's just that his actions don't lead to his target's death, since he's inconsistent and isn't using the best rifle.
When this topic came up in class, my mind jumped to some other source I had read/seen/heard that argued the opposite: due to the highly accurate nature of sniping (aiming at specific body parts) and the close-up view offered by a scope, snipers are by necessity emotionally invested in their target--and thus the really good snipers are the ones who can push aside their feelings and pull the trigger knowing exactly what they are doing: taking a life.
Trouble was, I couldn't remember what work of fiction this was from. Was it Enemy at the Gates? I've only actually seen a clip of that movie in Mr. Butler's class. What else do I watch that would go in-depth about sniper psychology? The episode of Quantum Leap in which the protagonist inhabits the body of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Eventually I remembered that it came from the anime series Area 88. I'm not a big consumer of anime, but I watched this series in its entirety while I was sick one time after stumbling across numerous references to it on the Wikipedia page for "aircraft in fiction." I mean, who doesn't love a TV show that consists mostly of what-if battles between Cold War-era fighter planes?
While perhaps not as deep or literary as other sources (and not terribly realistic in its depiction of the nameless sniper, who has the timing and precision to pull off a serial assassination you'd expect from a murderous Rube Goldberg, plus a gun with high-explosive bullets), the eighth episode of Area 88 has a few things to say about snipers and war photographers.
If you don't care to watch 23 minutes of airplanes, explosions, and odd choices of background music, the discussion of sniper psychology starts around 6:56. The audio is Japanese, but there are English subtitles.
If we were to put these fictional long-range shooters on a spectrum, Oswald would seem to be at the "ineffective softie" end and Area 88's sniper at the other, with Raymo in between. Raymo has the precision and focus during the shooting, but as soon as he gets the shot off and sees Kennedy's head explodes he goes into a sort of out-of-body adrenaline mode. The anime villain is little more than a self-aiming gun.
Even with his pseudo-remorse, Oswald pulls the trigger, satisfying Shinjou's assertion that a sniper "does what he does fully understanding that his action leads to the enemy's death." It's just that his actions don't lead to his target's death, since he's inconsistent and isn't using the best rifle.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Weird Beard is real.
He tells us he's not making it up, kids. And he's telling the truth.
"Weird Beard" was a real person, really was a DJ for KLIF Dallas, and testified before the Warren Commission because of his correspondence with Jack Ruby.
Eat your cereal with a fork.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/moore_r.htm
http://knightslanding.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/russ-the-weird-beard-knight/
...I just felt like pointing out that little tidbit. When I first read the section where Jack Ruby listens to Weird Beard, it felt clearly metafictional; after all, one of DeLillo's characters was saying "We are for real." As it turns out, many of the characters are for real... including the ones that fall into the category of too strange to be made up.
"Weird Beard" was a real person, really was a DJ for KLIF Dallas, and testified before the Warren Commission because of his correspondence with Jack Ruby.
Eat your cereal with a fork.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/moore_r.htm
http://knightslanding.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/russ-the-weird-beard-knight/
...I just felt like pointing out that little tidbit. When I first read the section where Jack Ruby listens to Weird Beard, it felt clearly metafictional; after all, one of DeLillo's characters was saying "We are for real." As it turns out, many of the characters are for real... including the ones that fall into the category of too strange to be made up.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Librargh
<rant>
In Yellowstone
Once upon a time there were three bears. Baby Bear came back home before breakfast with a smirk on his face. It was like him to do that, smirk before breakfast. Mommy Bear made porridge.
"Where you been all morning?"
"Getting beat up. They said I talk like a polar bear."
They sat watching the TV because the porridge was too hot. A steaming bowl of mushy grain product. China dishes. The red tablecloth on top of the cheap wooden table bought for twenty-five dollars at a garage sale held by Mommy Bear's sister. There was no Daddy Bear anymore. His philandering with many mistresses had been sneaky at first, and once found out he had arranged a messy divorce. They only had two chairs.
"We should go for a walk."
A walk. They will pass the time it takes for the porridge to cool down by taking an ordinary walk. While they are out a girl named Goldilocks comes along and enters their house.
My daughter Goldilocks, she loves to read.
Her mother always.
Goldilocks tried both bowls of porridge, the second one being just right. How fun it will be to narrate the eating of the porridge to Robert Sproul, who had turned and gone home too early. Goldilocks tested the house's furniture. One excessively large chair. One just right. One bed with too much give in the mattress. One perfect. Stucco walls glistening like... uh... stucco doesn't glisten. Ceilings like parchment. Dirt floor littered with Baby Bear's toys. Sentence fragments.
The bears return in the present tense.
We found Goldilocks in my bed and ate her.
The bears were upset that their house had been invaded. Mommy Bear decided it would be best to move out. A boy in a non-human-infested part of the world isn't chased down by truancy officers. I am a god-fearing American Grizzly Bear just as patriotic as any other, so why must my boy be taken away from me just because he likes to go to the zoo?
It was the CIA. The CIA is responsible for Goldilocks.
The bears defected to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wants maps, contents of garbage cans, locations of campsites. It was a worker's paradise, better in every way than America but not perfect.
The bears return in the present tense.
Mommy Bear made porridge.
They sat watching the TV because the porridge was too hot. A steaming bowl of mushy grain product. China dishes. The red tablecloth on top of the cheap wooden table bought for twenty-five dollars at a garage sale held by Mommy Bear's sister. There was no Daddy Bear anymore. His philandering with many mistresses had been sneaky at first, and once found out he had arranged a messy divorce. They only had two chairs.
</rant>
...if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not the biggest fan of DeLillo's writing style.
In Yellowstone
Once upon a time there were three bears. Baby Bear came back home before breakfast with a smirk on his face. It was like him to do that, smirk before breakfast. Mommy Bear made porridge.
"Where you been all morning?"
"Getting beat up. They said I talk like a polar bear."
They sat watching the TV because the porridge was too hot. A steaming bowl of mushy grain product. China dishes. The red tablecloth on top of the cheap wooden table bought for twenty-five dollars at a garage sale held by Mommy Bear's sister. There was no Daddy Bear anymore. His philandering with many mistresses had been sneaky at first, and once found out he had arranged a messy divorce. They only had two chairs.
"We should go for a walk."
A walk. They will pass the time it takes for the porridge to cool down by taking an ordinary walk. While they are out a girl named Goldilocks comes along and enters their house.
My daughter Goldilocks, she loves to read.
Her mother always.
Goldilocks tried both bowls of porridge, the second one being just right. How fun it will be to narrate the eating of the porridge to Robert Sproul, who had turned and gone home too early. Goldilocks tested the house's furniture. One excessively large chair. One just right. One bed with too much give in the mattress. One perfect. Stucco walls glistening like... uh... stucco doesn't glisten. Ceilings like parchment. Dirt floor littered with Baby Bear's toys. Sentence fragments.
The bears return in the present tense.
We found Goldilocks in my bed and ate her.
The bears were upset that their house had been invaded. Mommy Bear decided it would be best to move out. A boy in a non-human-infested part of the world isn't chased down by truancy officers. I am a god-fearing American Grizzly Bear just as patriotic as any other, so why must my boy be taken away from me just because he likes to go to the zoo?
It was the CIA. The CIA is responsible for Goldilocks.
The bears defected to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wants maps, contents of garbage cans, locations of campsites. It was a worker's paradise, better in every way than America but not perfect.
The bears return in the present tense.
Mommy Bear made porridge.
They sat watching the TV because the porridge was too hot. A steaming bowl of mushy grain product. China dishes. The red tablecloth on top of the cheap wooden table bought for twenty-five dollars at a garage sale held by Mommy Bear's sister. There was no Daddy Bear anymore. His philandering with many mistresses had been sneaky at first, and once found out he had arranged a messy divorce. They only had two chairs.
</rant>
...if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not the biggest fan of DeLillo's writing style.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
The obligatory bird referene post for Libra
Lee Harvey Oswald asks how many people know a killdeer is a bird.
Now you do.
I apparently take killdeer for granted, and thus this is the best photo I have of any. The bird on the far left and the bird on the far right are both killdeer. In the middle are one spotted sandpiper and one solitary sandpiper.
If you want to see some live killdeer, head down to the Fourth Street extension just north of Windsor Rd (or anywhere else south of St. Mary's Rd). There was a nest last week near Atkins Tennis Center, though last I checked I couldn't find any evidence of it having been there. Considering the pestering and distraction displays I got from the adult killdeer in the area, though, there are probably chicks hiding somewhere.
ANYWAY,
This is the part where I get all conspiracy theory-y and say that DeLilo purposely picked the killdeer as his random bird encyclopedia reference.
To start off with, it has the word "kill" in it, so we wonder about what other alphabetically adjacent encyclopedia entries Oswald was interested in.
Secondly, killdeer fit in very well as imagery for Win Everett's failed assassination plot (note that this might be an example of me reading waaaaaaaay too much specific biological importance into a nature reference, similar to my reaction every time I see mention of orchids). The killdeer's most notable behavior is that they will lead predators away from their nests and young by pretending to have a broken wing. It's actually a really fun display to watch, and pretty convincing. One of the parent birds will make a lot of noise and partially extend one wing while sitting on the ground, occasionally twitching it to make a point of its fictional injury. Movement of the wing and the bird's bright reddish-brown tail also help divert attention. When approached, the displaying bird will run along the ground, keeping just enough distance between itself and the predator to be safe but still a potential food item. This continues until the predator is deemed to be far enough away from the nest, at which point the bird ends the charade, spreads both wings, and flies away, eventually looping back around to its nest.
Specifics aside, killdeer are the classic example of diversion tactics in nature; there are other organisms that do this, but kildeer are the ones that end up in textbooks.
Everett's plot, then is like a killdeer's display: he is going to enact a life-threatening situation (broken wing/assassination attempt) that is ultimately fake, but convincing enough to lead nosy people to where Everett wants them (away from the nest/in support of an invasion of Cuba) while leaving the important target (mommy bird/JFK) unscathed.
After all, there are plenty of other weirdly-named birds that could have been used, one of which would be an even more blatant symbol:
(unfortunately, I have no photos of this bird)
Snipe.
 |
| Photo by me. |
I apparently take killdeer for granted, and thus this is the best photo I have of any. The bird on the far left and the bird on the far right are both killdeer. In the middle are one spotted sandpiper and one solitary sandpiper.
If you want to see some live killdeer, head down to the Fourth Street extension just north of Windsor Rd (or anywhere else south of St. Mary's Rd). There was a nest last week near Atkins Tennis Center, though last I checked I couldn't find any evidence of it having been there. Considering the pestering and distraction displays I got from the adult killdeer in the area, though, there are probably chicks hiding somewhere.
ANYWAY,
This is the part where I get all conspiracy theory-y and say that DeLilo purposely picked the killdeer as his random bird encyclopedia reference.
To start off with, it has the word "kill" in it, so we wonder about what other alphabetically adjacent encyclopedia entries Oswald was interested in.
Secondly, killdeer fit in very well as imagery for Win Everett's failed assassination plot (note that this might be an example of me reading waaaaaaaay too much specific biological importance into a nature reference, similar to my reaction every time I see mention of orchids). The killdeer's most notable behavior is that they will lead predators away from their nests and young by pretending to have a broken wing. It's actually a really fun display to watch, and pretty convincing. One of the parent birds will make a lot of noise and partially extend one wing while sitting on the ground, occasionally twitching it to make a point of its fictional injury. Movement of the wing and the bird's bright reddish-brown tail also help divert attention. When approached, the displaying bird will run along the ground, keeping just enough distance between itself and the predator to be safe but still a potential food item. This continues until the predator is deemed to be far enough away from the nest, at which point the bird ends the charade, spreads both wings, and flies away, eventually looping back around to its nest.
Specifics aside, killdeer are the classic example of diversion tactics in nature; there are other organisms that do this, but kildeer are the ones that end up in textbooks.
Everett's plot, then is like a killdeer's display: he is going to enact a life-threatening situation (broken wing/assassination attempt) that is ultimately fake, but convincing enough to lead nosy people to where Everett wants them (away from the nest/in support of an invasion of Cuba) while leaving the important target (mommy bird/JFK) unscathed.
After all, there are plenty of other weirdly-named birds that could have been used, one of which would be an even more blatant symbol:
(unfortunately, I have no photos of this bird)
Snipe.
The half-baked mechanics of time travel
As a science-fiction author, Butler isn’t content to simply say “it just is that way”, even in a novel she describes as fantasy. Though at first she seems to disregard the more nitpicky aspects of time travel, there are some instances in the novel where the
We can add plenty of more metaphorical interpretations to Dana losing her arm in the wall, but the way I interpreted it at first was a simple answer to an obvious question: it's established fairly early on that Dana moves slightly in space between the time she leaves and returns to the present, so what happens if she happens to move into an area where there's an obstacle?
The original Star Trek series had to answer the question of "why do Kirk and Spock never beam into a wall when using the transporter?" This was explained by the one-way accuracy of transporter pads. It was safe to beam crewmembers into a large open area on a planet's surface, but in order to move them from ship to ship there had to be a corresponding receiving apparatus on the other end to make sure they didn't end up like Dana. Transporter technology presumably got better as time went on, since this rule was disregarded in later Star Trek series.
Anyway, Butler gives a pretty clear answer to the question: yes, Dana's movements in space are random, and thus it is possible for her to wind up halfway inside of a wall. Certain versions of the X-Men storyline (superhero comic writers like to create alternate realities and retcon things out the wazoo) involve Nightcrawler dying from this sort of accident.
Butler does a fairly good job of sweeping other potential time-travel issues under the rug. Dana makes a point of not testing the paradox. However, there's one instance that I'm really kind of annoyed by.
Why is Rufus still in the past?
When Dana timeported while Kevin was holding on to her, Kevin got dragged into the past. Similarly, Kevin gets pulled back to the present when he tackles Dana during the confrontation with Rufus. So if a person in direct contact with Dana undergoes the same temporal displacement, why does the dead body of Rufus, which is clinging tightly to her arm, turn into a wall instead of following her to the present?
Does it not work on dead people?
Even so, is Rufus entirely dead at that point?
The NaNoWriMo forums, which are a great place to look for answers to the weirdest questions you've ever wondered about, suggest that people are still alive for a while after losing consciousness from stab wounds.
The problem isn't so much that there's a loophole in the time travel--if I wanted to be really picky, I'd go after stuff like "why isn't the dirt under her feet timeported as well?" The problem is that this is a pretty blatant inconsistency, to the point of being distracting and causing tangents that lead to discussion of the finer details.
Oh, well. I guess I'll use a catch-all explanation:
Metaphorical license.
We can add plenty of more metaphorical interpretations to Dana losing her arm in the wall, but the way I interpreted it at first was a simple answer to an obvious question: it's established fairly early on that Dana moves slightly in space between the time she leaves and returns to the present, so what happens if she happens to move into an area where there's an obstacle?
The original Star Trek series had to answer the question of "why do Kirk and Spock never beam into a wall when using the transporter?" This was explained by the one-way accuracy of transporter pads. It was safe to beam crewmembers into a large open area on a planet's surface, but in order to move them from ship to ship there had to be a corresponding receiving apparatus on the other end to make sure they didn't end up like Dana. Transporter technology presumably got better as time went on, since this rule was disregarded in later Star Trek series.
Anyway, Butler gives a pretty clear answer to the question: yes, Dana's movements in space are random, and thus it is possible for her to wind up halfway inside of a wall. Certain versions of the X-Men storyline (superhero comic writers like to create alternate realities and retcon things out the wazoo) involve Nightcrawler dying from this sort of accident.
Butler does a fairly good job of sweeping other potential time-travel issues under the rug. Dana makes a point of not testing the paradox. However, there's one instance that I'm really kind of annoyed by.
Why is Rufus still in the past?
When Dana timeported while Kevin was holding on to her, Kevin got dragged into the past. Similarly, Kevin gets pulled back to the present when he tackles Dana during the confrontation with Rufus. So if a person in direct contact with Dana undergoes the same temporal displacement, why does the dead body of Rufus, which is clinging tightly to her arm, turn into a wall instead of following her to the present?
Does it not work on dead people?
Even so, is Rufus entirely dead at that point?
The NaNoWriMo forums, which are a great place to look for answers to the weirdest questions you've ever wondered about, suggest that people are still alive for a while after losing consciousness from stab wounds.
The problem isn't so much that there's a loophole in the time travel--if I wanted to be really picky, I'd go after stuff like "why isn't the dirt under her feet timeported as well?" The problem is that this is a pretty blatant inconsistency, to the point of being distracting and causing tangents that lead to discussion of the finer details.
Oh, well. I guess I'll use a catch-all explanation:
Metaphorical license.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)