Why is Lee so easily manipulatable?
As one of the most infamous names in American history, Lee Harvey Oswald is portrayed as a surprisingly manipulatable character in DeLillo's Libra. But why is that the case? While the larger historical question has been long debated (did Lee act alone?), within DeLillo's fictional novel, this manipulation can be attributed to Lee's superiority complex and desire for "main character" validation.
One prominent example of this manipulation is George De Mohrenschildt's interactions with Oswald. At first, De Mohrenschildt takes a superficial interest into Oswald's manuscript to gain his trust. Then, on the second meeting, De Mohrenschildt builds off this false trust to plant an assassination idea into Lee's head. "'I'm not disappointed, Lee. This is solid work, the main essay in particular... You'll be nearby, for easy visits... [my house] is less than two miles from the house of General Walker.' George stuck out his index finger and raised his thumb" (DeLillo 246). In the next Lee chapter, Lee and Bobby decide to "put a bullet in General Walker's head" (DeLillo 272) and carry through with the plan. While Lee believes De Mohrenschildt is a genuine sympathizer, Lee's actions are heavily influenced by the slightest of gestures. Furthermore, because Lee perceives himself to be understood by very few, he tends to isolate himself from others, leaving him even more vulnerable to such manipulation.
As the story progresses, Lee is heavily molded by David Ferrie to fill the role of assassin. Ferrie's tactics are subtle in some ways and blatant in others, but they all seem to work on Lee. One example of Ferrie's subtler tactics is his visit to Clay Shaw, in which Shaw states: "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, easily influenced. Poised to make the dangerous leap. Either way, balance is the key" (DeLillo 315). Shaw (and subsequently Ferrie) uses the idea of destiny in astrology to provide Lee with a framework of choice. Ferrie uses this framework in page 339 to convince Lee that Lee's role in killing Kennedy is inevitable, while in reality, Lee has far more choices than the narrow scope provided by Shaw and Ferrie.
Ferrie's manipulation contrasts that of De Mohrenschildt, Konno, or Kirilenko: his manipulation is evolving and all-encompassing. In addition to ideological manipulation, Ferrie blackmails Lee about the attempted assassination of General Walker (DeLillo 319), takes him to a bar for drinks, and even sexually assaults him. Furthermore, David Ferrie's seniority preys on Lee's lack of a father figure. DeLillo highlights Lee's fatal flaws by showing his easy manipulability by other characters. This framework precisely calls into question the conclusion of the Kennedy assassination: If Lee was this manipulable, how would he be the sole shooter? In a way, DeLillo also manipulates the reader by constructing Lee in a moldable way, allowing the reader to fill in the logical gaps and construct a plausible conspiracy about the Kennedy assassination. The truth may never be known, but DeLillo constructs logical possibilities by filling in historical gaps with fictional characters.
Good post Bruce! I think you did a good job of highlighting all the ways in which Lee was manipulated but also why he was manipulated. Another interesting detail would be to analyze how the lack of a father growing up could explain why he allowed himself to be used by these older men. That's the usefulness of logical gaps, allowing the reader to make their own inferences from the reading.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, I especially loved your point in the conclusion where you say "If Lee was this manipulable, how would he be the sole shooter?" At some points when reading one forgets that this novel is based on a real person with lots of questions associated with him, and that in writing this DeLillo aimed to give his own answers to some of them.
ReplyDeleteWe definitely see support for this "main character syndrome" in the passages (invented by DeLillo, but consistent with the characterization of Lee) where he imagines himself telling his story to a sympathetic ear, usually on television or radio (or to a KGB or FBI agent who understands and sympathizes)--there's a kind of self-consciousness to his journey, a constant thinking in terms of what he can "do with" his experiences. He wants to be the guy people are interested in; he wants to give interviews.
ReplyDeleteAnd lest we get too smug about how delusional or ironic this all is, I will again remind us that we are indeed reading a NOVEL where this guy is indeed the main character, and for my money he's among the most fascinating, ambiguous, complex characters in American literature. It just so happens that history has conveniently provided DeLillo with all the material he needs--the ambiguities are built-in. For many readers they are what make him such a fascinating character to study--he is both deeply committed to his beliefs AND infinitely manipulatable, and both aspects have factual basis in history.
One of Lee's most interesting juxtapositions is his belief that he is unmanipulable despite being so easily manipulated. Being such a complicated, unpredictable character in general that happens to be actually exist and be historically documented is just incredible luck.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed how that althoug Lee is easily malnipulated, Ferrie's malnipulation is on a whole other level than the other characters we had seen thus far. I think DeLillo uses Ferrie to fill in the mystery of why Lee mentally was about to go through with the assination (although in his narrative he was in the end not the assasin.) Great post Bruce!
ReplyDelete