Jack Ruby


Of all the plots in this book, I think that Jack Ruby is the one I am most interested in DeLillo’s explanation for. I think everyone knows a thing or two about the conspiracies around the Kennedy assassination. Coming from an Irish family in Boston, Kennedy is up there in names that are revered. I have always been somewhat interested in the circumstances but this book is a crazy deep dive that has brought up ideas I have never even heard of (like the other Oswalds). 

I have to say I do believe the government’s account of events. (Yes I know, what a sheep.) I do think Oswald took the shot that killed the president and I am fairly certain that he acted alone. That being said, Jack Ruby is such a strange twist in the story. Who is this random club owner in Dallas that shoots Oswald before he can even talk about the assassination? Even if you think Oswald did it, Jack Ruby certainly throws the story for a loop. 

Jack Ruby quite possibly made this the biggest conspiracy of all time. He cut the world off from definitive answers, leading this to go down in history as a great plot against the president. Personally, I am inclined to believe what Jack Ruby said was his motivation: that he was so patriotic that he had to be the one to take him out. Oswald was certainly the most hated man in America at that point; I know how much some people loved Kennedy. It seems very conceivable that a man such as Ruby, who already had a way in at the Dallas Police Department, might use his connections to exact his own justice. I am sure it all looked very clear to the public, they apprehended Oswald with a load of evidence after all. It was only after Oswald was killed that the waters got murky which I think is partially due to Ruby’s intervention. 

But for all my own theories, I am curious to see where DeLillo takes this character. He seems to have built him up as this big patriot already. But he has also built him up to be a man who might be indebted to the mafia who have ties to the CIA. DeLillo seems to be toying with the reader with Ruby. Did Ruby act on his own accord or was he part of the plot DeLillo has conceived? Will it be a mix of both? He is a character with a lot of complexities and I want to see what method he uses to thread Ruby into this narrative. 

Comments

  1. Emily SMay 23, 2022 at 8:22 AM

    why does jfk look like john cena lmao?? but yeah, jack ruby is a weird character and how he fits into the story is super interesitng. i feel like he is simultaneously a very strange, weird match into the story and also like he's just meant to be there. it mixes really well in with the pairing of him and oswald, patriotic mafia leader vs communist ex military lee

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vraj P.May 26, 2022 at 7:33 PM

    I don't know what to think of Jack Ruby as a character. He's like the opposite of Lee. While Lee is like yay Marxism, Jack Ruby is full on pro-America. Also, Lee kills JFK from afar, while Jack Ruby kills Lee from like 1 foot away. In my blog, I talk about how I don't like Lee, so naturally, if Jack the opposite, one would think that I like Jack Ruby. But I don't. But not for the same reasons as why I dislike Lee. Idk where I'm going with this anymore. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. TeoJune 1, 2022 at 10:44 PM

    Jack Ruby is such a weird character, but I think Delillo ended up doing a great job with his plot. He set up his ties with the mafia earlier, and when it's time calls the reader back to that and his debt with the mafia. He also sets up the mafia's ties with the plotters which are used as functions to connect Ruby and Oswald. Great job!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Butler and the 1619 Project

Image
I was doing a little bit of outside reading on the background of the book and I was struck at the reason why Butler decided to write this. A young African American man told her that he was ashamed of his ancestors and their subservience and wishes he could kill them. She wrote the book to illustrate how someone from the future would have done the same. We touched on this a little bit in class by looking at the loss of her sense of self over the course of the book and how we agreed we would probably have done the same in her position so this motive makes a lot of sense.  I just think this outlook is so foreign to me. In school we were always taught about the subtle forms of resistance that slaves performed to rebel against the owners like intentionally breaking things or doing their tasks slowly. The teachings of slavery before this was that they were all submissive and allowed themselves to be subjugated. In fact, this was a time when a lot of people didn’t even want to teach about...
Read more

Mumbo Jumbo is a Kid's Show

Image
As dense as this book is, this would make a great cartoon episode from the 60s. I know Mr. Mitchell mentioned that Reed himself referred to this book as cartoony but I just cannot stop reading this book like a Scooby-Doo episode. The pacing and goofiness just lend themselves to the medium so well. I was adding my own sound effects to every scene throughout the book. Firstly, Hinckle Von Vampton and Hubert “Safecracker” Gould are two of the most stereotypical villains I have ever read. Vampton even wears an eye patch. Vampton even has the wacky maniacal laugh that every villain written for 5-year-olds has. “Heh heh. He laughed. Heh heh, Hinckle laughed. Passersby stopping to watch this man double up on the street HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH.” It is just impossible not to see him and his evil henchman as the most basic antagonists ever devised. Their schemes for villainy are also very reminiscent of Doofenshmirtz's plans, just the most surface-level logic being applied. The scene w...
Read more

2022 take on a 1975 book about 1912

Image
This book is interesting but I feel like Doctorow is saying very little novel. Because postmodernism is the setting and worldview in which we have all been raised, ideas that were once new and foreign are now commonly accepted. This book suffers as a result and I find myself following Doctorow’s bland characters that are intended to be vessels for his ideas rather than the ideas themselves. (I will say the book is picking up a lot with the introduction of Coulhouse though.) The main message of the book appears to be that exploitative capitalism is bad. Oh no! Really? I was under the impression that people getting their hands chopped off at the end of their 16 hour shift was a good thing. I don’t think a single person went into this book with an opposing opinion on the gilded age. I mean maybe these themes were subversive and crazy at the time when the US was the economic powerhouse in the world but I am not impressed with this thesis by Doctorow. Anyone with an education past the 4th g...
Read more