Blake Hina WR150 Final Portfolio

My original idea for my research paper. After the proposal, my idea became a lot more specific to dealing with just history. 

 This was my self assessment for the beginning of the semester summarizing my goals for the course. 

This essay was my final and best one of last semester. Writing has always been my worst subject, but I believe last semester I really improved. My class was a little different then most WR100 classes because it was an “X” class so we had 4 shorter “engagements” instead of the essays that the other classes had to do. In addition to the engagements, we were to write a few scenes, which lead up to a 10 minute play at the end of the semester. The creative writing component of this course was very helpful with my critical writing because it helped me understand the thought processes of the playwrights whose works I was writing about. This engagement was a challenge because I had to relate two plays and two articles, without writing a typical compare and contrast essay. I often went to my professor’s office to revise as I was writing and she agreed that it was my best work, even before I was half-way finished. I definitely think that her encouragement helped me, but then I began to get over-confident. I only had a half of a page to finish this essay and I stopped caring because I thought that the rest of my essay was good enough to get an A. I ended getting a B on it. I think I always slack off as I get further into my essays. One of my goals for this semester is to stay consistent throughout my writing process. 

Over the last semester, there were a few things that my professor and I always discussed improving. My first essay was pretty horrible. It was basically a summary of the play we were studying. I’ve learned to cut down on the summarizing and put more concentration on my critical sources and my own thoughts. My professor and I often discussed topic sentences and transitions between paragraphs. Before my WR100  class, I didn’t use topic sentences at all. After the comments on my first essay, I began to use them but they still felt forced and awkward. But with this last essay, I finally figured out how to use them to transition through my essay. Another problem I have is that I use short, declarative sentences too often in my writing. I think I improved on this, but there is still room for much more improvement. I want there to be more of a fluidity in my writing this semester.

“In current studies of ancient history, a line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar may function as a title or a motto; the pay may perhaps also serve as foil for a scholar’s own historical construction or ornament the introduction of a work. But the preoccupation of Caesar historians with Shakespeare rarely transcends such illustrative decorations” (Zander 59). 

*Introduction*

Thesis: The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Julius Caesar are among the most famous in history and therefore inspire many works of literature. The two most famous fictional works, Oliver Stone’s JFK and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, are so well-known that historical facts and fictional interpretations become mistaken between each other.  But what really is the difference between historical fiction and history? 

*John F Kennedy assassination summary* 

On March 15, 44 B.C., or the Ides of March, a group of Roman senators, lead by the civil magistrate Brutus, surrounded Caesar while he presided at the Senate. The senators killed Caesar by stabbing him one by one. This assassination remains one of the most legendary events of ancient history (Furtwangler 14). 

There are no original accounts or evidence from the assassination of Julius Caesar, only the works of ancient historians whose writing occurred years after the incident. These ancient historians wrote in a different era of Rome and therefore their facts are blurred by their respective views and political situations (Furtwangler 13-14). Shakespeare was very selective when using historical facts of Caesar: the majority of his facts are from Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Almost all of his story was taken from the last five of twenty-three pages (Chernaik 92). Not only are the historical sources warped by time, but the information is further distorted by Shakespeare’s selective chronicling. 

Julius Caesar’s image has changed throughout history, especially because of Shakespeare. There were many other plays about Julius Caesar written by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, most of which painted Caesar as a noble warrior and highlighted his triumphs. Shakespeare, however, did not include any of these qualities (Chernaik 92). Although he is the title character, Caesar only appears in three out of eighteen scenes in Shakespeare’s play and although Brutus has the most lines, Caesar’s name is mentioned almost twice as much as Brutus’. These statistic show that the play is more about the myth of Julius Caesar rather than the man (Zander 6). Much of the common knowledge surrounding Julius Caesar and his assassination originates from Shakespeare’s play. Horst Zander says, “Attempts by historians to present a ‘faithful’ picture of Caesar often seem to be marred by the one popularized in Shakespeare’s drama (4). People tend to know more about Julius Caesar’s assassination than any other facts about the man, which corresponds to Shakespeare’s focus on the event over the character of Caesar. 

It is not unusual for Shakespeare to take drastic liberties with history. Historically, the contents of Julius Caesar span a period of two and a half years, however Shakespeare condense this time into his plot and does not given an impression that time has elapsed (Zander 7). Much of the characters’ involvements with the assassination were greatly expanded compared to their historical relevance. Shakespeare was not concerned with creating a historical play, he wanted to use history to not only entertain but to discuss important issues from his own era such as the nature of power and political justice (Palmer).

The historical accounts of the Kennedy assassination are quite different. There are over 600 books written on the assassination alone, not including the 17,000 page Warren Commission report filed with evidence and testimony (Bothmer 243). Not only is there an abundance of information, but the assassination was actually filmed. On that November day in 1963, a fifty-eight year old dress manufacturer, Abraham Zapruder was filming the parade and accidentally recorded the assassination (Vågnes 4). The clip was first publicly shown by Jim Garrison at Clay Shaw’s trial (Toplin 173). Soon after, the Zapruder film became a culture phenomenon.  A. Sturken believes that most will people in the future will see the film through Oliver Stone’s JFK (Vågnes 10). 

Oliver Stone picked Jim Garrison as the protagonist of the film, therefore skewing history in order to paint Garrison in a good light. Stone was mostly influenced by On the Trail of Assassins, the 1988 book by Garrison. Although Garrison’s court case lacked of credible evidence, Stone portrays him as a hero and skilled investigator who dives into a complex pool of conspiracy (Giglio). Stone was criticized for putting Garrison on a pedestal, considering Garrison used some devious methods in gathering information such as truth serum and hypnotizing witnesses (Toplin 85). 

Oliver Stone has been highly criticized for the historical accuracy of all of his movies, especially JFK.  Stone freely admitted that the film is meant for entertainment and was created using his “dramatic license” (Toplin 85). He does not consider himself a cinematic historian but a “docu-dramatist” and explains that his films should be taken as evaluations of history (Toplin 6). JFK has been accused of using “political paranoia as cinematic motif” and therefore reinforcing the audience’s belief in a conspiracy as fact. Stone evokes audience emotions in order to make the conspiracy theories he promotes more believable, which gives them a false sense of reality (Toplin 170). The film even freely interchanges fabricated images of Kennedy’s assassination and actual footage, especially in the final court scene (Giglio). These constant shifts between historical recordings and synthesized clips further contribute to the “intellectual pollution” (Toplin 170). The audience’s minds are overwhelmed with information with no knowledge of what is history and what was created from Stone’s “dramatic license”.

However, Stone was very successful in renewing interest in events of the assassination. He inspired numerous books, articles, and a movement to declassify thousands of assassination-related documents (Bothmer 242). After numerous investigations, Congress found the accusations in JFK that multiple government agencies are withholding of evidence on the Kennedy assassination proved to hold true to this day. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 was passed and established an Assassination Records Review Board, or the ARRB. After six years of identifying and releasing assassination reports, the ARRB released a final report acknowledging Oliver Stone for arousing enough interest to get Congress to pass the legislation (Toplin 175). Despite its historical discrepancies, JFK is the reason for the myriad of historical information to the general public and brought people closer to the truth behind the assassination. 

Both Oliver Stone and Shakespeare changed historical facts in order to better their plots. Robert Brent Toplin says, “Writers and directors such as Oliver Stone invent scenes, dialogue, and characters; compress the time in which events occur; collapse several personalities into a few representative figures, and participates in other manipulations that compromise truthfulness in order to make their stories dramatically compelling,” (6). Toplin’s generalization of Stone’s writing is actually the same major criticisms for Shakespeare’s historical plays. They each choose protagonists, Jim Garrison and Julius Caesar, and in the process of doing so change the characteristics of the actual person. The writers need to change historical fact in order to create an image for their characters that they want to portray. 

The word “history” has two distinct sides: the story that is recounted and what is produced from that story. Between these two poles lies a “gap” (Price 119). In the case of Julius Caesar, the gap is created by the absence of original assassination evidence and artifacts. The ancient writers did not know Caesar, Brutus, or anyone involved and therefore their experiences have been lost. The gap continues to broaden through every translation and interpretation, including Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. *MORE*

After analyzing Caesar’s assassination, it may initially seem like the history surrounding Kennedy’s assassination is unbroken from the multitude of evidence an how recently the event occurred, but actually this assassination has a gap of its own. The gap is the conspiracy. *Talk about the JFK conspiracy and even though there is so much original evidence people still argue about it* 

In the cases of the Julius Caesar and John F. Kennedy assassinations, this differences between the fictional representations and the history are often made unclear. Robert A Rosenstone says, “Normally we think of the difference between fiction and history as this: both tell stories, but the latter is a true story. The question is, what kind of truth?” (Toplin 33). Before we can answer “what kind of truth?”, we must answer what kind of history?  The simplest way to describe the words “history” is a telling of the past as it actually was. Looking deeper, however, history is really just “the attempt to recount, explain, and interpret the past, to give meaning to events, moments, movements, people, periods of time that have vanished” (Toplin 28). From this angle, JFK and Julius Caesar can be considered history. Shakespeare and Oliver Stone not only successfully interpreted the past, but they have vastly contributed to the meaning of their respective events. The ARRB’s recognition of Oliver Stone was for his portrayal of history: he reinstated meaning and understanding into a period of time. Because of his film, the Kennedy assassination has been recounted numerous times. JFK can be considered history not just from the facts in the film but from the significance of the film itself.

In this exercise, we had to write a three paragraph, one paragraph, and one sentence summary of the Johnston essay. It was a challenge to go from having so many words to summarize to being very concise. However, you can sometimes still get the same point in one sentence as you can in three paragraphs.

Three Paragraphs:

Thomas Pynchon often focuses on signs and their interpretations for almost all of his novels, including his second, The Crying of Lot 49. The most general concern is how each sign leads to another sign. A sign can not become considered a sign until it begins to connect to other signs. In the first few chapters of the book, the main character Oedipa Maas gradually notices connecting signs and puts them together, which gives her a feelings of almost religious revelation. There is a large gap between what she’s observing and how she’s interpreting it. She goes much too far in her interpretation of these “signs”. 

Oedipa identifies a sign when something familiar repeats in a somewhat different way. This small difference between repetitions is what Pynchon uses to distinguish these signs. Oedipa becomes somewhat obsessed with this signs because they feel intended for her. These signs can actually be quite different, but like constellations, they are still connected and labeled. 

The main plot of the novel surrounds Oedipa trying to discover if these signs actually show evidence that the Tristero is real. Even though Oedpia is on this quest for truth, readers are left at a cliff at the end of the novel. There are still many different possibilities for what happens after the novel. Not only is Oedipa faced with many signs, but she also encounters many men. Each man represents an attitude to the interpretation of a new set of signs.

One Paragraph:

A common theme in Thomas Pynchon’s novels, including The Crying of Lot 49, is signs, specifically how one sign leads to another. Oedipa Maas, the main character, goes too far in her interpretation of signs, which seem to be similar repetitions with small differences. The many men in Oedipa’s life also represent attitudes of interpretation to these signs. Readers are never sure if the signs actually show proof for a Tristero System or all these signs are just stretched into being signs.

One Sentence:

In The Crying of Lot 49, Oedipa Mass believes to be connecting many signs that are intended for her, but she could be exaggerating her interpretion.

Comments:

This Reverse Outline helped me to better organize my thoughts for my research paper. I learned how effective topic sentences and transitions between paragraphs are. 

I. Introduction II. Background Information     A. Kennedy assassination history     B. Caesar assassination history III. Differences between historical fact and fictional portrayal in...

    A. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

“The historical sources of the Julius Caesar assassination are warped by time and the information is further distorted by Shakespeare’s selective chronicling.”

“Julius Caesar’s image has changed throughout history, especially because of Shakespeare.”

“It is not unusual for Shakespeare to take drastic liberties with history.”

    B. Oliver Stone’s JFK

“The historical accounts of the Kennedy assassination are quite different: There is an abundance of information.”

“Oliver Stone has been highly criticized for the historical accuracy of all his films, especially JFK.”

“Oliver Stone picked Jim Garrison as the protagonist of the film, therefore skewing history in order to paint Garrison in a good light.”

“Stone was very successful in renewing interest in the events of the assassination.”

IV. How did Shakespeare and Stone contribute to how we think of history?

“Oliver Stone and Shakespeare changed historical facts in order to better their plots.”

“Stone and Shakespeare completely shape the way most people think of these historical events.”

“In the cases of the Julius Caesar and John F. Kennedy assassinations, the differences between the fictional representations and the history are often made unclear.”

“Although they may not refer to Shakespeare directly, historians studying Julius Caesar often take similar approaches as Shakespeare did.”

V. What is “History”?

“The word ‘history’ has two distinct sides: the story that is recounted and what is produced from that story.”

“Gaps in history are not just gaps in factual evidence”

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “History is the version of the past events that people have decided to agree upon”. History is very complex because there can never be a definite history of anything. It becomes more complicated when fictional works of art are inspired by history and occasionally even seem to be nonfiction. The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Julius Caesar are among the most famous events in history and therefore inspire many works of literature. The two most famous fictional works, Oliver Stone’s JFK and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, are so well-known that historical facts and fictional interpretations become mistaken for each other. Both works are often criticized for their historical inaccuracies. But what really is “history”? Are Stone and Shakespeare rightfully criticized? 

These two assassinations are so famous that they could almost go without introduction, but for the sake of logistics, here are quick summaries. On November 22, 1963; while on a parade route in Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed. An hour later, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination. Later that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Warren Commission in order to investigate the assassination (“November”). Many people think that Lee Harvey Oswald did not do the shooting or did not do it alone and thus there are numerous conspiracy theories. In 1991, JFK by Oliver Stone was released. The movie surrounds Jim Garrison, a Louisiana District Attorney, and his prosecution of businessmen Clay L. Shaw for conspiracy to murder President Kennedy (Kurtz 167).  To this day, the assassination is one of the biggest American conspiracies. 

Jumping back two millenniums, we come to Ancient Rome and the rule of Julius Caesar. On March 15, 44 B.C., or the Ides of March, a group of Roman senators, lead by the civil magistrate Brutus, surrounded Caesar while he presided at the Senate. The senators killed Caesar by stabbing him one by one. This assassination remains one of the most legendary events of ancient history. However, the play Julius Caesar (1579) by William Shakespeare is possibly more well-known (Furtwangler 14).

The historical sources of the Julius Caesar assassination are warped by time and the information is further distorted by Shakespeare’s selective chronicling. There are no original accounts or evidence from the assassination, only the works of ancient historians whose writing occurred years after the incident. These ancient historians wrote in a different era of Rome and therefore their facts are blurred by their respective views and political situations (Furtwangler 13-14). Shakespeare was very selective when using historical facts of Caesar: the majority of his facts are from Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Almost all of his story was taken from the last five of twenty-three pages (Chernaik 92). 

Julius Caesar’s image has changed throughout history, especially because of Shakespeare. There were many other plays about Julius Caesar written by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, most of which painted Caesar as a noble warrior and highlighted his triumphs. Shakespeare, however, did not include any of these qualities (Chernaik 92). Although he is the title character, Caesar only appears in three out of eighteen scenes in Shakespeare’s play and although Brutus has the most lines, Caesar’s name is mentioned almost twice as much as Brutus’. These statistic show that the play is more about the myth of Julius Caesar rather than the man (Zander 6). However, much of the common knowledge surrounding Julius Caesar and his assassination originates from Shakespeare’s play. Horst Zander says, “Attempts by historians to present a ‘faithful’ picture of Caesar often seem to be marred by the one popularized in Shakespeare’s drama” (4). People tend to know more about Julius Caesar’s assassination than any other facts about the man, which corresponds to Shakespeare’s focus on the event over the character of Caesar. 

Shakespeare took many factual liberties when writing Julius Caesar. Historically, the contents of the play span a period of two and a half years, however Shakespeare condenses this time into his plot and does not give an impression that much time has elapsed (Zander 7). Many of the characters’ involvements with the assassination were greatly expanded compared to their historical relevance. Shakespeare was not concerned with creating a historical play, he wanted to use history to not only entertain but to discuss important issues from his own era such as the nature of power and political justice (Palmer).   The historical accounts of the Kennedy assassination are quite different: There is an abundance of information. There are over 600 books written on the assassination alone, not including the 17,000 page Warren Commission report filed with evidence and testimony (Von Bothmer 243). Not only is there this abundance of written history, but the assassination was actually filmed. On that November day in 1963, a fifty-eight year old dress manufacturer, Abraham Zapruder was filming the parade and accidentally recorded the assassination (Vågnes 4). The clip was first publicly shown by Jim Garrison at Clay Shaw’s trial (Kurtz 173). Soon after, the Zapruder film became a culture phenomenon. 

Oliver Stone has been highly criticized for the historical accuracy of all of his movies, especially JFK.  Stone freely admitted that the film is meant for entertainment and was created using his “dramatic license” (Roberts 85). He does not consider himself a cinematic historian but a “docu-dramatist” and explains that his films should be taken as evaluations of history (Toplin 6). JFK has been accused of using “political paranoia as cinematic motif” and therefore reinforcing the audience’s belief in a conspiracy as fact. Stone evokes audience emotions in order to make the conspiracy theories he promotes more believable, which gives them a false sense of reality (Kurtz 170). The film even freely interchanges fabricated images of Kennedy’s assassination and actual footage, especially in the final court scene (Giglio). These constant shifts between historical recordings and synthesized clips further contribute to the “intellectual pollution” (Kurtz 170). The audience’s minds are overwhelmed with information with no knowledge of what is actual history and what was created from Stone’s “dramatic license”.

Oliver Stone picked Jim Garrison as the protagonist of the film, therefore skewing history in order to paint Garrison in a good light. Stone was mostly influenced by On the Trail of Assassins, the 1988 book by Garrison. Although Garrison’s court case lacked credible evidence, Stone portrays him as a hero and skilled investigator who dives into a complex pool of conspiracy (Giglio). Stone was criticized for putting Garrison on a pedestal, considering Garrison used some devious methods in gathering information such as truth serum and hypnotizing witnesses (Roberts 85). 

However, Stone was very successful in renewing interest in events of the assassination. He inspired numerous books, articles, and a movement to declassify thousands of assassination-related documents (Von Bothmer 242). After numerous investigations, Congress found the accusations in JFK that multiple government agencies were withholding evidence on the Kennedy assassination are true to this day. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 was passed and established an Assassination Records Review Board, or the ARRB. After six years of identifying and releasing assassination reports, the ARRB released a final report acknowledging Oliver Stone for arousing enough interest to get Congress to pass the legislation (Kurtz 175). Despite its historical discrepancies, JFK is the reason for the myriad of historical information released to the general public and brought people closer to the truth behind the assassination. 

Both Oliver Stone and Shakespeare changed historical facts in order to better their plots. Robert Brent Toplin says, “Writers and directors such as Oliver Stone invent scenes, dialogue, and characters; compress the time in which events occur; collapse several personalities into a few representative figures, and participates in other manipulations that compromise truthfulness in order to make their stories dramatically compelling” (6). Toplin’s generalization of Stone’s writing is actually the same major criticisms for Shakespeare’s historical plays. Shakespeare made a two and a half year period seem like just a few days in Julius Caesar, along with changing the historical importance of characters (Zander 7). They each choose protagonists, Jim Garrison and Julius Caesar, and in the process of doing so change the characteristics of the actual person. The writers need to change historical fact in order to create an image for their characters that they want to portray. 

The differences between the fictional representations and the history of the assassinations are often made unclear. Robert A. Rosenstone says, “Normally we think of the difference between fiction and history as this: both tell stories, but the latter is a true story. The question is, what kind of truth?” (33). Before we can answer “what kind of truth?”, we must answer what kind of history? The simplest way to describe the words “history” is a telling of the past as it actually was. Looking deeper, however, history is really just “the attempt to recount, explain, and interpret the past, to give meaning to events, moments, movements, people, periods of time that have vanished” (Rosenstone 28). From this angle, JFK and Julius Caesar can be considered history. Shakespeare and Oliver Stone not only successfully interpreted the past, but they have vastly contributed to the meaning of their respective events. The ARRB’s recognition of Oliver Stone was for his portrayal of history: he reinstated meaning and understanding into a period of time. Because of his film, the Kennedy assassination has been recounted numerous times. JFK can be considered history not just from the facts in the film but from the significance of the film itself. 

Much like Stone, Shakespeare has inspired a wealth of historical works. “In current studies of ancient history, a line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar may function as a title or a motto; the play may perhaps also serve as foil for a scholar’s own historical construction or ornament the introduction of a work” (Jehne 59).  Although they may not refer to Shakespeare directly, historians studying Julius Caesar often take similar approaches as Shakespeare did. Many of the themes of Julius Caesar, such as the legitimacy of Caesar’s rule, are questions that are researched to this day. Essential questions about the assassination have been answered differently throughout history because of distinct cultures and ways of thinking (Jehne 59-60). Although he skewed facts, much of what Shakespeare did was because of the time period he lived in, which is exactly what all historians do. In this sense, can we consider Shakespeare a historian?

The word “history” has two distinct sides: the story that is recounted and what is produced from that story, and between these two poles lies a “gap” (Price 119). In the case of Julius Caesar, the gap is created by the absence of original assassination evidence and artifacts. The ancient writers did not know Caesar, Brutus, or anyone involved and therefore their experiences have been lost. The gap continues to broaden through every translation and interpretation, including Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. 

But gaps in history are not just gaps in factual evidence. After analyzing Caesar’s assassination, it may initially seem like the history surrounding Kennedy’s assassination is unbroken from the multitude of evidence and how recently the event occurred, but actually this assassination has a unique gap. The gap is the conspiracy. Since the assassination, people have believed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not actually kill the President. There are so many different conspiracy theories that blur the truth. To describe it simply, JFK was about Jim Garrison’s hunt for truth though he did not succeed. Even with the Warren Commission report, the Zapruder video, and the ARRB’s recollected evidence, we will never be able to close the gap.  Naturally, history has gaps; and although fictional representations contribute to this gap, the contributions are minuscule compared to what was lost in time. 

Gaps aside, Stone and Shakespeare completely shaped the way most people think of these historical events and contributed to history. Steve Sohmer says, “Shakespeare’s Roman tragedy has run through more editions, and more copies than any play in any language. It has introduced generations of school children to Shakespeare. Unique in the canon, Julius Caesar has never been out of vogue” (Zander 3). Julius Caesar has survived through time and continuously produced worldwide. Because of JFK, Stone has sparked many discussions about the politics and rebooted interest in the recent past (Toplin 19). The choices made by historians, and for this matter the choices of writers such as Shakespeare and Stone, determine what we know of history and are just as important as the actual choices made by the historical figures they are studying. Writing about history creates more history (Price 78).

Though history can never be completely defined, fictional representations of history can often bring us closer to a definition, especially in the cases of Julius Caesar and JFK. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “All historians speak of things which have never existed except in imagination” (Price 48). Part of Nietzschean philosophy says that all histories are constructed metaphorically (Price 78). Through metaphorical representation, it becomes easier to understand the past. Representations of the past help us understand and view the past. There is no denying that Shakespeare and Stone created more history. History is not just a recording of past events, it always involves reshaping (Zander 93). When writing historical entertainment, there will be “gaps”, as there is in writing a history book. Through my research, I have encountered an abundance of articles and books containing criticisms of the historical inaccuracies of JFK and Julius Caesar. Though it is true that there are inaccuracies, I do not believe that Stone and Shakespeare deserve the amount of criticism that they have received. To call them historians might be a stretch, but they should be given credit for contributing to history by giving us a look into the past. The word “history” may not be definable, but Stone and Shakespeare offer an entertaining and vicarious view at the past.

Works Cited Chernaik, Warren. The Myth of Rome in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Furtwangler, Albert. Assassin on Stage: Brutus, Hamlet, and the Death of Lincoln. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991. Print. New York: Routledge, 2005. Web. April 2015.

Giglio, James N. “Oliver Stone’s JFK in Historical Perspective.” American Historical Association. April 1992. Web. April 2015.

Jehne, Martin. “Julius Caesar and Current Historiography.” Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays. Ed. Horst Zander. New York: Routledge, 2005. 59-71. Print.

Kurtz, Michael L. “Oliver Stone, JFK, and History.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 166-187. Print.

“November 22, 1953: Death of the President.” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. n.d. Web. April 2015.

Palmer, Scott. “History Schmistory - Caesar is a Play about Power.” Bag & Baggage. 3 July 2013. Web. April 2015.

Price, David W. History Made, History Imagined. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Print.

Roberts, Randy. “A Sacred Mission: Oliver Stone and Vietnam.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 66-90. Print.

Rosenstone, Robert A. “Oliver Stone As Historian.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 26-39. Print.

Thomas, Vivian. “Translations, Transformations, and Intertextuality in Julius Caesar.” Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays. Ed. Horst Zander. New York: Routledge, 2005. 91-110. Print.

Toplin, Robert Brent. “Introduction.” Oliver Stone’s USA. Ed. Robert Brent Toplin. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. 3-25. Print.

Vågnes, Øyvind. The Kennedy Assassination Film in Visual Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011. Web. April 2015.

Von Bothmer, Bernard. “Oliver Stone’s JFK: Political Asassination, Kennedy, and Vietnam.” War, Literature, and the Arts: An International Journal of the Humanities (2005): 242-251. Web. April 2015.

Introduction

“A focus on the material history of any given literary work can provide a more nuanced understanding of various literary historical processes than traditional textual analysis.” explains scholar Tore Rye Andersen. Andersen highlights the importance of an annotating a text and learning the history behind it in order to understand that text. In “The Crying of Lot 49”, Thomas Pynchon often uses metaphors that could be easily overlooked if the reader did not know the time period in which he was writing. The current day reader would not know the relevance of many of topics brought up in the book without research or annotations. “The Crying of Lot 49” was a novel first published in 1966. The book surrounds Oedipa Maas and her journey to find the truth of the conspiracy behind the Tristero, a underground delivery service. 

The following annotations were created using a group of sources. Each annotation was researched using a background source to the subject that was being annotated. Then, using sources about “The Crying of Lot 49”, the subject was able to be further annotated and connected to Pynchon’s world. The most relevant and useful was Joanna Freer’s “Thomas Pynchon and American Counterculture”. This book discussed how Pynchon’s writing relates to the counterculture movements of his time period such as feminism and hippie culture. Ira Walker’s “Principals of Thomas Pynchon’s Literary Realities” explains the concept of societal entropy and how it relates to Pynchon’s writing. Finally, Yvonne Klose’s “How had it every happened here? A Constructivist Reading of Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49 and its Role in the Pynchon Canon” analyzes much of the plot, metaphors, and images of the novel and explains how they relate to the era when the book was written. 

Pynchon is considered by most as a Postmodern author. In his essay, “Faulkner, Fitzgerald, and Pynchon: Modernism and Postmodernism in Secondary School”, Carmen Holsberry is persuasively writing to teachers why “The Crying of Lot 49” should be taught along with the classics, even though it is postmodernism. He initially points out Pynchon’s postmodern style using the first page of “The Crying of Lot 49”: the imagery the tupperware and the television being used to portray popular experience. A big part of Postmodernism is using everyday objects as images instead of traditional ones, which is very obvious in visual art such as pop art. Holsberry explains that like Oedipus Rex, Oedipa is faced with numerous riddles involving her destiny and must continue her journey despite her uncertainty (Holsberry 29).

Because Holsberry’s essay is meant to put “The Crying of Lot 49” in a good light, Holsberry does not point out Pynchon’s skeptical side. Skeptical interpretation of culture is actually a large component of Postmodernism. In “Seeking Hopelessly to Fill the Void”, Mark Richard Rosborough agrees that Pynchon has postmodern aspects in his texts, but points out that Pynchon refuses to answer and resolve questions of the plot (3). The crying of lot 49, the title of the book, is not even depicted in the book, and the reader is left without knowing if Oedipa’s search for the Tristero was worth anything. Yvonne Klose says, “Pynchon’s protagonists all search for underlying truth only to find that there may be no such thing as the ultimate truth.” (3). Rosborough explains that Oedipa’s journey, departure from a life that is dictated by popular culture is what is important, not the end game. Pynchon is more concerned with the individual than the actual subject matter. The crying of lot 49 was not portrayed in the novel because Oedipa already reached the end of her journey to control of her own life (Rosborough 57-59).

Both Rosborough and Holsberry agree that Oedipa’s quest has opened the possibilities of her life. She is successfully escaped the world of Tupperware parties and has control of her own life. But Holsberry says, “[Pynchon] does not exhibit and attitude of disdain and irony toward his material from popular culture...” (29). Holsberry mentions how Pynchon includes popular culture objects, like TVs, in his novel, but does not mention the his underlying connotation by using the objects. Rosborough, however, thinks that Pynchon’s disdain for popular culture is what drives Oedipa’s journey. Holsberry also does not address the fact that the plot was never summed up. 

Even though Holsberry fails to mention it, Pynchon’s distain for popular culture is very relevant throughout the novel. If annotated, many things he mentions can be related to a break from pop culture. Before he began writing, Thomas Pynchon worked for Boeing Aircraft and in college was awarded for his merit in subjects outside of writing (Walker 40). This interest in science seems to have carried over to his writing. His incorporation of science and technology into “The Crying of Lot 49” are often used as metaphors for comments on popular culture. Each annotation relates to science or technology innovation surrounding Pynchon’s life as he was writing. These annotations can be used as window into Pynchon’s opinions on culture.

LSD LSD, or Lysergic acid diethyl-amide, is an illegal drug that causes hallucination. It is available as tablets, capsules or blotting paper and although it is usually taken orally, it may be snorted or injected. The psychedelic effects, changes in perception, mood, and behavior caused by agitation and hallucinations, can last up to 48 hours. After using the drug, a ‘flashback’, or a re-experiencing of the drug’s effects, could occur for several years after use of the Drug (Vale). Although the hallucinogen properties of LSD were discovered in 1943, it was not popularly used until the strong advocacy from a group of scientists twenty years later. The ‘psychedelic movement’ became very prominent in the 1960s, when it was initiated by the experiments of Dr. Timothy Leary. Leary noticed how LSD expanded consciousness and believed that it could broaden society. Although it started as a small spiritual movement, it quickly became a mass phenomenon and a large part of hippie counterculture (Freer 66). Thomas Pynchon wrote “The Crying of Lot 49” in 1966, towards the end of Leary’s reign as the head of this counterculture movement. Pynchon’s attitudes seem to be influenced by the ideas of Leary, as shown by the use of LSD by Oedipia’s husband, Mucho Maas (Freer 67). Mucho would seem to have the perfect reaction to LSD, in Leary’s terms. He is completely transformed by the drug, and despite Oedipia’s concern, he defends the drug by explaining why he takes it: because he hears, sees, and smells things like he never did before (Pynchon 107). LSD gives Mucho an escape from his life. Mucho’s simple liberation from the hardships of life is juxtaposing Oedpia’s long journey to truth. Oedpia’s escape is from popular culture, so it is only fitting that Pynchon mention LSD, a very large aspect of counterculture. It can be concluded that Pynchon probably considered LSD as helpful for achieving social change (Freer 70). 

Entropy Entropy is the main component of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that Entropy will increase over time. Entropy’s most simple definition is the measure of disorder of a system. Entropy is a measurement of the amount of energy that is unable to do work. It is the law that states that no engine or system can be perfectly efficient. Work must be done for energy to be transferred. (“Second Law of Thermodynamics”). Pynchon often uses entropy as a metaphor, which is very obvious in his short story, “entropy”. In “The Crying of Lot 49”, Pynchon uses the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a metaphor for societal entropy. This “society entropy” is the illusions of realities that are accepted by popular culture and the media. As energy increases, the molecules, or aspects of culture, begin to collide and therefore their value depreciates because of amount of molecules in one area. In other words, culture becomes useless, like entropy, and society harnesses it for popular culture (Walker 41-42). If someone could harness unavailable energy, they would be able to alter culture and society. (Walker 40). When Oedpia meets Stanley Koteks of Yoyodyne, he tells her of Berkeley scientist, John Nafastis, who invented a machine of perpetual motion, which defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Oedpia believes she can operate this machine and decides to Berkeley to find Nafastis (Pynchon 64). Oedpia’s aspiration shows that she wants to have control of her life. But in the end, she is unable to operate the machine.

Television Television is a communication system that transmits sound and video. It was first successfully demonstrated in San Francisco on September 7, 1927 and soon became one of the largest components of popular culture. In 1964, video began to be broadcasted in color on prime-time television. During this time, the three major networks, CBS, NBC and ABC were at the height of their power and controlled almost everything. Not only did they control television, but their television programs often control popular culture (Stephens). Pynchon published “The Crying of Lot 49” two years after the release of color television and at a point in time where Television was a very important part of American’s lives. The novel actually begins with Oedipa staring at a TV: “Oedipa stood in the living room, stared at by the greenish dead eye of the TV tube, spoke the name of God, tried to feel as drunk as possible (Pynchon 6). Yvonne Klose points out the juxtaposition between the words “television” and “God”. This goes along with the accusation that television has taken the role in society that religion once had. Pynchon uses the television to set the fact that Oedipa is trapped in a world of modern culture (Klose 22-23). The television is one of the first images of the novel and it meant to immediately set the scene for Oedipa’s normal, suburban life. This is the first of many images that paint the Southern California lifestyle (Holsberry 29).

Scientific American Scientific American is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. It was founded in 1845 and is now read in print by 3.5 million people worldwide. They consider themselves “the leading source and authority for science, technology information and policy for a general audience”. A third of Scientific American readers hold postgraduate degrees (Scientific American). Oedipa’s normal day at the beginning of the novel includes reading book reviews in the Scientific American (Pynchon 6). Although Oedipa seems intelligent, she does not work or use her talents. She does not actually read the books, she only reads their reviews (Freer 129). She also is not actually reading the scientific part of Scientific American. The fact that Oedipa did not want to read about the latest science and technology shows that she is stuck in a life where women are not encouraged to read such things. At the beginning of the novel, she is confirming to the female gender role of her time period. Friedan’s Feminine Mystique, which began the feminist movement of the 60’s, was written three years before “The Crying of Lot 49”. Pynchon seems to agree with Friedan’s encouragement for housewives to seek a more fulfilling way of life. Much of Pynchon’s novel centers around Oedipa’s quest for a more completely life. Oedipa’s break from the normal expectations of a suburban wife of that era makes her somewhat of a feminist and Pynchon’s creation of feminist character displays his support for the feminist movement of his time (Freer 130-132).

Maxwell’s Demon Maxwell’s Demon is an idea created by mathematician James Clerk Maxwell to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. There is a box with two sides and each side is filled with gas at the same temperature with a molecule sized trap door in the partition that is operated by a microscopic creature. The creature opens the door when a faster than average molecule approaches him, so eventually the faster molecules and the slower molecules will be on separate sides, causing a temperature split. This temperature difference can be used to power a heat engine by allowing the heat to flow from the hot side to the cold side. The second law of thermodynamics declares this situation imaginary. The demon would have to decrease the entropy, or randomness, of the system, no one has ever been able to do that (Smith). In “The Crying of Lot 49”, a man at Berkeley named John Nefastis claims to have a demon that can only be controlled by someone who is a “sensitive”. Oedipa thinks she might be one, so she seeks him out. Nefastis says the Communication is very important for the demon. Oedipa tries but cannot get the demon to work and cries (Pynchon 77-80). Oedipa’s inability to control the demon represents her inability to control her own life. There was no way that she could ever control the demon because the demon can not physically exist. But she is completely capable of controlling her life and does so by the end of the novel. She was able to navigate through the chaos that surrounded her journey (Rosborough 58).

Works Cited Andersen, Tore R. "Distorted Transmissions: Toward a Material Reading of Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49." Orbis Litterarum 68.2 (2013): 110-42. Wiley Online Library. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

Freer, Joanna. Thomas Pynchon and American Counterculture. N.p.: Cambridge UP, 2014. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

Holsberry, Carmen W. "Faulkner, Fitzgerald, and Pynchon: Modernism and Postmodernism in Secondary School." The English Journal 70.2 (1981): 25-30. Jstor. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

Klose, Yvonne. "How Had It Ever Happened Here? : A Constructivist Reading of Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 and Its Role in Pynchon Canon." American Culture 7 (2012): n. pag. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

"Press Room." Scientific American. Scientific American Global RSS, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/about-scientific-american/>.

Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49. New York: Penguin, 2012. Ebook. Rosborough, Mark R. Seeking Hopelessly to Fill the Void. Thesis. University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 2012. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2015.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics." HyperPhysics. Georgia State University, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html>.

Smith, Michel. "Maxwell's Demon." Maxwell's Demon. Auburn University, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015. 

<http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm>. Stephens, Mitchell. "History of Television." History of Television - Mitchell Stephens. NYU, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <https://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/History%20of%20Television%20page.htm>.

Walker, Ira A. Principals of Thomas Pynchon's Literary Realities. Thesis. University of Texas El Paso, 2011. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2012. Print.

Richard Hofstadter says, “[Paranoid] Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content.” (Hofstadter 1). Oliver Stones JFK is a 1991 movie about the conspiracy theories that surround the Kennedy assassination. District attorney Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Costner, hunts for the truth throughout the movie and eventually brings a businessman, Clay Shaw, to trial. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” was an essay by Richard Hofstadter that was published in 1964, about two years before Jim Garrison started his investigation. Hofstadter discusses conspiracy theories and the people who create them. Someone who did not know that the essay was written before the investigation could believe that Hofstadter wrote his essay with Garrison in mind. Garrison’s conspiracy is very similar to previous ones described in Hofstadter’s essay, but one of the major differences is a much more widespread belief by the American people. Although Garrison fits Hofstadter's definition of a paranoid person, he completely changes how people think of conspiracy and paranoia. 

Garrisons obsession with the Kennedy assassination shows that he is a paranoid man. Hofstadter says, “The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms, ... , he constantly lives at a turning point” (Hofstadter 8). Hofstadter believes that paranoid people have a high level of anxiety and believe everything is a fight against good and evil. The film makes it very apparent that Garrison was paranoid, especially during the height of the media storm surrounding the case. At one point, after seeing the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, he said that he thinks that they are going to kill him next. Garrison also became so obsessed with the conspiracy that he put it over his family life. His constant need to solve his case and its importance to him over his family shows that he is a very paranoid person. 

Garrison’s conspiracy draws many similarities to previous modern conspiracies of his day, such as McCarthyism. Hofstadter explained components of contemporary right-wing conspiracies, and a big part of them are the claim that the government has been infiltrated by a large group of Communist agents (Hofstadter 7). Garrison’s theory had much to do with infiltration of the government. In the movie, there is an anonymous man X, who claims that the government conspired to kill Kennedy because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam. Hofstadter's explanation of modern conspiracies seems to outline Garrison’s case. This shows the Garrison fell into the same path as previous paranoid men. Being the height of the Cold War, a communist infiltration of government became a constant fear to the country. In 1951, Senator McCarthy indicted Secretary of State George Marshall and blamed him for intentionally causing American defeat in World War II (Hofstadter 7). McCarthy's and “X”s accusations both involve a communist infiltration of government to elongate a war. Garrisons case is certainly not something that has not been seen before. Garrison presents a massive amount of information at the trial of Clay Shaw, which makes its very difficult for the jury and the movie audience to assess all the information. Although Garrison presents his claims with logic, there is simply too much information, not to mention that he barely discusses Clay Shaw’s role. This was probably what caused the jury to deem Shaw not guilty. Hofstadter believes an excessive concern with minor details is an important quality to the paranoid style. The paranoid person goes extremely far to provide evidence for their claim (Hofstadter 10). Garrison’s obsessed commitment to the case caused him to put together so much evidence. Each time Hofstadter writes “evidence”, there are quotes around the word (Hofstadter 10). This is a subtle attack to the creators of conspiracies; Hofstadter believes that an investigation like Garrison’s does not provide facts. Although the validity of Garrison’s case can be argued, many people began to believe him. Clay Shaw may not have been convicted, but Garrison was still able used the trial to get people to listen to his story. 

Although Garrison fits the description of a paranoid person, he forever changed the way people think of conspiracy. Hofstadter already recognized the growing popularity of conspiracies by the masses (Hofstadter 6). As time passes, the spread of information and ideas becomes quicker and easier. Garrison’s investigation became a recurring topic on the news. Unlike ever before, questions of the government were often broadcasted across the country. This started a new era of conspiracy where it is not uncommon to believe in a theory. Another growing trend of conspiracies is that the accused conspirators actually have faces. Hofstadter said, “The villains of the modern right are much more vivid than those of their paranoid predecessors, much better known to the public” (Hofstadter 6). Much of Hofstadter’s essay discusses popular conspiracies such as Illuminism and Masonry. Hofstadter explains a big change in conspiracies over history is the change of the villains. These villains used to be disguised Vatican delegates of the anti-Catholics conspiracies or unknown bankers of monetary conspiracies, but they are know public figures, like the ones tried by Senator McCarthy (Hofstadter 7). Garrison’s theory goes along with this change and has many important people involved in it.  Having faces to a conspiracy makes it much more believable and is one of the reasons Garrison’s theory has become one of the most famous conspiracies in history. Unlike the McCarthy trials, Garrison’s trial is considered valid by many people today. A movie about the McCarthy trials would be made to show the madness of McCarthy, but JFK provides insight into the mind of Garrison and lets viewers decide on their views. 

JFK continued the popularity of the conspiracy that Garrison started and was somewhat of a conspiracy itself. JFK was released almost 30 years after the Kennedy Assassination and 22 years after the trial of Clay Shaw, and it still caused controversy. Oliver Stone was questioned about the authenticity of his film just as Garrison was questioned of his case. Hofstadter says, “One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasies conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows” (Hofstadter 10).  Many critics regarded the film in the same way that Hofstadter does with paranoid literature; a complete falsification of fact. Even though Stone never claimed that the movie was a documentary or nonfiction, he was still criticized for the factuality of the movie, even before it was released (Ebert). The film may be is loosely based on history and took many liberties in filming, but it was still believable to many people. If anything, JFK rebooted interest in Garrison’s beliefs. The conspiracy surrounding Kennedy assassination continues to be one of the most popular conspiracy theories today.

It seems like in Hofstadter’s day and before, believing in a conspiracy certainly made a person seem deranged and paranoid. But after Garrison, conspiracy theories are much more mainstream. Hofstadter would probably consider the whole country paranoid at this point because people are very open to discussing conspiracy theories. Although Garrison is not alive, his ideas are constantly being discovered by more people, argued, and believed. No one may ever know the full truth behind the Kennedy assassination, but the longevity of interest in Garrison’s theory is as astonishing as the truth or falsity of the theory itself. Garrison definitely exhibits the characteristics from Hofstadter’s essay; he even continued many of the changes in conspiracy theories that Hofstadter discussed, such as gaining mainstream attention and identifying the conspirators. When hearing conspiracy theories many peoples minds jump right to the Kennedy assassination because Garrison changed the way the most people think of conspiracy theories.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. "Oliver Stone Defends 'JFK' against Conspiracy of Dunces" All Content. Rogerebert, 22 Dec. 1991. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Hofstadter, Richard. "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Harper's Nov. 1964. Print.