The irony of too much information seen through Nicholas Branch
The irony of too much information seen through Nicholas Branch
Don DeLillo’s Libra is a fictionalized and non-fictionalized explanation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by blending real historical facts with conspiracy theories. In Libra, DeLillo uses Nicholas Branch, a retired CIA analyst, to highlight the irony of how an overload of information can create disorientation rather than a/THE clear narrative. Branch is selected for his intelligence, experience, and access to classified, top-secret evidence related to the Kennedy assassination. His role in the novel is to interpret the events following up to the assassination of President Kennedy by reading through a vast archive of documents, reports, photographs, and testimonies. Despite his expertise and the overwhelming quantity of evidence, Branch struggles to produce a coherent narrative.
Branch’s job is to reconstruct what he calls “the seven seconds that broke the back of the American century(181)” aiming to isolate key moments and people that explain the assassination. Unlike a detective that searches for information and then pieces it together, his journey is unusual. Branch already has information, in fact too much. He finds himself trapped in “the book-filled room(14)” surrounded by various pieces of information. Branch relies on “hand and eye, color and shape and memory(15)” to work through the chaos. His workspace is messy with “stacks everywhere(14)” containing everything from “Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental chart(181)” to “a microphotograph of three strands of Lee H. Oswald’s pubic hair(181).” Each piece feels important, but instead of bringing clarity, they only add to the confusion. Branch admits he “doesn’t know how to approach this kind of data(182).” At times, he is “horrified by the weight of it all(15)” trapped in what feels like a “career of paper(15)” unable work himself out of the maze.
Through Nicholas Branch, DeLillo highlights the irony of how knowledge and evidence, when in abundance, does’t always lead to clarity. Branch’s failure to have the coherent narrative, much less a narrative proves this.
I think that Nicholas Branch serves as a sort of reader-insert/frame narrator for the book as a whole, acting as an ideal theorist with access to all the knowledge. We might be able to assume that the narration given on the dated chapters originates from Nicholas Branch's knowledge, but it's still clear that, as you said, Nicholas is not able to come to a final conclusion. This lack of closure, of agreement on the truth, is at its core postmodernist. We cannot agree on the fundamental nature of what happened in the world, even with all the data gathered, and this seems to indicate an inherent subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteHey Bincy, I agree that DeLillo uses Branch to show that having a lot of information doesn't necessarily mean that all your problems are going to be solved, rather they become more complex. It's interesting that this much data had been gathered on this singular event, which makes you wonder what would happen if every slightly unclear event had this level of evidence gathered. But this event shook America, and the first thing intelligence thought to do was gather as much information as possible, which turned out to cause more questions than we had before. Overall, nice post!
ReplyDeleteHi Bincy, I also agree that there is a heavy sense of irony in Libra, especially when talking about Nicholas Branch, and the general overflow of information throughout his experience. With other situations and conflicts that haven't had as much information, I think that there tends to be a 'clearer' sense of what happened, because the minimal amount of information can point to a more specific outcome. Whereas all of the unknowns given from the evidence with Nicholas Branch ironically leads to more unknowns. Great post! -Mateo
ReplyDeleteI think this is really interesting; the idea that an overload of information can obscure truth. While reading, it always made me think of that one Sherlock Holmes ideology where he says that in the process of eliminating the impossible, whatever's left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. I think this ties in because it shows that trying to piece things together is nearly impossible, and trying to eliminate possibilities is just as difficult with an overload of information-- ie) too much information obscures truth no matter the methodology.
ReplyDeleteBranch is such an interesting figure at the core of this novel--his presence is really what makes this a book "about" history rather than just a reconstructed historical narrative. You describe him as providing an "interpretation" of the partly historical and partly fictional "information" he has access to at the CIA, and that is true (DeLillo occasionally frames one of his scenes by stating that this is a reflection of Branch's "theory")--but as you note, he is ready to give up when the novel comes to a close, suffering from a surfeit of information and no clear narrative. I often think of Branch as a figure for DeLillo, but where Branch is unable to complete his task, DeLillo delivers a surprisingly air-tight narrative. But Branch is there to remind us that even an air-tight narrative is reliant on speculation and supposition and can not be finally "verified."
ReplyDeleteI also like the idea that his name suggests a conspiracy board, with different connections and side-plots "branching" in all directions.
Hey Bincy! Nicholas Branch's little sections in the novel are definitely interesting and provide more to the novel than what they seem. Your blog post reminds me of a quote from Arcane (Great show, totally recommend it :> ) "Knowledge is a paradox. The more one understands, the more one realizes the vastness of his ignorance". No matter how much you know or how much information is provided to you, there will always be mysteries that multiply in quantity. This also ties into how we'll never know what truly happened in the past since we were never there. With all these documents and resources Branch will still never truly understand the assassination. Great blog post!
ReplyDeleteHey Bincy, this is such an interesting topic!! It is super ironic, especially because the public wanted so much information after Kennedy was shot, enough to create tons of conspiracy theories--and yet, the man who is given a lot of the information, possibly most of it, is still unable to figure it out. It creates the idea that perhaps we should just accept that there will always be mysteries, or things that people somehow could not figure out; we will never really know what happened to anyone else, because we aren't them. I think it was super interesting-- I posted about something kind of related. Amazing amazing job!
ReplyDeleteHello Bincy! It is kind of funny how Branch was given a lot of the responsibility to craft a perfect sequence of events. However when the time came, he couldn't explain it anymore than the public. I do not think this is all his fault. In every important situation like the assasination, there are bound to be pieces left behind or completely forgotten. And these missing pieces start a domino effect of lies and assumptions.
ReplyDeleteGreat Job!
Hey Bincy! I love the topic you decided to write about! I feel like people always say “knowledge is power”, when in this scenario more knowledge leads to even more confusion. I like the thought that mysteries like these that have been made to be so complex should at some point be left as mysteries, unless we could suddenly time travel. More information and evidence also leads to more possible perceptions of that information, creating more possibilities that are equally presumable. Great post!!
ReplyDelete