Libra: A Sign and A Sign

We have been reading Libra for a week now, and we still don’t know the meaning of the title. Mr.

Mitchell has given vague illusions to how it plays a role in the story, but as of now we only know it

pertains to the zodiac sign of Lee Harvey Oswald. The title Libra applies to both the astrological sign,

as well as signs of Lee's character.

Ozzie the Rabbit was born on October 18th, 1939. This means he fits in the Libra section of the

horoscope calendar. An important part of the Libra sign is their astrological symbol, scales. Scales

are known to suggest balance, stability, and a sense of justice. This immediately made me wonder

about the title. We’ve seen Lee in a lot of different scenes so far, and I wouldn't go so far as to

describe him as balanced and stable. He’s constantly throwing himself into new scenarios to try and

find himself. He is willing to shoot himself when he gets a glimpse of happiness in Japan, and he

spends all of his young life obsessed with the Soviet Union, only to defect from there after staying

two years. His life isn’t balanced or stable. He is young, he is court-martialed twice in the Marines.

He is still figuring things out. Also, if we consider his life as a whole, the whole killing Kennedy and

shooting Walker wouldn't make me believe he is stable. Mr. Mitchell told me about his shooting of

Walker, and they found a photograph of Oswald holding the gun he used to shoot Walker and kill

Kennedy as well as Marxist literature. On the back of the photograph, “hunter of fascists” was

written.

Another thing about Libras that seems relevant is that they are known to be joyful, but have a hard

time expressing themselves. They can appear quite difficult and sometimes hard to understand.

They need time to develop a real connection. I think this really applies to Lee. He’s portrayed as a

complex character with a complicated and interesting life. He can never really find himself. The

website I’m reading about horoscopes says that once they settle down with a family they are more

patient and very protective. I can imagine this scenario for Lee, but he never gets that chance.

I wish I could have found a horoscope back from when Oswald was alive, but I couldn’t find

anything. The Fort Worth and Dallas newspapers only go back in the last 10 years in their online

versions, and I couldn't find any archives. Horoscopes, as we know them as signs for when you

were born and fortune telling in the newspaper, became popular in 1937, so the situation is entirely

possible.

We are apparently going to learn more about what the relevance of the title is, but at this point I’m

going with some complex story of the person that is Lee Harvey Oswald. How he doesn't really fit in,

but at the same time he does. These are just some thoughts. Feel free to comment any ideas, or

insights. This being mainly written after the In Atsugi chapter, so this post might be irrelevant soon.

The Authors Are(‘nt) Messing with Us (Part 3!!) and The Moral Compass

In the other novels we have read this semester, it has been easy to talk about how the author is using 

meta-fiction and how the authors are messing with us. I’ve written a few other blog posts completely

 about how the authors are playing with the reader of the story. For example, Doctorow’s random 

picking up and dropping of historical figures into the narrative, or the weird pictures and typeface in 

Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo. In terms of meta-fictions, there are similar frames presented in both 

Slaughterhouse Five and Kindred. Kindred is a story within a story because it’s in the first person 

past tense of a story. On page 116, Dana narrates, “Once I sat down at my typewriter and tried to 

write about what had happened, made about six attempts before I gave up and threw them all away. 

Someday when this was over, if it was ever over, maybe I would be able to write about it.” This 

makes us, as readers, be like, “Hey! This is that story!” So, it’s not-so-subtley acknowledging the 

reader. But this made me think, “Hey, where has all of the messing with us gone?” Butler has written 

this novel very differently in relation to the reader compared to some of the other novels we have read this semester. I talked with a few people in 8th period, and Mr. Mitchell, and there haven’t been 

too many other times that Butler has addressed this being a novel, or anything like how Doctorow 

and Reed messed with us.

Now to the moral compass. I was wondering what the best way Dana could go about saving her 

family line. Dana is not safe going back in time, of course we know she isn't going to die, but she 

doesn't. By going back in time, she risks Kevin’s life and her life further. So maybe, she should try 

and stop. Now, the only time she goes back is when Rufus’s life is in danger. So, if she killed Rufus, 

she wouldn't have to go back anymore. Now that solves the issue of going back, but what about the 

issue of her existing? If she can convince Alice to have a child with Rufus, she could kill Rufus, and

 then find a way to get in harm’s way so she goes back to 1976 and all is fine and dandy. She exists, 

she never has to go back. However, Alice hates, and should hate, Rufus. Dana has the mental impact 

on Rufus to convince him to rape her. If Dana wants to be safe immediately, she must convince Alice 

to let him impregnate her. That’s messed up. But, if Dana lets Alice in on the plan, they can kill 

Rufus afterward. With Rufus gone, the rest of Alice’s life could be better, and she could find Isaac 

with the help of Kevin and Dana. I wonder if Alice was given the rundown of the situation, would she let Rufus impregnate her? I also wonder about are Rufus and Alice supposed to have multiple 

children? How do we know when the correct great-great-great grandparent is born? I imagine Dana 

disappearing into the air after she uses Tom Weylin’s old shotgun to kill Rufus in symbolic fashion, 

only for her to stop existing. I still have so many questions about how this book can turn out. My post brings up a very difficult moral question here, so I apologize if it is problematic in advance. 

Thanks for reading.