This review of Norman Mailer's Oswald's Tale first appeared in the Spectator, 2 September 1995. I dug it out when I was writing my script for my Open Book essay on the literature of the JFK assassination, which I will also post here in its original form sometime after tomorrow's repeat broadcast of Open Book. What follows is slightly different from the published review-- I've made a correction, incorporated some of the ideas from my original draft, and added one or two small points--but it is substantially the same. I was tempted to go off on a tangent, comparing the Kennedys of An American Dream and Oswald's Tale, or the Kennedy of the former with Oswald himself, but that's really a whole separate essay! And I do wish that Mailer had been able to fulfill his promise at the end of Harlot's Ghost: 'to be continued'. And yes, the Henry Wade who was Dallas DA (and denied knowing Jack Ruby, which was easily disproved) is the same DA who was the defendant in Roe vs Wade).
If Marina Oswald had
let her husband Lee make love to her on the evening of 21 November
1963, John Kennedy might still be alive. This is the major conclusion
one can draw from Norman Mailer's 800-page excursion into the life
and mind of the world's best-known alleged assassin.
Americans have always
been keener on myth than reality, and few American writers have had a
sharper grasp of American myth than Mailer. His forte has been taking
real people and focusing his intellect and his instincts on what it
is that turns them mythic. He has done this both in fiction (with JFK
himself in An American Dream) and non-fiction (Richard Nixon, Marilyn
Monroe, and, most tellingly, Gary Gilmore in The Executioner's Song).
In many of these cases, it is death itself which confirms iconic
status; this is true of John Kennedy and it should be true of Oswald
as well. Certainly Mailer would like it to be.
The problem is that
Oswald is no Gary Gilmore, and in trying to move him into iconic
territory Mailer forgets his own instincts for American myth. A 'lone
crazed assassin' might play better for his purposes, but reality has
stacked the deck against such an interpretation of Oswald, not least
because as a lone assassin he is so mundane. Instead, it is Oswald
the patsy, and the JFK conspiracy, that has reached the level of
myth.
In 1970, we might have
welcomed Mailer's excursion into the conspiratorial quicksands of the
assassination. Today, an increasingly prolix Mailer ignores the
very lessons of deception he provided just four years ago in his own CIA epic, Harlot's Ghost,
and seems content to tie some extensive research together with some
dubious sources in a loose bow that comes undone almost instantly.
The new material in
Oswald's Tale, much of it assembled by Lawrence Schiller, is an
exhaustive combination of interviews conducted in Moscow and Minsk,
along with transcripts of the KGB's bugging of Oswald and Marina's
flat. Those looking for new insight into the mind and character of
Oswald will be sorely disappointed—as will those looking for
photographs. There is a good deal of repetition, and at times Mailer
seems keener, or at least content, to reveal the character of life in
the old Soviet Union, not for any insight it may throw on Oswald or
his motives, but just for the chance to apply his metaphoric skills
to another country. Certainly the new republic of Belarus may have
welcomed that. But after all the information has been disseminated,
the picture of Oswald still has huge questions, and Mailer's answers
leave huge holes.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6fa98/6fa98abeb358b78be46f71b614e26bf4adfc2bb7" alt=""
The best that can be
said about Marina and Lee is that government agents sequestered
Marina Oswald, who feared deportation, AND granted MacMillan
exclusive access to her. Like others handed exclusives, she delivered
what those granting the favour desired: a portrait of a lone crazed
assassin in the making. It was not her first encounter with Oswald; in Moscow she had interviewed the putative defector; she has admitted to at least being debriefed by the CIA when she returned to Boston, though not to having discussed Oswald at all. Marina Oswald's story changed over the years, depending on who she was talking to. Mailer's interpretation of Marina's various
testimonies is a keystone in granting Oswald his killer's status, yet
as recently as 1993 Marina herself said unequivocally that 'Lee did
not do it'.
Posner takes things a
step further, by distorting or ignoring the case for conspiracy.
Mailer obviously distrusts Case Closed; he has referred to Posner as
'only intermittently reliable', and occasionally he points out some
of Posner's more blatant twistings of the record. Amazingly, he still
relies on the book as a primary source. By following Posner, Mailer
accepts a world full of extraordinary coincidence, in which none of
the coincidences are meaningful. Oswald becomes a homicidal Zelig popping up a the right time in the Texas School Book Depository,
while the
people who shared the stage with him are simply written out of his
tale. Posner's book was billed as being definitive on the JFK
assassination; really it is a clumsy bit of extended character
assassination: if we can convince you Oswald really was a nutter then
you'll ignore the evidence and believe he acted alone.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9fe3/f9fe3dee70c147094ee4f8bf088080b17cbb06dc" alt=""
Having journeyed 800
pages trying to build a portrait of Oswald as a singular force in
history, Mailer is obliged, like Posner, to ignore the most obvious
interpretation of Oswald's seemingly delusional and often
contradictory psyche: he was the perfect candidate to be set up as
someone's patsy. Mailer's coy dance around the possibility of
Oswald's homosexuality lends the word patsy a particular vibrancy.
Don De Lillo, in Libra, showed us more behind the shadows of those
gay contacts, particularly the bizarre David Ferrie. Oliver Stone was
accused, like Jim Garrison before him, of using Clay Shaw's sexuality
to help demonise the possible conspirators, even Oswald. But for
Mailer, this aspect of Oswald merely hints at why Marina wouldn't put
out on that fateful night.
Proving there was a
conspiracy requires showing only that a few of the myriad
coincidences of Oswald's life are not merely random. Jack Ruby has
always been a short-odds entry in that sweepstakes. For example, when
Ruby corrected Dallas
DA Henry Wade's reference to Oswald's
subversive activities' at the Friday night press conference ('that's
Fair Play For Cuba Committee') we wonder how Ruby knew the name of
Oswald's bogus committee, and why he thought it crucial to set the
record straight. Maybe he was just another pathetic attention-seeker,
but witnesses also placed him with
Oswald in his strip joint, the Carousel Club; in Dealey Plaza that morning; and at Parkland Hospital when JFK died.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c0bc/2c0bc05657c10d16265c522f24971dce27e2a983" alt=""
The problem is that if
just a few facts which suggest a conspiracy are real, then they
challenge the hypothesis of Oswald as Norman Bates, as a lone crazed
assassin, and Mailer must seek his new Gary Gilmore elsewhere.
Oswald's Tale is indeed an American mystery, because Kennedy's death
was the product of something more than an unrequited hard-on. That
has always been Mailer's territory, but once upon a time Mailer would
have been less concerned with solving the mystery, and more concerned
with the deeper tale of an American tragedy.
Oswald's Tale: An American Tragedy by Norman Mailer
Little Brown, 1995, £25
1 comment :
Personally, I like to consider myself a strong believer in “innocent until proven guilty”, which is to say that I will never definitively state that Lee Harvey Oswald or anybody else was responsible for the assassination. There are too many missing puzzle pieces and most of the evidence is circumstantial rather than direct. As someone who got interested in the JFK case since 2010, I have been pro-conspiracy and pro-lone gunman at times, and by the mid 2010s, I began remaining on the neutral side, having no opinion, though I’m prepared to accept the WC findings. There’s just something I cannot put my finger on that is preventing me from calling it a lone gunman and calling it a day. I personally am fascinated by the theory that the unidentified "prayer man" filmed on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository during the assassination by Dave Wiegman, Jr., of NBC, and James Darnell, of WBAP-TV, was Oswald. So far, the man has never been ID and Marina, Oswald's wife has expressed her belief it was him, as though it was a matter of fact. If the films are released and it turns out not to be Lee, then fine, I eat my words and accept the lone gunman conclusion. Indeed, I myself admit that a small part is unsure but unless/until high quality copies of the Darnell film are released and can confirm or eliminate Oswald as PM, this theory is the only JFK Conspiracy Theory that could be true IMHO. It deserves more attention and those films need to be released to end the debate or resolve it. Seeing the images (seriously, google "Oswald Prayer Man Stan Dane" or "Oswald Prayer Man Darnell Wiegman" if your curoius) . The Prayer Man film evidence is the biggest thorn in my side; that causes me the greatest problems. So I struggle with the film evidence. Regardless, I have learned to treat the subject matter with more respect; researchers should remember there are real families involved, that these three men who died that November weekend (Kennedy, Tippit and Oswald; don't forget Marina and her children were innocent victims in this whole thing) are people’s relatives, their flesh and blood, and not just names for amateur sleuths to fuss over.
Post a Comment