The Death of Lee Harvey Oswald
by Tony Noland
The noise of the crowd picked up as the first police motorcycles turned the corner. His hands in his lap, Lee Harvey Oswald stroked the smooth walnut stock one last time. His sixth story window was ideally suited to cover the entire area. He resisted the impulse to reposition the extra rounds on the window sill. He hoped the cars would stop in the confusion so he'd have time for the entire clip.
Oswald looked out onto the plaza, his pulse spiking as the moment approached. This wide, manicured greensward... he was suddenly struck by how different it was from the ragged, weed-strewn lots he'd always known. Growing up, moving away, coming back. From this Olympian seat, it all looked so clean, far nicer than his wife's dirty, disappointing hometown.
Even now, when he'd left the worker's false paradise to return to the United States, he didn't want to admit that Dallas could outshine Moscow. He made himself feel a surge of fresh anger at the capitalists. He wondered how many brother workers it took to keep it so trimmed. Even if they were all coloreds or white trash, they were still members of the proletariat and deserved to be liberated from their exploitation.
It wouldn't be long now. Behind the motorcycles came the long police cruisers, sheriffs nosing at the trough of presidential publicity. Behind the cruisers came a black sedan. Behind the sedan was the target.
Oswald lifted the rifle to his shoulder and let his breath in and out slowly, just like he'd been taught at Camp Lejune. He watched the long convertible turn the far corner. He lost it for a moment behind the rise, then it returned to view. It slowed to take the second corner, then slowed more as it approached the underpass. Through a very slight heat shimmer, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy's head was centered in the iron sights. Oswald gently squeezed the trigger.
Just beyond the muzzle, directly in the path of the high-velocity copper-jacketed slug, a silvery paraboloid lupped into existence. It hung in the air for 0.03 seconds, long enough to catch the slug and return it into Oswald's face as a blast of shrapnel and gamma rays. Oswald's head snapped backwards, the muscle fibers in his neck contracting hard from the heat shock. His body collapsed, sending the rifle skating across the floor.
In the plaza, Abraham Zapruder's 8mm camera recorded the worried expressions of the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas and their wives as four shouting secret service agents jumped onto the limousine's running boards. The car accelerated and left the plaza without further incident.
*******************
"Report, Mr. Tovik."
"Processing, sir. Primary waveform has now re-collapsed, secondary waveforms not yet stabilized."
"Estimated time to full stabilization?"
"It's hard to say, sir. These secondaries are reinforcing each other as they collapse. I'm getting a lot of feedback loops."
"I wanted an estimate, Mr. Tovik, not an excuse."
"Yes, sir. Estimated time to secondary waveform stabilization is 960 seconds."
"Thank you, Mr. Tovik. Relax, kid. I'm aware of the difficulties associated with secondary waveforms; you may revise with further data. Deliver your updated estimate in 840 seconds."
"Yes sir. Thank you, sir."
"Report, Mr. Kholahn. Give me the broad picture from the primaries. The details can wait until the secondaries settle down."
"Yes, sir. The telemetry is almost complete. President Kennedy completed his first term, and was reelected. A major issue in the 1964 campaign was his unwillingness to escalate American presence in Vietnam. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea and Indonesia became full satellite nations under China by the time Humphrey was elected president in 1968. His attempts to pursue trilateral detente were ineffective, and relations among all three superpowers soured badly. In the face of the relatively weak United States, the Soviet Union and the Chinese People's Empire consolidated power in Eastern Europe and southeast Asia, respectively. Both nations openly launched orbital nuclear weapons in 1971, targeted against each other and against the United States.
"President Nixon followed suit in 1973, fulfilling his strong anti-Communist campaign. With the landing of Apollo XX in 1979, Nixon claimed the moon as sovereign U.S. territory, escalating tensions worldwide. Shortly after his election in 1980, President Reagan proposed moon-based weaponry as part of a 'Star Wars' weapons platform. During Reagan's second term, the installation and testing of a fusion-pumped gamma ray laser, fired from the Sea of Tranquility, was the trigger point for a preemptive nuclear strike by both the Russians and the Chinese on North America. The United States responded in kind. All three superpowers initiated extensive use of automated neutron bombs from orbit against each other and against sympathizing nations."
"Total casualties?"
"Immediate human death toll estimated at 3.5 billion. As the blanketing of fast neutrons also killed or sterilized most large land-based vertebrates, starvation and disease in the subsequent ecological collapse claimed a further 3 billion over the next 10 years. By 2063, human population was approximately 3 million in scattered pockets worldwide."
"Only three million left alive? A 99.94% death rate in 100 years after intervention?î
"Yes, sir."
"HA! Mr. Kholahn, once Mr. Tovik gets the revised figures on the secondaries, prepare a clean copy of your report and beam it over to Councilor Torrovinol's office by priority carrier. Append the following preface: "Torry: 99.94% - beat that! It's your move, with my compliments! Regards, Charrak."
==========
Other #FridayFlash pieces can be found here
Ha! Nice twist at the end. As to the rest - if a butterfly beats its wings, huh? Great story!
ReplyDeleteTransdimentional chess. I love it. This was really neat and well put together.
ReplyDeletechris
We all wonder what if...if not in the historical sense, at least in the personal sense.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. You reinforce the belief that everything happens the way it's supposed to. Doesn't it?
Hm.
Thought-provoking and well-written. I am impressed.
Profoundly interesting. I love the concept of this story. What's your name? Tony? I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I can't see the original post as I write this. I note that in your prior posting you say you like constructive feedback. I love that. I do to. At this point in my writing career, I'm in it to improve. I'll take gaga readers later.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I admire and respect that you're using your blog to play with such things as POV shifts. Again, that's what I do.
I like to respond from two perspectives, one as a reader, one as a writer.
As a reader: I was disappointed when we left the scene of Lee Harvey Oswald. You’d gained my trust because all the details about Oswald that I think I know, you had had right. I loved getting into his head, the way he fretted as the motorcade arrived, even his political and racist thoughts. When the waveform thing happened, I thought, “Oh, crap, this isn’t historical fiction, this is some kind of fantasy.” So I found myself turned off by that.
Still as reader: Then the jump, the POV shift, an even more extreme shift than mere POV. You jumped into the secondary waveform thing and the estimated time from the subordinate so deeply that I felt disoriented as I mourned the loss of the historical perspective we’d just left. But then, then you started to get me. I couldn’t quite grasp what in the world was going on (or even if it was indeed in the world; it certainly wasn’t in the world as we know it), but it began to get intriguing. What were these people (or beings) playing at? Was this a, a … game? A game? They’re playing with us? Holy crap. That kind of stirred a little anger in me. (Writer perspective: that’s good.)
Still as reader (sorry to go on so long): Then your recitation of the revised history based on Kennedy surviving — sorry, you kind of lost credibility to me here. You really think, say, Reagan would really have been elected had Kennedy survived? No way. History would have changed so radically that we would have elected some other idiot. So, yeah, I followed you, but it became more “cute” than realistic, which is what I’d so enjoyed about the Oswald scene. Then you destroyed the world. I can appreciate that. I tend to think humans are headed toward a self-imposed extinction, so that part’s fine. But, and I mean this in the most constructive of ways, kind of predictable. Sure, China and Russia conglomerating into a huge world force and the U.S. going wimpy is kind of cool. But near-destruction of the human race? I don’t know. The rest of this is so inventive and fresh, that just felt kind of typical.
Writer perspective: Oh. I just realized how to see the original post as I write my comment. Cool. Okay. Very clean, my man. No obvious errors or screw-ups. Looks like you proofread it carefully. Even what you’d asked about in your previous post, the POV shift after the break, that’s clean, and by that I mean your shift happened in a way that made it very clear, no doubt about it, no questions. Good POV shift. I give you a very high mark for that. In fact, I give you a high grade for something else as well: tonal shift. The Oswald section has a different tone than the other part, and you kept that consistently in each without it spilling into either. Excellent.
Overall, I’m very impressed. You’ve got a gift for writing, I can tell that. I’m going to watch your stuff, man. You’ve got signs of the ethic of persistence (which is at least as important as talent), and attention to detail, and talent. That puts you above at least 95 percent of other writers, maybe more. Congratulations, and thanks for sharing with our #FridayFlash group. I’m glad to have you on board.
—Jeff Posey
Everything happens for a reason. Wow. I'm surprised this isn't published or submitted somewhere.
ReplyDeleteenjoyed it very much, expecially the ending.
ReplyDeleteExpecially? Ah, why not - EXpecially!
I did wonder why your title was so obvious! Lovely take on a most well known event :)
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for the insightful and supportive comments! I'm off-site at the moment, w/ v limited web access, but look forward to responding in detail next week.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting piece. Alternate histories are always fun and this is no exception. The setup with Oswald is a nice in for the reader as the event is a familiar one. The shift of pov and narrative style from description to dialogue is well handled and I liked the idea of folks playing games with history. Fun and thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteOh. Oh, oh, oh.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite of the week.
Conspiracy, science, a little game theory - all the good stuff.
I feel the shifting POV and scene transitions worked well, and were executed gracefully. They add a nice depth to the story.
I agree with all the others, great twist at the end. Good writing. I particularly enjoyed this "a silvery paraboloid lupped into existence" That's quite the vision!
ReplyDeleteThe shift in POV from Oswald to Tovik & friends was smoothly accomplished and unexpected - I recognize the craftsmanship in your story as Well Done. (Since I don't know much about world politics I can't say how believable or not your possible different outcomem was, but I'm also trusting - so it worked for me.) Heh, I also enjoyed the word "lupped".
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding, everyone. I'm back on-line now, so I'd like to thank everyone for their great comments. A special shout-out to Trev, because I love the phrase "favorite of the week" and to Jodi and hojpoj, because I also love the word "lupped". Onomatopoeists unite!
ReplyDeleteA special thank you to anasazistories for the detailed crit. I'm writing some thoughts in response, which I'll post in a few minutes.
I’d like to respond in detail to the crit and comments that anasazistories made. It’s instructive to walk through this, but for those of you pressed for time, feel free to print it out and read it later.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader: I was disappointed when we left the scene of Lee Harvey Oswald. You’d gained my trust…
I intended the shift to be disorienting, even irritating. I wanted to see if I could use two very different types of POV in the same story and still make it work.
The first half has a POV that is omniscient, inhabiting Oswald’s mind; we know everything about him and his innermost thoughts, along with his location, situation, etc. The second half is pure dialogue; we know nothing about them except what they say. We don’t know who they are, where they are, anything. The pullback from intimate to remote is about as dramatic a shift as can be, and I did it in (almost) the most abrupt way possible.
When the waveform thing happened, I thought, “Oh, crap, this isn’t historical fiction, this is some kind of fantasy.” So I found myself turned off by that.
But you kept reading. I wonder if there were other people that quit reading at that point?
But then, then you started to get me. I couldn’t quite grasp what in the world was going on (or even if it was indeed in the world; it certainly wasn’t in the world as we know it), but it began to get intriguing.
I was trying to mess with the reader’s head. Suck him in with a well-known setup that was explained in detail, then whipsaw him into a moment of “What the hell?” with something very unfamiliar that wasn’t explained at all. Could I then suck him in again and then whipsaw him again? A bit of a tough trick to pull of in 1000 words. Did it work?
What were these people (or beings) playing at? Was this a, a … game? A game? They’re playing with us? Holy crap. That kind of stirred a little anger in me. (Writer perspective: that’s good.)
I guess it worked. I’m pleased with the result of this little experiment. A story like this one makes the reader work at understanding, and might require several readings to put all the pieces in place, so it’s not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea. I also think that if one were to keep this up, engaging and whipsawing again and again, it would piss off the reader.
You really think, say, Reagan would really have been elected had Kennedy survived? No way.
See next comment for more details.
But near-destruction of the human race? I don’t know. The rest of this is so inventive and fresh, that just felt kind of typical.
Ah, well. Nobody’s perfect.
Good POV shift. I give you a very high mark for that. In fact, I give you a high grade for something else as well: tonal shift. The Oswald section has a different tone than the other part, and you kept that consistently in each without it spilling into either. Excellent.
Thanks! Tonal shift is one of those things that I see in some of the best writing. It sets the mood for a scene without being blatant or overtly manipulative. It’s an important tool, and getting it right goes a long way towards moving competent writing up to good writing.
Overall, I’m very impressed. You’ve got a gift for writing, I can tell that. I’m going to watch your stuff, man. You’ve got signs of the ethic of persistence (which is at least as important as talent), and attention to detail, and talent. That puts you above at least 95 percent of other writers, maybe more.
You’re very kind! If it is a gift, there’s a hell of a lot of work involved in unwrapping it!
I find that when I just write stuff, I don’t get any better. I just keep writing the same level of stuff. Improvement only comes when I try to write something that I’ve not done before – a new POV, a new voice, deliberately focusing on mood or tone or scenery, etc. That’s part of what these flash pieces will be, exercises. Some of them will work, some won’t, but I hope to learn from each of them.
Re: Political analysis of alternate timelines
ReplyDeleteThen your recitation of the revised history based on Kennedy surviving — sorry, you kind of lost credibility to me here. You really think, say, Reagan would really have been elected had Kennedy survived? No way. History would have changed so radically that we would have elected some other idiot.
I needed a sequence of events that would lead to the world being destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.
I’m not an historian, but Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 is still plausible in the revised timeline (running against Kennedy instead of Johnson), as is Reagan’s famous speech in support of him. As that speech launched Reagan’s political career, he would probably still have been elected governor of California in 1966.
In our timeline, Nixon was elected in 1968 as a repudiation of Johnson; Humphrey didn’t have much support from Johnson as the sitting president. In the revised timeline, Kennedy supported Humphrey enough for him to defeat Nixon in 1968, but Nixon ran again in 1972 and won. With no Watergate scandal, Nixon completed two terms.
In our timeline, Reagan ran against the sitting Republican president in 1976, so it would have been plausible for him to do so in the revised timeline, but he chose not to, as his President Nixon in 1976 was stronger than our President Ford. However, there had been lots of talk of him for the VP slot in the 1976 campaign to bump up the charisma quotient of the Nixon administration. Nixon ultimately decided he didn't want the competition from his VP, so he stuck with Ford. Still, the VP talk was enough to raise Reagan's national profile and, with his own political skills and the support of Nixon (a fellow Californian), Reagan beat Ford in the primaries and won in 1980.
Tony: Great discussion. I like the way you analyze things and think. I especially like the way you're "playing with" storytelling to try and improve. You are exactly right to do so. That POV change is a great thing to explore. I think you're right, changes like this would whipsaw a reader and they'd give up on you if you did it too much. But that's not why you're doing this. You're doing it to stretch your own writing abilities.
ReplyDeleteA few months ago I tried an experiment in my writing group. I wrote a story with no character motivation whatsoever, just a rather distant description of what he did. Half the people hated it, and half thought it was fair. Then I brought it back the next week (a different group of listeners this time -- we mix it up a lot and have a large group) with motivational aspects inserted in the last third of the story (not the right place, generally speaking). About two-thirds liked the story, while a third didn't. The next week, I moved the character motivation early in the story. As expected, more people liked it.
Keep experimenting. That's what I do with #FridayFlash. Heck, that's what it's for, in my opinion. That's why I write my blog. It's more for me than my readers. It's my exercise pages.
I look forward to this Friday.
Jeff Posey
Great story, Tony. I liked the sudden shift from LHO to Tovik. To me that's what made the piece. But I thought the long drawn out explanation of the feedback loops, number of seconds, then followed by what I thought an overly long alternate history lesson slowed it way down. But the final section, where we are all just pawns in these bastards little game - that was fantastic. Great story. And great little writing lesson with the discussion between you and Jeff.
ReplyDeleteSorry I'm so late.
~jon
As I look back at it, you're right, Jon. The alt-history explanation was too draggy. I wanted to make the nuclear holocaust a plausible outcome from the intervention in Dallas, 1963. I'll give it some thought as a post-mortem to consider how I could have done more with less.
ReplyDeleteRe: the discussion on writing, I'm making this stuff up as I go. ;-)
Thanks for your great comments.