The crowd versus the individual was one pattern of thought that I followed throughout the text. The book shows several crowds, starting with the wedding in the prologue. But more abstract crowds appear in the form of the terrorist group, the unification church, and the homeless crowds near Brita’s apartment. The crowds are often positioned in opposition to the individuals in the text: “She went home to feed the cat but returned right away, taking a Jamaican taxi and saying Tompkins square…People in clusters and large groups” (150). Karen feels compelled to walk amongst the crowd.
Bill, who embodies the individualist through his reclusive habits, attempts to fight a terrorist group on behalf of the individual. Bill goes to speak for the kidnapped writer, but ends up getting even more involved. I think this connection has less to do with him being a writer, and more to do with him being an individual. He tries to go against the terrorist group, not on behalf of that specific person, but on behalf of the principle of individuality.
Reading the book in this way made the ending even more jarring. Bill’s death symbolizes the death of the individual and the triumph of the group. Is DeLillo trying to say that there is no longer a place for the individualist in our society? He brings up the idea that we no longer have power on an individual scale, because the only real power comes from groups. This, to me, is a very frightening idea.
The idea of the individual versus the crowd is a reoccurring theme in DeLillo’s body of work. In an earlier novel, End Zone, DeLillo’s main character is a reclusive football player who often seeks solace in the empty desert surrounding the town. He is more at peace when he is in the wordless desert, compared to being on the field with his team. In Great Jones Street, the main character is a rockstar who leaves his band and management to go into hiding. In this book, we rarely see large crowds, but I feel like American consumers act as a crowd that is felt without being explicitly shown.
In an interview from the New York Times, the writer makes a comparison between Bill Gray’s reclusive individualism and Don DeLillo’s own lifestyle. (http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/16/lifetimes/del-v-dangerous.html?_r=1&oref=login) This makes me think that DeLillo understands the success of the crowd as having a negative impact on our society. The crowds is devoid of the artistic ability that Bill and DeLillo hold in such high regard. It seems like DeLillo fears that the crowd, especially in the form of the terrorist group, is quickly replacing the power of the writer: “The cult of Mao was the cult of the book. It was a call to unity, a summoning of crowds where everyone dressed alike and thought alike” (162). He also makes this connection earlier in the book when Bill explicitly states “…our books lose the power to shape and influence…Years ago I used to think it was possible for a novelist to alter the inner life of a culture. Now bomb-makers and gunmen have that territory” (41). I’m not sure if this prolific passage could have been fully understood by the books original audience, but at this point I feel it’s something that should really resonate with our society.