In my last blog post, I expressed my confusion after reading the first few chapters of Mumbo Jumbo. Well, I can’t say that I understand it perfectly after finishing it, but I do think that the rest of the book does a good job of explaining some things that I didn’t fully understand initially, and also revealing some of the points the author conveys through the story.
One thing that bothered me at the beginning was how the book begins with Reed seeming to purposefully confuse the readers by jumping around so much. One reason he does this could be to deviate from western convention. In class, we discussed how the book starts like a movie, with the “credits” or publication info coming after the first chapter. The end of the book is also different than that of a typical fictional novel, with the bibliography making it seem as though it is a scholarly book. There are also pictures, footnotes, and a hand-written letter. All of these make Mumbo Jumbo stand out from other novels. Other things I mentioned in my last post were the author’s use of numbers, commas, and quotation marks, all of which are very different from books I typically read. The most obvious reason for Reed’s stray from western convention is that he tries to mirror what Jes Grew is doing throughout his book. Jes Grew is very new to the western norms, and the book serves to show how the culture of Jes Grew developed and how people tried to stop it from spreading.
In my last post, I also expressed confusion regarding the frequent use of typos. In one chapter, Reed mentions that “Their writings were banished, added to the Index of Forbidden Books or sprinkled with typos as a way of undermining their credibility…” (I don’t remember what page this is on, but looking up the quote on Google Books gives you page 47). This gives us an answer to my question, that people inserted typos into Mumbo Jumbo so it would have less credibility, probably because of some of the ideas conveyed.
Speaking of controversial ideas, one thing I realized from reading Mumbo Jumbo is that Reed, like Doctorow, has a clear bias in his writing. Reed seems to portray those that are against Jes Grew in a negative way. This can be seen in those that try to lock up culture in the museum, or “Center for Art Detention.” Reed’s depiction of this as a sort of prison makes me see the people who lock up the culture in a bad way, and those who are trying to release it in a better light. To give another example, Reed also portrays PaPa LaBas, a supporter of Jes Grew, as a warm and relaxed person, which makes me see the African culture positively.
So, while I’m still a little confused about some parts of the book, I have realized a few new things. I also think that in the future, rereading this book would be very interesting because I think I’d understand everything much better from the very beginning.
You brought up a lot of stuff I never though about before. It totally makes sense that the possible reason the book is sorta all over the place is deviate from the western conventions that we're so used to and show us that there are lots of different styles and all can be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteLike Lizzy never thought of some of the topics that you bring up in this post before. I found the point you made about Reed's bias interesting. I think that viewing the “Center for Art Detention" as a prison of sorts does shine a negative light on those that are trying to repress Jes Grew especially when it is put in contrast with the warm personality of PaPa LaBas as you described it.
ReplyDeleteI think what you said about the Center for Art Detention was really interesting because I was thinking about it's role in the novel and I think it definitely is another good way for Reed to show how Atonists try to control African culture (or anything that isn't Western culture I guess). It was a good way to point out how controlling the Atonists were and, like you said, how relaxed PaPa LaBas and the other Jes Grew supporters were.
ReplyDeleteThis novel did feel very cinematic to me. There were some very obvious elements like the title after the first chapter and the stage directions in the last chapter, and also some more subtle ones like areas of dialogue and plot action. This book was quite the ride for me and I really like some of the points you made about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad a lot of things have gotten cleared up throughout the book, but there are still way too many points of confusion for me to really feel like the book's truly resolved itself. Maybe that's the point? Leaving readers with a sense of nagging incompleteness as a way of spreading Jes Grew through the pages of a book to real life or something. This is getting kind of abstract. Anyway, one thing that's still a headscratcher for me is how "Center for Art Detention" isn't used just by the narrator and people like PaPa LaBas. It's also the name of the museum according to radio and newspaper reports. MOMA is never mentioned once, as far as I can remember. Despite the implied purposeful insertion of typos by the opposition, it's weird to think that this same opposition would willingly allow attention to be called towards the museum being a cultural prison. Or is there another agenda behind that? I can't even begin to guess.
ReplyDeleteI too was initially confused regarding the plot and Reed's message, but I think that that confusion comes with starting any new book. I am really impressed with how Reed tied a lot of the plot's confusion up in the final chapters, but I am also confused about many things. I like your theory of Reed's "typos" are actually a rebellion to Western writing conventions--I didn't understand their purpose but your idea is very interesting!
ReplyDeleteI still don't like the word "bias" to describe a historical narrative that reflects a particular point of view and interpretation of events (because *any* such narrative will reflect a point of view, even if it tries to hide the fact), but it's true that Reed has a bone to pick in this novel, and he doesn't try to hide that fact at all. I'd say his point of view is even more clearly visible than Doctorow's, who tends to remain evasive through his irony.
ReplyDeleteBut Reed doesn't do irony so much as satire, and satire has a clear object of ridicule and criticism. But rather than presenting a "biased" view of Western civilization (or the Atonist forces that oppose Jes Grew), the book is maybe better viewed as directly *responding to* an inherent bias in the way Western civ has told its own story. There's a "corrective" impulse here--a view (well supported) that the West has marginalized and belittled and repressed African cultures for centuries, and that this culture war is now playing out on American soil. Reed is definitely on the side of singing and dancing and cutting loose from the repressive Atonist regime--and the "chaos" of the novel's style does seem like its own form of literary Jes Grew. Or, *of course* this book can't just blindly follow Western convention; that's the whole point.