Does Reed = Emerson?

            In Richard Hardack’s “Swing to the White, Back to the Black: Writing and ‘Sourcery’ in Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo”, there are several intriguing ideas brought up. While we got to begin discussing some topics in Hardack’s essay, I want to think about it a little bit more. Particularly, I want to talk about Ralph Waldo Emerson.

            Already, we have talked about Reed being like a “white ‘transcendental’ writer”, specifically Emerson. Adding on to that, Hardack believes that Mumbo Jumbo is a “parody of and homage to Emerson’s works” (Hardack 132). Although there are some similarities that we discussed in class, in terms of the relation of god(s) and nature for Emerson and Reed, I really don’t see a big connection to Emerson in Mumbo Jumbo, much less it being a parody of Emerson. I certainly did not even remotely think of Emerson or that style of writing while reading Mumbo Jumbo. Reed says things throughout Mumbo Jumbo like Set “perhaps invented taxes” and Jesus “was a sorcerer…who went around the countryside performing tricks” (Reed 170). However, Ralph Waldo Emerson in “Self Reliance” (something that should be familiar from Freshman English) says things much more like “It must be that when God speaketh he should communicate, not one thing, but all things.” Sure, there might be passages that relate the two writers better, but just looking at style and tone itself, even the content in general, they just don’t seem to relate. Even if there is this connection with Reed and Emerson, I don’t see Reed intentionally doing so. Just from looking at Mumbo Jumbo as a whole and getting a feel for Reed’s intentions and goals, it just doesn’t seem like something he would do.

However, even though I am pretty sure there is no connection between the two doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I would expect Hardack to know much more about Emerson than me, who hasn’t read Emerson since freshman year. And even though I think Reed wouldn’t intentionally parody Emerson, I could be wrong. It’s not like Mumbo Jumbo is a simple book to understand, and Reed is not a simple author. And so while I feel pretty sure that there is no Reed-Emerson connection, I want to hear what you think about the topic. What do you think about Reed and Emerson? Do you see the connection Hardack is making?

Formatting Confusion

            One of my favorite things to do is reading books. My main goal in doing that is just for enjoyment. However, once you read enough books, you get a very good sense of certain rules all books follow. These conventions become constant throughout different books, making it easier to focus on the storyline since the overall format is generally the same. However, Mumbo Jumbo disregards these conventions.

            It’s not that this book is really old so it has a somewhat different structure and style from that of modern books. It was published in 1972, which means that its format could easily be what we are used to. Reed’s use of numerals always gets me, saying things like “100s” instead of “hundreds” (Reed 20). Also, the pictures that are inserted took a while to get used to, since fictional books usually have illustrations at most, and I would say typically relate to the material in a clear way. I just don’t see that clear relationship in Mumbo Jumbo. These things plus the strange placement of Chapter 1, the strange use of punctuation, and footnotes that seem to not follow any pattern makes Mumbo Jumbo a little bit confusing without even considering the actual text. It’s not that I haven’t encountered books or authors that sometimes don’t follow a certain convention, it’s just that there is an overwhelming number of conventions not being followed here. For example, in Ragtime the dialogue wasn’t in quotation marks or anything, it was just part of the paragraph. I could accept that. Yet Mumbo Jumbo does that same exact thing and it bugs me for some reason.

But the one thing that nags at me the most is, why? Why does Reed format his novel this way? Sure, to a certain extent, I could just say the format was the author’s personal preference. But with this uniquely strange structuring, it’s hard to write it off like that. There’s has to be some underlying meaning to it all. It’s hard to exactly tell what since we have only just started the novel. In class, we compared some of the structure of Mumbo Jumbo to a movie. I think that I can see Reed definitely adding the front matter after Chapter 1 to really remind the reader that the book is fiction. Adding footnotes and pictures also accomplishes that same thing as well. The formatting of dialogue, chapters, pictures, and footnotes also modifies the flow of the novel, which Reed might be doing in terms of a bigger theme in the book or trying to get it to match some aspects of the story. It’s hard to draw definite conclusions at this point in the novel, but I think the structure is important and hopefully by the end we can see maybe why Reed formatted Mumbo Jumbo this way. But maybe I’m just overreacting. What do you think of the formatting?

What's Up With the Little Boy?

            In class we have talked about how Doctorow uses his powers as an author in some ways that are not quite subtle. For example, Doctorow makes Houdini all a sudden crash next to the little boy’s house right after the little boy thought about the magician. It’s a rather odd thing to happen, but perhaps Houdini happened to be driving down that street and crash. The chances of that actually happening is really unlikely, but it has some basis of realism. However, some of the other things Doctorow adds to the story seems to be like some sort of magic.

            The little boy started off seeming like a normal kid. Sure, it was odd that Houdini appeared right after the boy thought about him, but that was probably just Doctorow trying to get Houdini into the story. But then the little boy says something quite confusing. “Warn the Duke,” he told Houdini (Doctorow 10). Who’s this duke? Why did the little boy randomly tell Houdini this? It just overall is a puzzling end to the chapter. But the story goes on. Then as we follow Houdini in his story, he happens to meet Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It can be easy to forget the little boy’s prior warning like Houdini did (Not that Houdini would know what to warn the duke about). However, the little boy’s statement is somewhat prophetic. Could a warning have prevented Ferdinand’s assassination? What would that have meant for WWI? This is only the start of the supernatural powers of the little boy.

            In Chapter 15, Doctorow tells us that the little boy “could look at the hairbrush on the bureau and it would sometimes slide off the edge and fall to the floor. If he raised the window in his room it might shut itself at the moment he thought the room was getting cold” (Doctorow 117). Doctorow in this passage just basically told us that the little boy has telekinetic powers. Any doubt about the boy having strange powers is erased by Doctorow in this moment. It’s not just the reader connecting the boy’s strange statement and the later encounter with Ferdinand. Doctorow is showing us the unusual traits of the boy. For a book that can mix history and fiction so well, it is odd that he would decide to give the little boy these powers in a not so subtle way. What is Doctorow trying to do with the little boy? Why is he being so obvious with his powers as an author? There are a lot of strange things going on with the little boy. What do you think?

This blog is now for History As Fiction

Racehorses and Basketball

           In class, we discussed Gunnar telling Scoby in a letter that he “sympathize[s] with these animals ‘cause this place makes [him] feel like a racehorse” (Beatty 146). The more I thought about this passage, the more I realized how many ways it could apply to Gunnar.

           Let’s first think about racehorses. Racehorses are used for entertainment purposes, usually with people betting on the outcome of races. They are constantly trained and looked after carefully to make sure they are in good physical condition. Certain breeds of horses are seen as better for the sport, having more agility or whatever traits that are needed. The racehorses make a lot of money for their owners but are only valuable to those owners for a certain amount of time. While racehorses may have a brief claim to fame, they are generally forgotten as they fade out of the spotlight. Several horses are euthanized as they get injuries too great to recover from, such as breaking a leg. Doesn’t sound so great for the horses, does it?

           Now think about basketball. Basketball is a form of entertainment, probably one that several of us enjoy watching. A stereotype seen in Beatty’s book and present today is that black people are better at basketball. Gunnar is constantly pushed and monitored to be at his best level for each game. While playing college basketball, Gunnar isn’t really getting much benefit from it, instead, others make money through his efforts. We see all of these colleges trying to recruit him, but each college just wants to be the one to profit from Gunnar’s talent. However, just like racehorses, basketball players slow down and many get forgotten, becoming discarded as their talent is no longer the same as it was. This paragraph unfortunately echoes many of the things of the prior paragraph.

           What we see in basketball and racehorses is this system where the people who benefit are not those putting in the effort. The owners get money and the fans get the enjoyment of watching the sport. In some cases like Gunnar’s, the people (or horses) don’t actually want to be playing for all these people but end up in that situation because of their talent. One interesting thing with racehorses is that certain breeds are seen as being better racehorses which reminds me of the whole notion of African-Americans being better at basketball, or athletics in general. In both of these cases, I see somebody being exploited for the benefit for others. What was first read by me as a casual comment seems to be so true on so many levels its surprising. It makes me just wonder how many other hidden meanings I missed while reading the novel. Maybe I’m looking too deep into this. What do you think?

A "Rememory" of Ellison

     While reading "Beloved", you could say I had a "rememory" of my own. In the last section of Morrison's novel, Denver left the Bodwins "but not before she had seen, sitting on a shelf by the back door, a blackboy's mouth full of money...Painted across the pedestal he knelt on were the words 'At Yo Service'" (Morison 300). This scene immediately reminded me of when the narrator in "Invisible Man" when he saw something he "never noticed before...a piece of early Americana, the kind of bank which, if a coin is placed in the hand and a lever pressed upon the back, will raise its arm and flip the coin into the grinning mouth" (Ellison 319). Both of these cases are quite similar. Both of these characters notice this bank of this black person caricature by the door of the room they're leaving. This bank also happens to be at the house of somebody seen as more morally upright than some of the other characters in the novel.

     In the case of the narrator in "Invisible Man", the bank is found in Mary's house. Mary was kind to the narrator and became somewhat like a mother-like figure. It was shocking to find such a bank in her house, especially since she too is black. For Denver, the bank she finds is in the house of the Bodwins, a white family that advocates for black people. We don't get a reaction from Denver, but I know I was surprised to find another one of these banks, especially in the Bodwins house. So what do these banks mean in these stories? They didn't play a crucial role in the plot of either story, though the bank did have more importance in "Invisible Man."

    After some thinking, I concluded that Morrison and Ellison included these banks to make the characters more realistic. In these stories, the reader probably got the idea that of Mary and the Bodwins as moral people, advocating for black people. However, including the banks seem to contrast with that idea. By adding the banks in these stories, the reader realizes that even though these people may advocate for black people, they won't be perfect. Whether they purposefully had these items or they were just the remnants of the slavery era, these characters still had connections to such ideas. Adding these banks can just help remind the reader of this fact. That's just what I have thought of so far, but what do you think?

The Search for a Message

            Does Hurston’s novel have a message? After reading two books so centralized around the problem of race, Hurston’s book feels somewhat underwhelming. Richard Wright seemed to think so, saying Hurston’s “novel carries no theme, no message, no thought.” However, part of the problem is that we came in probably expecting another novel based around race. While searching for the message on race, we can miss the Hurston’s discussion on gender and culture.

            In Hurston’s novel, we meet Janie, who is the black female protagonist of the story. As readers, we get to see her become independent. She learns how to do several skills, such as shooting a gun, which at that time, would be unusual for a woman to know how to do. Instead of staying in Eatonville to mourn the loss of her husband before remarrying, she does the unconventional and leaves with a stranger to eventually go work on the Muck. Janie doesn’t want to be treated as a wealthy person but instead wants to be working along with Tea Cake and his friends. Janie knows what she wants to do and does it. Present day, this sort of story wouldn’t be surprising, but when this book was actually published, it would have been a lot more surprising. The novel depicts the empowerment of Janie, which is somewhat revolutionary.

            Another key thing to remember is the culture depicted. As we learned in the documentary, Hurston grew up and studied these southern rural communities and had a deep interest in them. Their Eyes Were Watching God is a way for Hurston to show to the world what these communities were really like. She doesn’t show all her knowledge about those rural towns, but we get to see some aspects like the porch where the community members would come together to meet. The introduction of this culture can also go over our head, because of the time period we’re in. When this book was published, there were not really any books taking place in those rural areas, and if they did, the people were usually represented by what society thought they would act like. For Hurston to show these communities in this way would be something different and new.

            Overall, Hurston’s book did have a message to show us, but it can be easier to miss since her messages are much more drastic in another time period and are less race related. Having a black female protagonist would be normal by today’s standards, and we don’t really have a pre-existing idea of these rural communities from a previous time period. All of that plus the expectation for a message on race makes the novel seem much mellower. However, once put into perspective, I think it’s quite evident that Hurston’s novel has a message and a somewhat radical one at that.