Toy Story, Mumbo Jumbo, and Overthinking
We're only a few days into Mumbo Jumbo, but it's already a wild and confusing ride. Ishmael Reed shoves us into uncomfortable territory by breaking every convention he possibly can. He's got random sections in italics, no quotation marks, then suddenly quotation marks, and most notably, puts the first chapter of the book before the publication and title pages. Through this odd choice of ordering, he forces us to recognize that Mumbo Jumbo is a book. We consciously have to flip the pages, noticing the copyright and the ironic disclaimer that all of Reed's characters are fictional -- any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. We actually read the epigraphs for the first time because they're shoved into our faces. "This is a book," Reed says. "Think about how it is a book. It is not real."
Or is that what he's saying? We're not very far into Mumbo Jumbo, so I can't honestly say. His style is certainly one that I would describe as "got your nose" -- that is, he seems to enjoy tricking us. Any author that writes in such a bizarre manner enjoys messing with their audience. Or at least, that's what I think. I was immediately suspicious of Reed's motives, imagining him cackling in his office as he envisioned his readers overthinking the meaning of him placing the first chapter before the publication information when all he wanted to accomplish was breaking a simple convention for kicks and giggles. However, I think it's more likely he wants us to think at least a little bit about it. He seems to have put a fair amount of thought into this book (how could you write a book as convoluted as Mumbo Jumbo, have it make some amount of sense, and not put thought into it?), so assume he has a purpose for messing with us.
But what is that purpose? Why is it important that we actively recognize Mumbo Jumbo is a book? To some extent, I think Reed wants us to think about the meaning of fiction, which is quite a daunting task. There's a certain balance of fact and fiction in Mumbo Jumbo that doesn't entirely fit together, similar to Ragtime's eclectic blend of history and fictional historical events. It's a blend that brings in real names we know in conjunction with big events that definitely would have been in a history book had they happened. That blend triggers our brain to mix fact and fiction, try to reconcile them, and get confused.
To help explain what I'm talking about, take the Toy Story 2 end credits bloopers as an example. Pixar creates blooper reels for a lot of their movies (such as Monsters Inc), where the animated characters are taken to be real actors filming on a set. But the thing that always got me about Toy Story 2 was that there were humans filming the toys, implying the humans actually knew toys were alive in the Toy Story universe. However, that implication undermines the entire premise of the Toy Story franchise, which is that the humans don't know the toys are alive. So is Toy Story a film about a horrible alternate universe where the humans don't know their toys are alive, released in a universe where humans do know their toys are alive? Or is it something entirely lifted out of another universe where toys are alive and placed into our universe where toys aren't alive? Essentially, the universe where toys and humans got together to film Toy Story is a metanarrative containing the smaller narrative of the Toy Story movie itself. This work of fiction has been created and placed in our world. (And don't even get me started on the theory that all Pixar movies exist in the same universe, that is a mindfuck in metanarratives of its own.)
You can see how easily Toy Story gets you thinking about the connection between fiction and fact, between our world and theirs. Ragtime is similar: it starts in a world we confidently recognize as the America of the early 1900s. It is factually accurate, up until Coalhouse goes off the rails, then we're stuck considering what world we're supposed to be in. For those that have read Angry Black White Boy, it functions on the same idea. It starts in our "regular" world, then jumps into crazy hypnosis territory. Mumbo Jumbo appears to be taking the same path of going off the rails, it's just being less subtle. Reed creates massive events that don't fit into our world as we know it, such as Jes Grew, forcing us to confront how we think about fiction and its place in our world. By purposefully making sure we notice the page declaring Mumbo Jumbo as a work of fiction, Reed simply ensures we'll think about it even more.
Or is that what he's saying? We're not very far into Mumbo Jumbo, so I can't honestly say. His style is certainly one that I would describe as "got your nose" -- that is, he seems to enjoy tricking us. Any author that writes in such a bizarre manner enjoys messing with their audience. Or at least, that's what I think. I was immediately suspicious of Reed's motives, imagining him cackling in his office as he envisioned his readers overthinking the meaning of him placing the first chapter before the publication information when all he wanted to accomplish was breaking a simple convention for kicks and giggles. However, I think it's more likely he wants us to think at least a little bit about it. He seems to have put a fair amount of thought into this book (how could you write a book as convoluted as Mumbo Jumbo, have it make some amount of sense, and not put thought into it?), so assume he has a purpose for messing with us.
But what is that purpose? Why is it important that we actively recognize Mumbo Jumbo is a book? To some extent, I think Reed wants us to think about the meaning of fiction, which is quite a daunting task. There's a certain balance of fact and fiction in Mumbo Jumbo that doesn't entirely fit together, similar to Ragtime's eclectic blend of history and fictional historical events. It's a blend that brings in real names we know in conjunction with big events that definitely would have been in a history book had they happened. That blend triggers our brain to mix fact and fiction, try to reconcile them, and get confused.
To help explain what I'm talking about, take the Toy Story 2 end credits bloopers as an example. Pixar creates blooper reels for a lot of their movies (such as Monsters Inc), where the animated characters are taken to be real actors filming on a set. But the thing that always got me about Toy Story 2 was that there were humans filming the toys, implying the humans actually knew toys were alive in the Toy Story universe. However, that implication undermines the entire premise of the Toy Story franchise, which is that the humans don't know the toys are alive. So is Toy Story a film about a horrible alternate universe where the humans don't know their toys are alive, released in a universe where humans do know their toys are alive? Or is it something entirely lifted out of another universe where toys are alive and placed into our universe where toys aren't alive? Essentially, the universe where toys and humans got together to film Toy Story is a metanarrative containing the smaller narrative of the Toy Story movie itself. This work of fiction has been created and placed in our world. (And don't even get me started on the theory that all Pixar movies exist in the same universe, that is a mindfuck in metanarratives of its own.)
You can see how easily Toy Story gets you thinking about the connection between fiction and fact, between our world and theirs. Ragtime is similar: it starts in a world we confidently recognize as the America of the early 1900s. It is factually accurate, up until Coalhouse goes off the rails, then we're stuck considering what world we're supposed to be in. For those that have read Angry Black White Boy, it functions on the same idea. It starts in our "regular" world, then jumps into crazy hypnosis territory. Mumbo Jumbo appears to be taking the same path of going off the rails, it's just being less subtle. Reed creates massive events that don't fit into our world as we know it, such as Jes Grew, forcing us to confront how we think about fiction and its place in our world. By purposefully making sure we notice the page declaring Mumbo Jumbo as a work of fiction, Reed simply ensures we'll think about it even more.
First of all, thanks for making me question my childhood by putting a postmodern spin on them, I will never be able to look at these kids movies from that childish perspective again. In all seriousness, the idea of starting in a world you're familiar with and then completely changing it on the reader is something that all those books have in common. Even with Mumbo Jumbo, the beginning might have been a little confusing, but like we discussed in class, the post-apocalyptic/zombie universe is something that we are familiar with and doesn't seem completely foreign to us in the opening scene.
ReplyDeleteQuestioning all the Pixar movies is definitely new for me. I don’t honestly think the creators of toy story were thinking about it that deeply, and really just wanted to produce a children’s movie, but you never know. I definitely think that Ishmael Reed was deliberately trying to confuse us and make us question everything we think we know.
DeleteI was struggling with the same question. What is Reed trying to accomplish specifically through his style? I think he is reminding us this is a book, and his creation. I'm excited to see where this book goes because it seems right now part of his goal is to flip the historical narrative, and give a voice to Voodoo culture and depict white western history in a new light. Maybe the style of his book relates to this goal by challenging western norms about publishing?
ReplyDeleteEveryday when I read Mumbo Jumbo, I attempt to comprehend what is going on, and especially what Ishmael Reed was thinking. Reading the Pixar Theory, I felt the same things, "Its possible, though arguably not probable". I feel like Ishmael Reed probably would find some sort of satisfaction in watching us struggle through the book. Maybe Reed just wanted to make sure people talked about the book? TBH I have no idea why, or what purpose it serves other than frustrating the heck out of certain readers... :/
ReplyDeleteI kind of think that Reed makes this book so confusing so that we question everything we believe to be true. The elaborate back story between Hinkle Von Hampton, Osiris, Set, Papa Labas, etc, we question whether or not this is plausible. Is there some religion-based group out there trying to control music, culture, or dancing? Maybe not, but nobody can really know for sure.
DeleteI was just thinking about this Toy Story thing the other day! Thanks for bringing all of Pixar into it and confusing me even more...
ReplyDeleteI like this point you make about Reed trying to make us think about the "meta" and narrative nature of his book. I'm not sure, however, that I agree with you that this is all just to make us think about the constructive aspects that go into writing a novel -- I feel like someone who has found hundreds of REAL sources (and made up tens of fake ones) to include as a footnote would have done everything for a reason. I think the "think again" effect the novel has is more of a side effect of Reed's style than the main reason for it.
(On a different note, it's also very cool how "real" history can be incorporated into this retelling of the 1920s! Doctorow did it with Ragtime, but the level of detail Reed has in his book is just incredible.)
Oh, I definitely agree he did everything for a reason. When I say Reed wants us to think about fiction, I mean he wants us to think about the question we've been asking ourselves: how does fiction fit into our historical narrative? I don't think that's his main purpose of the book, but it's certainly something he wants us to consider.
DeleteI certainly agree that Mumbo Jumbo takes the same paths as the other books, but it’s way more off the rails than any book I’ve ever read. Factually, I know jazz came about during this book’s time period but other than that, there is a lot of fiction. Take for example the thousands year history and feud of Osiris and Set. I don’t think that really happened, or is still happening, but it could be true. I think Reed wants us to question what we know as history, and whether it’s really true or not.
ReplyDelete