Chapters 52 functions as a standalone postmodern work in many ways, but not necessarily in the same ways that Mumbo Jumbo as a whole is. The line between myth and fiction is unclear, and it is self-referential in a humorous and engaging way, incorporating pop culture references wherever possible and using very modern casual language (Osiris giving Isis his "rod", Set pulling chariots to the side of the road to ask for licenses, etc). At the same time, the metanarrative's agenda is very present, and Reed is unapologetically biased against the Atonist power structure, with whom he bunches Moses and Jesus to name a few. However I would argue that these provocative/offensive aspects of his narrative are included consciously; Reed is replicating the Western-biased metanarratives which are ubiquitous in America, and instead flipping the perspective completely. Not only is he making the unfairness more apparent to a white audience, but he is also showing how incredibly convincing and powerful metanarratives can be when using limited evidence to make larger conclusions. In addition, Reed's fusion of fiction and history and both casual and sincere language makes his narrative much more appealing, which in itself is a postmodern invention that we are using more and more often as a society when telling our stories.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Chapters 52 and History as Fiction
Mumbo Jumbo was certainly a unique experience: at times very entertaining, but equally confusing and full of abstruse references. Initially, Chapters 52 felt incredibly irrelevant to the loose plot that Reed had been constructing in the novel, but ironically it is this arc that really forms Mumbo Jumbo's alternate perspective into a coherent metanarrative. As we mentioned in class, it seems that Reed is speaking directly through Papa LaBas, and the rest of the novel merely serves to warm us up to this condensed paradigm of American and world history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One thing you mentioned briefly that our article for our panel presentation talked about is how Papa LaBas's speech inside chapter 52 is out of character: It is more casual + objective that the rest of his "formal" speaking throughout the novel. The article agued that because he (like Reed) changes speaking styles throughout the novel, they are more "skilled" and fluid than the other "consistent" speaking styles of the Atonists.
ReplyDeleteI had not considered that Reed subverts the biblical story of Moses to illustrate how easy it is to get fit a story to your own meta narrative. You could probably extend that argument to the whole book; we're being told a story we've heard before about a time period we're familiar with, but with a whole different set of base assumptions. For example, the facts of an art museum are the same, but they are presented in a radically different way from what we're used to and we get the Art Detention Center. I don't think I agree though that this is what Reed is doing. Pointing out the fragility of any meta narrative would only undermine his own. I think he really wants to convince us of the meta narrative he presents, so saying "Look, any story could fit these facts!" wouldn't serve his purposes.
ReplyDeleteYeah it's hard to know exactly what Reed is doing by including these seemingly absurd details in his narrative. It's clear that he does believe in his agenda, but he isn't afraid of having fun with it at the same time, which he sees as a flaw in more traditional metanarratives.
DeleteI think that Reed very much is trying to show that any metanarrative lacks credibility to some level. He has so many ridiculous elements in his story, and I don't think it's likely that he is trying to convince us that Osiris was actually killed for inventing dances or that Warren G. Harding was black, rather, he's making these absurd claims in order to display that there's no way of knowing exactly what happened and that his version technically could fit with the "facts" as well, which serves to undermine the popular and generally accepted Western metanarrative. While Reed definitely does want to convince the reader of his general point regarding how Jes Grew is a good thing and how there are major problems with Western civilization, I think that his specific version of events is not meant to be taken too seriously or believed, and it's fragility is intentional in order to point out similar flaws in all metanarratives.
DeleteYou mention that he's making unfairness more apparent to white people. I feel like that sounds too simple to say. He's emerging his readers into a world where we must critically think about the ways non-Western cultures are perceived by Westerners. Not only is it a message to respect black culture more, but it is challenging the Western idea of superiority. I agree that he definitely switches the perspective and favors black culture in this novel.
ReplyDelete