Mumbo Jumbo and Ragtime: My Initial Thoughts.

After observing the lukewarm to negative reactions to Ragtime, I naturally assumed that Mumbo Jumbo, a book that in my mind tests the reader's patience even more, would receive the same if not higher level of hostility. To my surprise, the vocal majority was more than accepting of Ishmael Reed's experimental rollercoaster. Even the most vocally opposed to Doctorow changed their tune for Mumbo Jumbo.

Now, I feel I can count myself among those who, for the most part, like what they've found so far in Mumbo Jumbo. Ishmael Reed's writing is so crisp and engaging that I'm always ready to tackle more. I'm also a big fan of his ability to mix the fictional and the historical so realistically that they blend together like a complex watercolor of storytelling. I am occasionally thrown back by Reed's constant attempts to play outside of the modern conventions of writing and syntax, but I don't think this will provoke anything more than a few raised eyebrows and an aggressive rolling of the eyes. Seeing as I like the book, I don't have a problem with the sudden shift in opinion towards the positive. What I do have a problem with is the continued negativity towards Doctorow's Ragtime.

I found it difficult to support the newfound positive attitudes of my classmates while they continued to retroactively criticize Doctorow's work. This isn't because I'm a person with some sort of all-or-nothing policy in regards to literary taste, but because I couldn't quite understand the path of logic between why Reed works and Doctorow doesn't. From what I heard from the more vocal portions of our class, Doctorow's use of postmodernist style (such as the references to research being done on Coalhouse Walker) was distracting and detracted from their enjoyment of the piece. Reed, on the other hand, used postmodernist style in a much more effective and enjoyable fashion.

I'll try and explain my problem with this line of thinking. In my mind, the use of more postmodernist techniques by Doctorow make the book seem more realistically steeped in history as opposed to fiction. This was used, not only as a way to draw the reader in, but also as a way of expressing Doctorow's belief that both history and fiction are simply composed of narrative. Now, when I look at what Reed is doing with his book, I see much less method within the madness. Certain elements such as the constant metaphor of cultural revolution as some sort of toxic disease and the treatment of the first chapter as something of a cold open are interestingly executed, but for every element that works, I seem to find five that are strewn about the text without any reason or meaning. Things like the seemingly random use of pictures and headscratchingly blunt footnotes don't appear to serve any purpose other than to shout to the reader "I DON'T FIT INTO YOUR RULES, MAN!!!"

I feel you can definitely debate whether or not the elements Doctorow introduces to his narrative are effective, but I don't think anyone can claim that they weren't incorporated with a particular reasoning in mind. I don't feel the same standard applies to Reed. He seems so focused on rebelling against some unknown oppressive force that he forgets to back up his strange displays with some form of meaning or purpose. I feel Hanan was able to sum up my opinion well in class today, if a bit clumsily. To paraphrase, she stated that she understood that the mentality seems to be "why not?", but ... why... why not? With what purpose does Reed do the things that he does? And what exactly is he rebelling against? It almost seems reminiscent of a young teen walking down the street with his underwear on the outside of his pants. "Why are you wearing them like that?" you would ask him, and his responce would be "BECAUSE I'M INDEPENDENT OF THE STANDARDS OF YOUR CRACKPOT SOCIETY!"

Boy, you sure showed me...

Aside from the fact that this "statement" was unprovoked and will doubtfully receive any reaction aside from initial curiosity, the boy has also managed to remove any practical benefit from wearing underwear. So too has Reed sacrificed some of the practical benefits of style and syntax for some semblance of a rebellious statement. This is why I have trouble understanding the strong dislike for the style of Doctorow, while Reed is viewed as a more natural and effective author.

I want to reiterate that I do enjoy Mumbo Jumbo so far despite the flaws I've discussed, and that the purpose of this blog was to garner some form of appreciation for the work of Doctorow, and not necessarily spurn any fan of Reed's. I feel like every time I reread  or discuss a chapter of Reed's I am able to spot another postmodernist element which bears heavy meaning and purpose for the writing. The same, however has been true for my reading and exploration of Doctorow, and I hope that those most vocal critics of the author give his writing the same chance at real analysis of style and meaning that has been given to Reed.