In class, we discussed whether the alternate history presented in Mumbo Jumbo was historical, fictional, or mythological in nature. I personally think that it existed in between all three of these categories. The usage of Egyptian mythology and historical/religious settings and characters makes it so that placing Chapter 52 and Chapter 52 in a definitive category difficult. Some people may say that it is easy to say that it is not historical because none of these events have been documented or have any basis in reality as far as we know. However, under a postmodernist interpretation - specifically either Maza or Doctorow - one can argue that these chapters represent their own view of history. Maza would say that the lack of evidence does not disprove it, but rather makes this as a valid alternative account of historical events. On the other hand, Doctorow would say that the "fictional" nature of the characters and events does not make it less real, pointing towards the fundamental meaning that the characters have. The idea that the story conveys makes it more real than whether or not the actual event/character existed.
But the idea of the narrative given being fiction or myth is a little bit more complicated. I would say that if we accept this story as having historical meaning, we automatically are not placing it entirely in the realm of fiction. The criteria for mythology is more subtle, but I believe that a myth has to have the preexisting requirement of being passed down by many people and being shared by people over large stretches of time. An interesting argument that can be made is that in the world of Mumbo Jumbo, this story might as well be mythology since it satisfies these requirements (sort of, not a lot of people knew about the origin, but I think the point still stands). So the chapters are in a gray area regarding fiction and mythology as well.
These chapters and our inability to firmly place them in one category or another really summarize both Mumbo Jumbo and postmodernist thought as a whole. And looking back on it, I suppose that while these chapters - and the book as a whole - might have read like a bunch of mumbo jumbo at first, their confusing and "inter-genre" nature makes them an interesting read at least.
PS: I'm still not fully sold on postmodernism, but the semester isn't over yet so maybe that's subject to change.
I think these chapters are kind of a turducken. I think it is kind of myth as history as fiction. The stories they are telling are definitely myth because they are magical and could never exist at all whether a postmodernist says it did or not. But these myths are being treated as history and explain all the events that have led from it. But this history leads into a fictional story. It is kind of one in another for me.
ReplyDeleteOn a base level, mythology instinctually struck me as the correct categorization for this work and I couldn't tell why. When I thought about it, the idea of Jes Grew always being around and coming back to power from time to time reminds me of a folktale or something of that sort. The inclusion of elements of Egyptian mythology added to that case for me. I also see a compelling argument for fiction. I am also not sold on postmodernism so history takes last place for me, though I completely see how it can be read as symbolic of a genuine historical occurrence, but I guess the way I view historical works as a category is too narrow to fully include it. It was a good notebook prompt and you brought an interesting case for each category.
ReplyDeleteWhile thinking about this, I thought it was also interesting to see it from the perspectives of the characters in the novel. To them, it's like lore, or even history, but it seems pretty undisputed because of how impacted the characters are by it. Reed tries to write within the gaps of history and fiction so that the reader can't question if it technically happened or not, since there's no evidence it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's certainly possible that the book just has elements of all three - it's not really one or the other. There are parts that are clearly mythical (gods n whatnot, people have passed stories of them down), parts that are clearly historical, and parts that are clearly fictional. If I had to group it into one category, I would say that as a story, it's fictional. But, I think that some books (such as this one) could be placed in a specific category, but shouldn't.
ReplyDelete