First and foremost, I need to explain the situation I'm writing this in. I got six hours of sleep last night (I typically need nine.), I haven't had caffeine in like two weeks now, and I'm listening to dramatic music by Hans Zimmer on repeat. Needless to say, I'm kinda all over the place and may be thinking irrationally.
Secondly, I started thinking about conspiracies and Mumbo Jumbo during class today, after Mr. Mitchell brought up Antonin Scalia and the International Order of Saint Hubertus (fancy white guy secret society who hunt and wear purple robes...wouldn't purple scare off any animals?). And I wasn't thinking about conspiracies in the context of The Knights Templar, The Wallflower Order, or the Atonists. I was thinking about it in the nature of Mumbo Jumbo itself. Mumbo Jumbo is not an ordinary book. In fact, it's probably one of the most far out books I've ever read (the other candidate: The Mezzanine by Nicholson Baker, a brilliant novel about nothing yet everything, the Seinfeld of postmodernist literature, and a tenet to his 20th Century Novel Course).
Back on topic now...Mumbo Jumbo is far out, and I'm kinda far out right now. Anyways, conspiracy theories are far out, so I got that going for me. Plus, the whole irrational state I'm in makes me the perfect candidate to create a conspiracy theory? When's the last time you heard one from a completely sane, rational individual? That's what I thought!
SO...here it is: Mumbo Jumbo is not a fictional tale. It is an autobiographical tale, in which Papa LaBas is telling the story of himself in the 1920s through his current persona, Ishmael Reed. Much like Hinkle von Vampton, LaBas is immortal. I mean, if Vampton can be, then why can't LaBas? This is a pretty shaky conclusion, I must admit. But a few points in the epilogue cemented a few points in my theory, or at least presented a few rather specific similarities in the characters of LaBas and Reed. First off, LaBas is described as a "Ghede..., unafraid to march up to the President's Palace and demand tribute" (211). First off, the Ghede are "the family of Loa that embody the powers of death and fertility" (1). This seems to partially explain how the very old LaBas has managed to survive into the 1970s, and perhaps continue living into the present day. Secondly, the mention of the President's Palace, in the context of a collegiate lecture, seems to indicate the home of the University's President. Reed lectured at UC-Berkeley for 35 years, despite having been denied tenure at the university throughout his time there (2). Just as LaBas fought to get the ability to lecture on Jes Grew, Reed fought for tenure. And while LaBas kinda won unlike Reed, he mostly lost in that he wasn't taken seriously. Kids left early, showing up for the bare minimum, probably providing the bare minimum of attention. While LaBas got what he want, he didn't really, because what he did failed to amount to anything useful to many. The other major point that made me think LaBas and Reed were the same person was on the last page, describing how "people in the 60s said they couldn't follow him...[and even] walked out". This is quite reminiscent of the view many had on Reed's controversial writings of the '60s, when "satirizing the black literary tradition in a period of Black Power" did not help Reed make allies at the time (2). Both Reed and LaBas faced uphill struggles throughout time, and it makes me think that perhaps, just perhaps, Reed and LaBas are the same person. Or perhaps, in a much more likely case, Reed based LaBas, especially the later LaBas, on himself.
Anyways, it's just a crazy conspiracy theory, so take it with as few grains of salt as you think it deserves. ;)
Thanks for reading!
MJ
SOURCES USED
1: WikiPedia Page on Ghede
2: Modern American Poetry Bio on Reed, UIUC
I like the idea that LaBas is immortal, as it provides a nice parallel with the powers of the Wallflower Order and the Atonists. LaBas is shown to be sort of a direct rival to these groups and to be able to stop them, so it would make sense if he had similar abilities to them in terms of being immortal (there's also just something sort of aged and timeless about his character). In addition to the college stuff, another possible connection is that LaBas, in chapters 52 and 52, is the only character that gets an period of narration nearly that long. This, as well as the fact that LaBas's narration and views are quite similar to Reed's, show that LaBas is closer to Reed than the other characters, possibly because they are the same person.
ReplyDeleteHaha, I think it's cool how you came up with a conspiracy theory within the context of a novel that is itself a counternarrative. Like any conspiracy, you drew out some good evidence, and I do see some parallels between Papa LaBas's epilogue speech and the narrative voice of Ishmael Reed. If it's true that LaBas goes on so many tangents in his speech (we only read the last bit of his speech, but from what we saw, this conclusion seems pretty accurate), then that would line up well with the number of tangents that Reed throws in his novel. I also think that, like LaBas' speech, Mumbo Jumbo is the kind of book that a curious reader might pick up and "walk out on" if they only read the first few pages.
ReplyDeleteLike so many conspiracy theories, this one isn't as crazy as it sounds, once you spell it out. I definitely think there are grounds for viewing LaBas as kind of Reed's personal representative in the novel, and at a metafictional level, this makes sense: he *is* the one who can "explain" Jes Grew best to the reader, since he's the guy who made it up in the first place! So the novel represents something like Reed's version of a history paper on black culture in the 1920s, the Harlem Renaissance and jazz, and the culture war that this conflict reflects. He's just taken a highly unconventional format for exploring this historical analysis.
ReplyDeleteThere are connections to be made between conspiracy thinking and literary criticism: in both, we sift through a multifaceted and wide-ranging narrative looking for connections and clues that aren't apparent on the surface. I don't like thinking of what we do in English as uncovering "hidden meaning," but there is an element of assembling a coherent set of connections (with evidence) when we're presenting an analytical argument. We are, in a way, suggesting that an author is conspiring to get us to see some element of plot or character in a particular way. And there's sometimes that same ambiguity, Am I *projecting* these connections, or perceiving "real" connections that are actually there?
I suspect that you are going to thoroughly enjoy _Libra._