I'm going to be honest here, the first part of Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed has been quite confusing to me. The reason for this may just be that my reading level is not as high as I once thought or just that we went straight from reading Ragtime to this book. Ragtime was about as clear cut a book can get. There weren't many points where I was confused as to what was actually happening in the narrative because it was written in a very clear, history book kind of voice.
Mumbo Jumbo on the other hand starts out with the first chapter on the first page. Sounds reasonable enough but I really mean the first page; before all of the publication information which comes right after the first chapter. I don't know why this through me off but it did. Along with Reed's use of numbers. He often, but not always, replaces the word one with the character 1. Even when he isn't referring to the number one (which ideally would still be typed out). I always thought this writing style was something that was born with the age of computers and the instant gratification of texting (and texting abbreviations); but this book was published in 1972.
I know these little alterations have no actual impact on the information being conveyed but it was these little things that made me do a double take and frankly annoyed me. Every book I have ever read was different than this so it is hard to suddenly switch. Hopefully I have an easier time with the rest of the book now that I am used to this style of writing.
Mumbo Jumbo on the other hand starts out with the first chapter on the first page. Sounds reasonable enough but I really mean the first page; before all of the publication information which comes right after the first chapter. I don't know why this through me off but it did. Along with Reed's use of numbers. He often, but not always, replaces the word one with the character 1. Even when he isn't referring to the number one (which ideally would still be typed out). I always thought this writing style was something that was born with the age of computers and the instant gratification of texting (and texting abbreviations); but this book was published in 1972.
I know these little alterations have no actual impact on the information being conveyed but it was these little things that made me do a double take and frankly annoyed me. Every book I have ever read was different than this so it is hard to suddenly switch. Hopefully I have an easier time with the rest of the book now that I am used to this style of writing.
For some reason (probably because I first read this novel back when "text" was only a noun), the connection btwn Reed's style of deploying numerals and texting conventions hadn't occurred to me. It's funny that it makes it seem ultra-contemporary.
ReplyDeleteA version of this confusion I've encountered before: a few years back, it was pretty common in hip-hop for song titles to include numerals for homophone words ("2U = "to you"; "4 my homies" = "for my homies," etc.)--even 2Pac's stage name (a rendering of "Tupac") is a version of this practice. I would hear from students and other young people how this was an invention on the part of the rappers, but it has always been clear to me that this whole thing (like so much in hip-hop) can be traced back to my man Prince (who hasn't spelled out "to" or "for" or "see" since 1981 and has song titles like "I Would Die 4 U" and "When 2 R in Love").