Reed's Version of the Osiris Myth

Reading the lengthly history in chapter 52 made me curious how much Reed stuck to the actual myth of Osiris.  While looking for this myth online, it quickly became apparent to me that it is nearly impossible to define what the "actual" myth was.  However, I did find a source that looks reliable.  This is an English translation from Plutarch's greek recording of the myth.  

The first thing I noticed when reading this translation was that instead of being called "Set" this character was called "Typhoon."  I think this is probably because Set is the god of storms and disorder among other things.  This makes it likely that the Greeks would have called him by their word for storms and disorder, and then when translating to English this would have been translated as "Typhoon." 

I found no mention of dancing throughout the myth on this site.  This is a vast difference from how Reed focuses on Osiris's dancing as his most important characteristic in Mumbo Jumbo.  It is therefore apparent that Reed is not using this story as it is generally accepted in ancient history.  There is also no mention of a text being recorded about these dances that were not in this version of the myth.  However, the Book of Thoth, as Reed calls the text of Jes Grew, is mentioned elsewhere in Egyptian history.  Instead of containing dance moves it is said to have 2 spells, one allowing the user to talk with animals and the other enabling the user to see the gods.  

Another discrepancy between Reed's version and the source I found is how Set/Typhoon kills Osiris.  In Mumbo Jumbo Set brings Osiris back to Egypt by spreading rumors and then challenging Osiris to "Preform the feat of the Germ" (165) and be planted in the Nile to spring forth again.  Osiris eventually agrees to this challenge and is sealed inside a coffer using nails and molten lead.  He does fine, laying under the waters in a "death-like slumber," but when Set and his followers open the coffer, they mutilate him to make it look like he was torn apart by fishes.

According to the source I found, Osiris returns from his travels without any influence from Typhoon, who pretends to be a loyal servant.  However, Set has formed a group of 72 conspirators and laid his plans, in secret obtaining exact measurements of Osiris's body which he uses to construct a perfectly fitting, decorated chest.  He then brings this chest to a feast and says that whoever fits into the chest most exactly will win it.  When Osiris tries it he fits perfectly of course, but Typhoon and his followers immediately close the chest and seal it with nails and molten lead.  They then put this chest into the nile and it is carried out to the sea.  Later, Osiris's dead body is found and Typhoon cuts it into 14 pieces and scatters them across Egypt.

I think that by comparing these two stories it is clear that Reed had read the version found in this source or a similar one.  He uses the same idea of a chest sealed by nails and molten lead which is thrown into the nile.  The question is then why did Reed change the details of this story.  It is clear why he made the changes he did regarding the dancing Osiris and the Book of Thoth, but why did he modify the way Osiris is murdered?

The Center of Art Detention

I think that Ishmael Reed renames the Metropolitan Museum of Art as the "Center of Art Detention" because he is making a statement about how western civilization both exploits non western cultures, but is also afraid of their influence.  The image Reed conjures of a museum being like a prison for the art, much of it from african, asian and south american cultures, but at the same time we know that people pay to see this art from other parts of the world.  In this way, western culture is making a profit  off of other cultures.  However, western civilization is also afraid of other cultures as can be seen in the description Reed gives of the Knights Templar.

[Hugues de Payens] is founding the "Knights Templar," the "poor fellows of Christ."  They are a scraggly bunch who look as if they haven't bathed in months.  The are a kind of Tac Squad for Western Civilization; a mighty highway patrol assigned to  protect the pilgrims en route to the Holy Land from attack by infidels and robbers. (56)

 The very fact that western civilization needs a "Tac Squad" as wide reaching and powerful as the Knights Templar supposedly are in this novel means that there is some serious threat to western civilization that needs to be defended against.  The quote above says that the threat is infidels and robbers, but I think what this really means is non-western civilization.  This is because the cultures that these infidels and robbers come from are non-western cultures, or at least in 1118 A.D. they were non-western.  With that in mind, this quote then reads: The Knights Templar are a kind of Tac Squad to defend Western Civilization against the rest of the cultures of the world.  The "Center of Art Detention" is one of the parts of this defense, containing and controlling the art taken from other cultures by western civilization.  The word "Detention" in Reed's name for this museum tells us that the control this museum has over the art takes a much more containment based form, rather than promoting the art of the non-western cultures represented in this museum.  Using this museum, Reed forms a kind of metaphor for how America treats the rest of the world's cultures in this time period, specifically African culture.  America takes in the valuable parts of the culture, but at the same time stops the culture from spreading and evolving.  Essentially, America ends up controlling the cultures of other people like the Metropolitan Museum controls art.

The Seed of Younger Brother's Revolution

When Younger Brother offers to make bombs for Coalhouse, Doctorow writes, "Thus did Younger Brother commence his career as an outlaw and a revolutionary.  However, I think that this "career" started far earlier in Doctorow's novel.  In fact, I will argue that he started on this path as soon as Evelyn Nesbit left Younger Brother.  This shook him out of the daydream that he had wished for since the start of the novel, but by luck actually got to experience, only to have it turn bitter and come to an end.  He had always been a bit of an outsider, but I think this is what pushed him over the edge into becoming a true outcast from society.  

The next big step he took was when he was mistaken for a police spy standing outside the offices of Emma Goldman's revolutionary magazine.  He is taken inside and ends up at a congress in the Cooper Union in support of the Mexican Revolution.  This time instead of being at such a meeting because Evelyn was there, it seems that he attends because he is drawn to Goldman and her ideas.  He feels ashamed that he, from a relatively wealthy family, has nothing with which to support the cause while the working poor around him all find some change to give.  I think that this is another turning point, the point where he wants to contribute to a revolutionary cause.  We clearly see how strong Younger Brother begins to feel about his ideals when he responds to Father's comment that Coalhouse would have been better off just driving away when he could and forgetting the matter.

Younger Brother bristled.  You speak like a man who has never been tested in his principles, he said. Father was so outraged by this remark that he could find no words.

This firm belief in justice is the basis of all revolution, and Younger Brother obviously has this belief. Of course, the real leap he makes towards becoming an outlaw like Coalhouse is when he seeks out the man himself.  He shows how he truly wants to rebel by the amount of effort he puts into joining him.  An easy way out without feeling like a coward would be to put little efforts in to attempts to communicate such that he never actually got Coalhouse's attention.  However, Younger Brother is no coward when it comes to this revolution, and successfully joins the small group of black fighters.  This officially commences his career, though the seeds had been planted long before.

"Adams" as an Allegory

Adams is a very odd story, about conflict between two neighbors who both seem a little crazy. On the surface level it makes very little sense, but with one assumption, most things fit into place. Take the narrator, Rodgers, to represent George W. Bush. Instantly, it makes much more sense. Adams is then Saddam Hussein (move the s to the front of Adams and it becomes Sadam). The opening of the story is symbolic of 9/11, the infamous terrorist attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists. Saddam Hussein initially praised 9/11 saying, "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." With this premise, the rest of the short story is then a commentary on the reaction of the United States, led by President George W. Bush.

The narrator's reaction to seeing Adams standing in his underwear, facing his children's room, is to "wonk" him a bit, beating him up and kicking him out. Then, Rodgers takes the fight to Adams' house and goes over that evening to beat him up again. This is symbolic of the reaction of President Bush to 9/11, using it to eventually start a war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Later, Rodgers distributes notes around the neighborhood as well as to his neighbor's children explaining how he found Adams standing in his underwear, facing the bedroom of Rodgers's kids. This is referring to how Bush used 9/11 to gather lots of international support for military action.

When Rodgers breaks into Adams' house and steals all of his weapons, this refers to Iraq's violations of international law regarding development of weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, his subsequent break in to steal all the chemicals in the house refers to one of the ways Bush justified invading Iraq: he claimed Iraq had chemical weapons including anthrax. However, Rodgers had much more success finding chemical weapons than Bush did.

Perhaps this was not truly Saunders' intention for this story, but I think it makes sense for the most part. If this story is read as an allegory for 9/11 and the Iraq war, what sort of commentary is Saunders making? I do realize that this allegory does not fit perfectly, but I think it fits well enough to be worth discussing.

The Superior Ysrael

In the short story "Ysrael" by Junot Díaz, I think that the boys in the Dominican Republic bully Ysrael because he is simply better than them and they can't stand it.  That is, apart from the physical appearance of his face.  The seize on his mutilated face and mock him for it, despite his superiority in nearly every other way.  They all admit that he by far a better runner than they are.  For example, on page seven, Yunior  describes his first encounter with Ysrael.

He picked up the bundle and ran down the alley.  Some other boys saw him an wheeled around, howling but, coño, could he run.

It is obvious that the boys, or Yunior at least, have a certain amount of respect for Ysrael's physical prowess.  Díaz also makes us respect him as readers for his strength and perseverance in his training in the second story focused on him, "No Face."

He goes to the guanábana tree and does his pull-ups, nearly fifty now, and then picks up the café dehuller and holds it to his chest for a forty count.  His arms, chest, and neck bulge and the skin around his temple grows tight, about to split.  But no! He's unbeatable and drops the dehuller with a fat Yes. (153)

I found this passage to be very impressive and it certianly made me impressed by Ysrael's commitment to his training.  However, is this training self-imposed, or is it forced on him by the rest of the people of the island who are constantly fighting against him?  I think that it was forced on him as it was necessary for his survival, but then he grew proud of his strength and now strives to better himself in that regard.

When Rafa and Yunior find him towards the end of the first story, Yunior asks if Ysrael is still interested in wrestling.  Ysrael says that yes he is.  This seems to make Rafa uncomfortable as he does not want to actually wrestle Ysrael but also does not want to lose face.  He instead finds a way out of a fight, saying "You wanna try it pendejo?"  Here, Rafa is relying on the fact that Ysrael is tired of fighting everyone he meets and would rather back down than wrestle Rafa.  The first time I read this story, before I read "No Face," I did not realize this subtlety since I thought that Rafa really was the stronger wrestler.  However, in the second story it is made clear that Ysrael would have won, since he beat four boys at once who jumped him.  This means that Rafa must have know he could not possibly win a fair fight with Ysrael.  Therefore, he takes after the rest of the bullies in that country and starts an unfair one.  Rafa suddenly smashes a bottle on Ysrael's head and Ysrael falls.  Despite his superiority, he is still defeated by Rafa who can't stand the fact that the disfigured Ysrael is superior to him, and uses trickery to make himself feel better.

A Suicide Note

I think "Go Like This" by Lorrie Moore is really a suicide note in the guise of the last story of a writer with cancer.  This suicide note is written by Elizabeth, the narrator of the story.  This story is made up of fragments spanning many days leading up to the suicide itself.  Elizabeth writes about having cancer, her beliefs regarding her planned suicide, and her interactions with her family and friends.

Towards the end of the story, Elizabeth writes about telling her daughter, Blaine, of her plans for suicide.  She writes "I got a chance, after all, to say you're young and probably don't understand" (78).  To me this shows that Elizabeth realizes that it would be impossible for her young daughter to understand all the issues surrounding the planned suicide.  Also, she realizes how if she let others explain to her daughter when she is older, Blaine would not get her mother's true beliefs, just a second hand interpretation from her father or other family.

Elizabeth feels very strongly about her beliefs, strongly enough to kill herself.  Furthermore, she plans this in spite of the fact that she says "well maybe I'm not going to heaven" (80)  A person with such strong beliefs would not want her daughter to live a life not understanding why her mother killed herself, and what her mother really believed in that made her do such a thing.

In parts of the story, it seems as if Elizabeth is justifying her decision and her reason to her reader.  "I say I have chosen suicide as the most rational and humane alternative to my cancer, an act no so much of self sacrifice as of beauty, of sparing" (71).  This is written in the context of announcing her plans to a gathering of family and friends.  However, I think she also means to justify herself to the reader in this passage.  The point of the story generally seems more focused on her thought process as she chooses suicide than just a history of events.  She clearly presents her beliefs and logical reasons for suicide.  For these reasons, I think the real purpose of this story is to explain to her daughter, and also to serve as a permanent record of why she killed herself so that no one twists her ideas in to something she didn't truly believe.

A Reaction to Racism

Twice in "Previous Condition" by James Baldwin, Peter, the narrator, has sudden violent urges. These seem totally out of character for him, as he has an average temperament except for these moments.   Each of these urges is directed at a white person and each is a reaction to racism. The first time this occurs is when the landlady kicks Peter out of the room Jules rented for him, and he has a sudden urge to kill her.

I started to close the door again but she moved and stuck her foot in the way.  I wanted to kill her, I watched her stupid, wrinkled frightened white face and I wanted to take a club, a hatchet, and bring it down with all my might, splitting her skull down the middle where she parted her iron-grey hair.  (91)

The thoughts running through Peter's head at this moment are very violent and graphic.  I think it is out of the ordinary to have sudden urges to kill.  However, I am not in Peter's position, so I cannot be a perfect judge.  By this I mean that Peter is under stresses that I will never experience since he is black and I am not.  It is completely understandable, in my opinion, that the frustration that racism causes could lead to such initially surprising, violent thoughts.  Interestingly, in having such thoughts Peter is becoming exactly what racist people expect him to be: violent and inhuman.  The second time he is taken by this strange urge is on the subway towards the end of the story.  A young, white couple has just gotten on the subway.

He said something I didn't catch and she looked at him and at me and the smile died.  She stood so that she faced him and had her back to me.  I looked back at the ads.  Then I hated them.  I wanted to do something to make them hurt, something that would crack the pink-cheeked mask. (99)

This time Peter's thought is not as violent, but is its also less provoked by the white people.   Is it normal for him to have such thoughts?  Is it ok?  He certainly has good reason to be angry, he is the subject of racism which gives him every right to be angry.  Would this justify his actions if he carried through with these thoughts?  Baldwin hits on something essential to understanding racism here and I think it is important to grasp this idea.