🙈😈🙈 Ranking our Reads (CONTROVERSIAL?) 🙈😈🙈

I’ve really enjoyed this class. I think writing the semester project made me appreciate how hard it is to work history into fiction in this post-modernist way. The most interesting theme of the class that runs through the novels to me is the way the author can do whatever they want in creating their own history. As long as there are gaps in the real history, those gaps could hold these stories and tales the author wants to create. For example, Harry Houdini getting into the car accident right in front of the little boy’s house. I want to take the time here to create a ranked list of each book we read this semester.

6th Place: Course Packet Readings

I want to make this list based on both interesting and how much it influenced the class. I don’t mean this as disrespect to the curriculum, but I do think the readings by White and McHale were a little boring. I think that’s only because it doesn't get involved with characters like how novels do. But, I think our discussions at the beginning of the year were vastly important because before this class I had no idea what post-modernism was. So, it’s important to read. Unfortunately, these readings still fall in last place.

5th Place: Mumbo Jumbo

Mumbo Jumbo is a fascinating book to examine if you know what’s going on. I bet if I had read the readings after we had talked about all of the intricacies of the story, opposed to before we talked about what happened, I would have been able to connect more and understand everything. I felt pretty lost, but I always liked finding things out in class. I know lots of people in the class would rate it as their favorite, so it seems like a hit or miss for much of the class. My favorite moment was talking about the real Hinckle Von Vampton and the things about the talking androids.

4th Place: Slaughterhouse 5

Slaughterhouse 5 is a classic book. So classic that I read it in both history (World Since 1945), and English (History as Fiction). I rate it in the middle of the pack because it’s very interesting, but I just didn't get connected to the characters in the same way because I knew what was going to happen. My favorite part of the book was the story of how Billy and Kilgore Trout met and how he worked for him and their relationship.

3rd Place: Ragtime

I really liked Ragtime because of the different stories told. I really liked the way Tateh became Baron Ashkenazy and how his job transformed to a street artist to a filmmaker. I liked Coalhouse’s story a lot as well because it highlighted the Black Panthers of the 70s in relation to the racism of the early 20th century. As a reader, my favorite part was when I realized that the Baron was also Tateh. It wasn't explicitly said until later and personally it made me feel really happy for him, as it is one of the happier story lines.

2nd Place: Libra

Although I’m not finished with Libra yet, I think it has been one of the best novels we have read. Similar to Ragtime, it follows a lot of different characters. In comparison to Mumbo Jumbo, it has a lot of the same intricacies, but it is a lot more reader friendly. But maybe that’s just my reading comprehension skills. My favorite theme of the novel is the idea of a world inside a world. There is so much going on underneath the surface, and this novel really kind of scares me by showing me how little we could know about how much we are being watched. The lines about “There is a world inside the world” was during the chapter In Dallas, and it also mentions later the role of multiple levels of our politics, which also scares me because it makes me wonder if we really have a good democracy.

1st Place: Kindred

Kindred was the only novel of the semester where I found myself starting to read ahead and really getting into the readings. I think the reason I liked it so much was because of how much I could understand and maybe how blunt it was in presenting parallels. Dana often noticed the same things we were supposed to see as readers like how Kevin and Rufus make the same face, or how Kevin and Tom make the same commanding voice. My favorite part was the symbolism of having Kevin’s friends coming over to celebrate the 4th of July before the last time they go back. This is symbolic because the year 1976 (when the story takes place), is the 200 year Anniversary of the creation of the United States. It’s emphasizing 200 years of liberty of freedom, but Dana had just went back in time during that 200 years and saw horrors wherever she looked. This also relates to one of the themes of the class which is the gaps in time that are left untouched. The things we don't tell, or leave out. What was this character doing when? It all works out very well. I really, really enjoyed Kindred.

Thanks for reading guys!

If you guys have any concerns, feel free to roast my rankings as one of your comments.

Have a good summer.

🗿  Paul  🗿

Libra: A Sign and A Sign

We have been reading Libra for a week now, and we still don’t know the meaning of the title. Mr.

Mitchell has given vague illusions to how it plays a role in the story, but as of now we only know it

pertains to the zodiac sign of Lee Harvey Oswald. The title Libra applies to both the astrological sign,

as well as signs of Lee's character.

Ozzie the Rabbit was born on October 18th, 1939. This means he fits in the Libra section of the

horoscope calendar. An important part of the Libra sign is their astrological symbol, scales. Scales

are known to suggest balance, stability, and a sense of justice. This immediately made me wonder

about the title. We’ve seen Lee in a lot of different scenes so far, and I wouldn't go so far as to

describe him as balanced and stable. He’s constantly throwing himself into new scenarios to try and

find himself. He is willing to shoot himself when he gets a glimpse of happiness in Japan, and he

spends all of his young life obsessed with the Soviet Union, only to defect from there after staying

two years. His life isn’t balanced or stable. He is young, he is court-martialed twice in the Marines.

He is still figuring things out. Also, if we consider his life as a whole, the whole killing Kennedy and

shooting Walker wouldn't make me believe he is stable. Mr. Mitchell told me about his shooting of

Walker, and they found a photograph of Oswald holding the gun he used to shoot Walker and kill

Kennedy as well as Marxist literature. On the back of the photograph, “hunter of fascists” was

written.

Another thing about Libras that seems relevant is that they are known to be joyful, but have a hard

time expressing themselves. They can appear quite difficult and sometimes hard to understand.

They need time to develop a real connection. I think this really applies to Lee. He’s portrayed as a

complex character with a complicated and interesting life. He can never really find himself. The

website I’m reading about horoscopes says that once they settle down with a family they are more

patient and very protective. I can imagine this scenario for Lee, but he never gets that chance.

I wish I could have found a horoscope back from when Oswald was alive, but I couldn’t find

anything. The Fort Worth and Dallas newspapers only go back in the last 10 years in their online

versions, and I couldn't find any archives. Horoscopes, as we know them as signs for when you

were born and fortune telling in the newspaper, became popular in 1937, so the situation is entirely

possible.

We are apparently going to learn more about what the relevance of the title is, but at this point I’m

going with some complex story of the person that is Lee Harvey Oswald. How he doesn't really fit in,

but at the same time he does. These are just some thoughts. Feel free to comment any ideas, or

insights. This being mainly written after the In Atsugi chapter, so this post might be irrelevant soon.

The Authors Are(‘nt) Messing with Us (Part 3!!) and The Moral Compass

In the other novels we have read this semester, it has been easy to talk about how the author is using 

meta-fiction and how the authors are messing with us. I’ve written a few other blog posts completely

 about how the authors are playing with the reader of the story. For example, Doctorow’s random 

picking up and dropping of historical figures into the narrative, or the weird pictures and typeface in 

Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo. In terms of meta-fictions, there are similar frames presented in both 

Slaughterhouse Five and Kindred. Kindred is a story within a story because it’s in the first person 

past tense of a story. On page 116, Dana narrates, “Once I sat down at my typewriter and tried to 

write about what had happened, made about six attempts before I gave up and threw them all away. 

Someday when this was over, if it was ever over, maybe I would be able to write about it.” This 

makes us, as readers, be like, “Hey! This is that story!” So, it’s not-so-subtley acknowledging the 

reader. But this made me think, “Hey, where has all of the messing with us gone?” Butler has written 

this novel very differently in relation to the reader compared to some of the other novels we have read this semester. I talked with a few people in 8th period, and Mr. Mitchell, and there haven’t been 

too many other times that Butler has addressed this being a novel, or anything like how Doctorow 

and Reed messed with us.

Now to the moral compass. I was wondering what the best way Dana could go about saving her 

family line. Dana is not safe going back in time, of course we know she isn't going to die, but she 

doesn't. By going back in time, she risks Kevin’s life and her life further. So maybe, she should try 

and stop. Now, the only time she goes back is when Rufus’s life is in danger. So, if she killed Rufus, 

she wouldn't have to go back anymore. Now that solves the issue of going back, but what about the 

issue of her existing? If she can convince Alice to have a child with Rufus, she could kill Rufus, and

 then find a way to get in harm’s way so she goes back to 1976 and all is fine and dandy. She exists, 

she never has to go back. However, Alice hates, and should hate, Rufus. Dana has the mental impact 

on Rufus to convince him to rape her. If Dana wants to be safe immediately, she must convince Alice 

to let him impregnate her. That’s messed up. But, if Dana lets Alice in on the plan, they can kill 

Rufus afterward. With Rufus gone, the rest of Alice’s life could be better, and she could find Isaac 

with the help of Kevin and Dana. I wonder if Alice was given the rundown of the situation, would she let Rufus impregnate her? I also wonder about are Rufus and Alice supposed to have multiple 

children? How do we know when the correct great-great-great grandparent is born? I imagine Dana 

disappearing into the air after she uses Tom Weylin’s old shotgun to kill Rufus in symbolic fashion, 

only for her to stop existing. I still have so many questions about how this book can turn out. My post brings up a very difficult moral question here, so I apologize if it is problematic in advance. 

Thanks for reading.

Poor Old Derby

Today in class we discussed the impact of “poor old” Edgar Derby standing up to Campbell

with his motivational speech, and its impact.  In his “finest moment,” he stands up to

Campbell with a speech about american morals, and “spoke movingly about the American

form of government.” He also said there “wasn't a man there who wouldn't gladly die for

those ideals.”  There are a few ironic moments that I want to expand on from class.

First, this book was published in 1969. This was only two years after the first well known

Napalm and Anti-War protests took hold in Madison, Wisconsin. The anti-war movement

was gaining storm, and the novel is just one manifestation of this movement. But for this

scene specifically, it calls on poor old Derby to carry the irony. Derby is the teacher who is

“too old to be fighting,” but he does it anyway out of his love for his country. “All of the real

soldiers are dead,” but Derby continues on. He loves his country, which is a funny idea to the

protestors reading this anti-war labeled novel.

Another part of this was how Vonnegut doesn't even write out the meaningful speech. I

felt at first like this was a critique at literature. Like, he talks to the reader about how “old

Derby was a character now.” And we’re like, wait, no other ‘character’ in this novel has felt

strongly about anything. We’re thrown in supposedly high action war scenarios, and Billy

just says “go ahead without me.” So I don’t really understand this critique, but maybe it’s

part of the whole weird storyline, flow of consciousness vibe of the book. The plot is set up as

a given, the ending is a given, it’s just how it happens that makes it readable. I like it, and it’s

hard to pinpoint what makes this part so interesting.

Another part is something we brought up in class. Derby’s speech is supposedly meaningful and moving and all that, but none of the men react really at all. So it brings to question, how moving can it be? It really pulls together the anti-war theme of the novel. No matter what Derby does, it shows the downside. To me, when I first read this passage, I first thought Derby was going to join Campbell and the Nazis. We noticed that whether Derby was or wasn't going to join the Nazis it would have a similar effect. It’s could be a patriotic teacher - who’s too old to fight who goes to war to fight for his country- who eventually gives up on everything he’s supposed to fight for a little bit of nourishment. This would show how the values and ideals of the soldiers are so broken down that they end up going to the other side. An anti-war message. If Derby stands up and gives a moving motivational speech to no avail and reaction, it has a similar outcome. It shows the lack of heart in the soldiers, and how it’s barely even their battle. They are tired and sipping on syrup all day long. These soldiers have lost. Not the battle, but their heart. Another anti-war message. So when Derby stood up, no matter what he says shows the anti-war purpose of the book.

These are just a few thoughts about Derby’s big speech and the importance of having a
character. I’m still kind of at a loss about the character thing, so if you have any thoughts
feel free to say something in the comments.

The Authors Are Messing With Us (Part 2)

I wrote my last blog mainly about what I expected of the author’s in the books we will read

throughout the rest of the semester. There were a few themes I mentioned. Mainly, the themes the

books encompass, and how the authors continue to mess with the reader. One of the main themes of

Mumbo Jumbo was how the Wallflower Order and the Atonists aimed to hold back and get rid of Jes

Grew. In essence, this was a white versus black social battle. The Atonists fight to hold down African
American culture and keep it out of culture. The very end of the book reminds me a lot of

Ragtime, and makes me think that this is a common theme of history as fiction novels. The novel

ends with the narrative, “Time is pendulum, Not a river. More akin to what goes around comes

around.” (218). This immediately reminded me of how we talked about how the Black Panthers were

transported through time and dropped into the Ragtime narrative with Coalhouse Walker’s crew. The

social issues presented in each book’s narrative directly related to the time period the novel was

published. Both of these novels were published not too long after the civil rights era, so it makes

sense to have these socially relevant topics. I don’t know if this is a part of history as fiction, but

judging what I already know about Slaughterhouse Five, I think it might be. By “this,” I mean using

history in fiction to depict social criticisms of both the time period of the book but also the time

period it was published. In short, Ragtime shows that Black Panther-esque characters and fighting

for civil rights can be applied to both the 1910s and the 1960s. The racism of Conklin is still relevant

to people of the 1970s who just had to fight against racism for civil rights in the 1960s. For Mumbo

Jumbo, I notice that the theme is about racism in a similar way. Abdul is murdered in a racist fashion

by Vampton. Vampton spends much of the novel working to using black people as an object to

destroy black culture. I think that as our novels are published in different times the social issues they

tackle will be going with the time accordingly. I already know some about Slaughterhouse Five, so I

think you guys should be looking out for the social issue presented in the novel. There are lots of

parallels between the two novels we have read so far, both dealing with issues of race. As far as the

author messing with us, we talked about how the text is supposed to be in kind of vernacular, but

what I think was the important part of how he messed with us was how he ordered the story. PaPa

LaBas knew the outcome of the story with many pages to go, and we only learned how it would turn

out toward the very end. So the detective aspect of the story is a little different. I’m curious about

how the authors will play with us for the rest of the class.

The Authors Are Messing With Us: Will It Continue?

After reading the first few sets of chapters of Mumbo Jumbo, and reading Ragtime, there

are a few things I’ve noticed in terms of the author’s style. One of the things we have

focused on over the first few days of Mumbo Jumbo, is how different the style of narration is

for Reed’s novel. For example, Mr. Mitchell had to warn us to not miss the first chapter,

because it comes before the publication information. We talked about how this is kind of like

a movie, with the first part coming into the story and then there are the credits and author

and editors and producers and stuff and then the rest of the movie comes on. This isn’t so

true nowadays with modern movies, but Mumbo Jumbo was written in the 70s.

One thing I noticed about both novels is that they both incorporate social issues from

multiple time periods. In Ragtime, we have the clear example of the pseudo Black Panthers

picked up and dropped through time into the Ragtime era. Coalhouse Walker and his crew

are something relevant and real to both the timeline of the narrative, and when the novel

itself was actually published. In Mumbo Jumbo, a similar scenario occurs. A group of African

Americans are being oppressed and harassed by the white people. The epidemic of Jes

Grew is only an epidemic to the racist white people who want nothing to do with black

culture. I think the role of the theme of race relations will only grow as we continue to read

this novel. Maybe that’s a part of writing history as fiction. You can take time periods and

characters with issues and adapt them and drop them into other timelines. I expect to see

more of these parallels with the date of the book’s publication and the time period of the

narrative with the rest of the books we will read this semester.

Another thing I noticed was how the author seems to mess with us. For Ragtime we seemed

to spend a lot of time talking about how Doctorow was messing with us. He would randomly

to drop in a Harry Houdini in an accident right next to the little boy. He could do anything he

wanted as long as he could wiggle out of it by writing that they didn’t not say they did this,

and they didn’t say they didn't do it. For Mumbo Jumbo, I see this kind of messing with us in

a different way. I see the way he put the chapter before the publican information. To me, this

breaks the illusion of the story. Another thing that breaks up the narrative is that the novel is

itself littered with typos. We could probably find significance somewhere when he’s making

typos like Jew Grew, but we don’t. Their only purpose right now is to break the illusion of the

story. I was thinking about how this could show that it’s not supposed to be a narrative but

more of a factual representation. Reed wants us to be broken out of the story and reminded

that this is just a book. But then again, maybe it's for a different purpose. Another way the

immersion is broken is that sometimes the text is all wavy. We talked about how this is

representative of the texts of the time with the typewriters available. But does that mean that

this text isn't supposed to be refined? Doctorow changed his position in the novel like 300

 pages into it by saying “we”, and “at this time” (referring to the 70s). Is this what makes a

text postmodern or a history as fiction novel?

I think that the novels will definitely differ a lot over the course of the class because of how

the novels we read were published in near chronological order. I think there will be less of

the author messing with us. I predict that we will see more of the characters dropped into

novels, to represent the history part of History as Fiction. If you guys have any other

thoughts on what the rest of the books are like, or what the anti-immersion means in Mumbo

Jumbo, please leave a comment.

The Similarities of Coalhouse Walker Jr. and J.P. Morgan

I’m writing this blog post right after reading the section where Sarah dies. I write this note because I feel like Coalhouse’s importance in the story is going to greatly increase over the next few chapters, and he’ll play a larger role in the plot.

We talked in class about Coalhouse’s character. I wanted to expand on the idea that Coalhouse’s

entrance is, in fact, actually very similar to J.P. Morgans. I think it was Omeed who brought up this

idea, and I think there’s even more merit to the idea than what we had hinted at in class. Morgan

shows up to his office, “in a dark blue suit, a black overcoat with a collar of lamb’s wool and a top

hat.” (137). When Mother is looking at Coalhouse, she notices that he “wore a fitted black overcoat,

a black and white hound’s-tooth suit, gray spats and pointed black shoes. He had in his hand a

charcoal gray cap and driving goggles.” As you can see, they are both wearing fancy clothes. But

the comparison doesn't stop there. J.P. Morgan is referred to as one who “affected fashions slightly

out of date.” I had to look up what affected means to make sure this comparison works, but affected

can mean artificial, pretentious, and/or designed to impress. So, Morgan is dressing in a way to kind

of show off that he can afford this, and that he can do what he wants. For Coalhouse, the

comparison is similar. Mother thinks that, “He was dressed in the affectation of wealth to which

colored people lent themselves.” Again, the use of the affected. This time, Mother is connecting this

potentially pretentious manner to his race, as she refers to these actions as ones “which colored

people lent themselves.” (156). Another key detail is the eyes. Morgan’s eyes are described as

having “fierce intolerant eyes set just close enough to suggest a psychopathology of his will.”

Coalhouse’s eyes are described as “large dark eyes so intense as to suggest they were about to

cross.” Their eyes are both close to their nose, and fierce and intense are words with such similar

meanings that it is hard to deny the connection. Another thing I noticed is the power of the car. Their

cars are both described grandly, and when the cars pull up, people come down to it. When

Coalhouse pulls up in a new Model T, the boy “ran down the steps and stood on the sidewalk.” He

went up and waited by it. For Morgan, by the time he is stepping out the car, there are several bank

officers who had, “rushed out to meet him disentangled the robe and hung it over the robe rail on the

inside of the door.” They both have people coming down to meet them as they pull up in their

beautiful new cars. There are words like burly and stocky comparing the two which have almost the

same meaning. It’s kind of like Doctorow went on Thesaurus.com to finish the comparison without

making it too obvious.

But the similarity doesn't stop at parking their cars, it also follows them as they move toward where
they are going. Morgan “marched in the building, assistants, aides and even some of the firm’s

customers circling toward him like birds.” Although Coalhouse doesn't have works circling him, he

does march up into the building into a similar fashion. We talked in class about Coalhouse

understanding that he shouldn't go to the front door in this social scenario, but he still goes to the

backdoor with as much intent. Mother notices the way he asked if he could speak with Sarah and

was alarmed. And later, when she comes back to Coalhouse, he is inside the house and has broken

some of the boundaries he was supposed to be confined to as a guest to the house. He entered

seemingly without permission, and he went over the carriage, even when he really shouldn't have

been, because Sarah wanted him gone.

For both men, my mind is creating the same image. There is only one real difference: Coalhouse is

black. Although the comparisons of their car, clothes, manners, and actions are all almost exactly the

same, race stands out. In the middle of the boy’s description, he includes the line, “He was a

Negro.” (155)  When Morgan is being potentially being pretentious about his wealth and image, he

faces no consequences or agency. When Coalhouse is called out for the same reasons, Mother

uses it as a way to say colored people often act this way to pretend they are rich.

There are more comparisons with the characters that I’m sure we’ll dive into as we get deeper into

Coalhouse’s character. I’m interested to see what happens to him in the next readings.