Mad Jack

Here is the link to my short story.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cHZUvnDcBmsr8M8GtpW-KFuq_SKVyFAa7DSJtjlZ32I/edit?usp=sharing

Butler's writing style

I think most, if not all of us expected Kevin to be much different when he came back after 5 years stuck in the past. I thought his survival instincts would outweigh his conscience and would just get used to the atrocities of slavery around him. When he came back he was disoriented and frustrated by how difficult it was to relearn modern technology, like his typewriter, but he was still pretty much the same Kevin. I'm honestly glad that Butler didn't make him change that much. I feel like that would be too obvious and cliche. I think that this is what I liked the most about the book: the plot wasn't that obvious.

I think that by making us wonder how much Kevin will change, just to have him remain the same old Kevin, Butler diverts our attention away from Dana. We all knew that Dana was going to change a lot. Her position is way different that Kevin's. However, I feel like by diverting our attention to Kevin's development (or lack of), Butler makes Dana's change even more obvious and drastic than I had expected. Along with this, the way that Butler sets up each of Dana's encounters with Rufus, I never got the sense that she could kill him, even after Hagar is born. She knows that Rufus has (and probably will continue) to do unforgivable things, but she still sees the boy she saved during her first encounter. She also seemed to want to find some redeeming quality in him. It's obviously hard for her to accept that he is her ancestor and can be such bad person. Even at the very end she was very hesitant to kill him, and I still wasn't sure whether or not she would actually do it.

I think that Butler did a very good job at keeping the book spontaneous. She's able to make it spontaneous by diverting attention and by being spontaneous in a more subtle way, rather than just doing a hard 180 and leaving the reader completely confused.

Those Jolly British Blokes

We talked a lot in class about the way that Vonnegut portrays the two extreme types of soldiers, which are either miserable and not "heroes," and the violent soldier following the true war novel hero archetype.

However, Vonnegut seems to portray the British soldiers somewhere in between. Vonnegut tells us that these soldiers are officers from who fought at the very beginning of the war. They are experience soldiers who, I would assume are the best soldiers that Britain had to offer since they were the part of the first wave of British soldiers. Despite this, they aren't portrayed as warmongers or violent like we see with Weary and Lazaro. On the other hand, they don't follow the same model as the Americans. They are very well off, they have an abundance of food and have been treated as well as you could expect by the Germans, who see them as the ideal British soldiers.

While Vonnegut uses some irony to describe the British POWs, he uses it more to contrast how upbeat and happy they are with the Americans, rather than to mock them like he does with the other Americans. You wouldn't think that they were POWs in the middle of a war based on Vonnegut's description of them.

One quote that I found interesting says that, "They were adored by the Germans, who thought that they were exactly what Englishmen ought to be. They made war look stylish and reasonable, and fun." I think that this quote aptly sums up Vonnegut's purpose of making an anti-war novel. These ideas of what the Germans think that war should look like are the same ideas of a "glorious war" that gets engrained in the minds of the young children and convinces them to fight for glory. This is the exact idea that Vonnegut wants to disprove, that war is not at all like the war stories that glamorize war, rather, these soldiers end up like Billy and the rest of the Americans. These British soldiers are the type that would write a war novel about how "honorable" it is to fight when they were captured early on in the war lived out the rest of the war in luxury compared to the Russian POWs who are dying meters away from them from malnutrition. The British show a stark contrast between the expectation and reality of the war for the young soldiers convinced to fight for glory.

Agriculture and the Osiris story

As we discussed the Papa LaBas' flashback story to Ancient Egypt, the connection between Jes Grew and agriculture was brought up. After doing some research on both Egypt and agriculture at the time, I found many connections to this part of Mumbo Jumbo. This is probably going to turn into a long rant, so I apologize in advance. 

First off, the general premise of the Osiris storyline matches up with Egyptian mythology if you take away the Jes Grew aspects. Since Osiris is the god of agriculture, among other things, it makes sense that he was the creator of Jes Grew. On the other hand, Set is the god of disorder and chaos and is described as following primitive aspects, such as cannibalism and against agriculture, where Osiris represents progress with agriculture and growth. I also researched the history of dance in Ancient Egypt. Dance in Ancient Egypt was something limited to peasants and lower status people, which I found interesting. These people were probably the ones involved in most of the agriculture at the time, following the idea of Jes Grew. Its very similar to what it described about Jes Grew in the 1920s, as the rich were mostly against the spread of Jes Grew, whereas it thrived in the poorer areas. 

The thing that I found most interesting was the connection between agriculture in the places that were mentioned in the flashback story. In Ancient Egypt, agriculture was based on the reliability of the Nile's seasonal flooding. Like most cultures at the time, sacrifices or different rituals were made to the gods to ensure that they had successful harvests, and, in the case of Egypt, seasonal flooding. This can also be connected to the "outbreak" of Jes Grew in New Orleans. While in Egypt agriculture is centered around the Nile delta, in New Orleans it was centered around the Mississippi River delta. These deltas are extremely fertile areas and perfect for agriculture. In addition it is a spiritual center as well. I don't think that it is a coincidence that Reed had the two "outbreaks" of Jes Grew in Egypt and New Orleans. 

I also wanted to relate the agricultural ideas of Jes Grew to South and Mesoamerica, where Osiris visited in the story. I was trying to figure when exactly the story was set, and I found a couple of small hints that lead me to believe that its set around the 1300s BCE. First off, Osiris is said to have traveled to Olmeca. The Olmec civilization lasted from around 1500 BCE until 400 BCE, which narrows it down, but still leaves a thousand year period for the story to take place. I will admit that there are some historical discrepancies. For example Osiris travels to Teotihuacán. The pyramids (which would have been a great connection to Egypt) weren't built until around 200s BCE, and while it's possible Reed is just talking about the area, but I find this unlikely. Osiris also travels to the Inca Empire which doesn't rise until the 1400s CE, which is after Von Vampton comes across the Book of Thoth. Despite the time periods not matching. There are definitely agricultural similarities which could symbolize the spread of Jes Grew ideas without basis in historical fact. All of the civilizations mentioned are polytheistic and have gods related to agriculture who they would pray to for good harvests. Since Mumbo Jumbo is a criticism of Atonism and monotheism, mentioning Osiris going to these civilizations makes sense. Osiris also teaches these cultures to make beer and wine, utilizing the environment and agriculture. All of these civilizations had some sort of beverage similar to beer or wine, so there is some historical basis for that too.

Having digressed from my hypothesis of the date of the story, the main reason I have for dating it at 1300s BCE is from the origins of Atonism. In one of his blog posts, Sasha described the origin of Atonism coming from the pharaoh Akhenaten in 1336 BCE. Akhenaten changed the primary religion of Egypt from polytheistic worship to worshiping a single god, Aten (Hence Akhen-Aten). With this rises the monotheistic idea of Atonism that Reed describes (Aton-ism coming from Aten). Given Reed's criticism of Atonism, I think it would make sense for Set to be representative of Akhenaten since in the story Set gets rid of all temples of Osiris and worships Aten. For that reason, I think that 

Set killing Osiris in the story is representative of Akhenaten changing Egyptian religion. 

While the story of Osiris does not completely follow the Egyptian mythology, Reed still emphasizes the connections between polytheistic societies and describe their connection with their gods through agriculture meanwhile denouncing monotheism. 

JP Morgan: The Chosen One?

JP Morgan believes that he was once an Egyptian Pharaoh. Whether he is just a senile old man searching for the answer to one of life's biggest questions, or actually the reincarnation of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, Morgan is convinced that he is been reincarnated, and will be again following his death, to lead the world forward. Morgan believes that only the very best and the brightest are the reincarnations of Egyptian Pharaohs, for example Henry Ford. However, during his disheartening experience inside the pyramid, his belief turns into a coping mechanism, as he realizes that he may not be a reincarnated pharaoh. However, by introducing the concept of reincarnation, Doctorow lets the reader

While he is in the pyramid, Morgan waited for a sign from Osiris so that he can connect with his Egyptian brethren. With his dream about being a simple commoner in ancient Egypt he seems to go into denial and claim that it was a false sign. I think it's worth noting that in Egyptian mythology, in order to enter the afterlife and be reborn your heart must be pure and free of sin.  I'm not sure if Morgan would be considered free of sin given "acquisition" of art and the sarcophagus of Seti I (I'd assume it would be considered a sin to steal a dead pharaoh. I think this alone disqualifies him from rebirth.).

On the other hand, Doctorow alludes to Coalhouse Walker being a reincarnation of the literary character Michael Kohlhaas. I think it is fair to say that Coalhouse is a direct reference to Michael Kohlhaas (though the average reader would likely not deduce this), as they both face similar challenges and meet a similar fate. Considering that the Michael Kohlhaas story is an adaptation of a real life event involving Hans Kohlhaas, it seems as though Doctorow is suggesting a reincarnation of the Kohlhaas/Coalhouses to fight against their respective injustices. In this sense Doctorow is contradicting Morgan's view of reincarnation, that only the important people get reincarnated, instead suggesting that the "pure of heart" per se, who fight against injustices deserve reincarnation.

To again relate to the Egyptian mythology of rebirth, Coalhouse is seen as more deserving than Morgan. While Coalhouse does commit arson and kill several firemen, and I do not condone his actions, given that he was fighting for what is right, it could be seen that his heart is pure. I admit that this may be a stretch to the aforementioned logic regarding Morgan in relation to Egyptian mythology, but given Doctorow's love for subtle hints, I feel like it is a valid stretch.

What is Art?

Throughout Ragtime, Doctorow emphasizes the contrast between the upper, middle and lower classes. One way he does this is through different character's views of what defines art. 

Houdini sees his magic and daring escapes as an art form, however the rich elites don't see it the same way. In the prison, Harry K Thaw mocks Houdini as he escapes from one of the cells. At the party which Houdini is invited to perform at, he is brought to a room with the other performers who are freak show performers. The rich look down upon Houdini and his trade as just another circus act.  Doctorow mentions several times through the book that Houdini wants his trade to be recognized as art. Houdini still doesn't give up on his work. He is well supported by the middle class who love his escapes, but the rich still see it as lowly. 

Similar to Houdini, Tateh relies on lower class to buy his silhouettes (with the exception of Evelyn). Even though he is poor, Tateh is talented, but since he is a poor area of New York, not many can see this. Tateh was on the verge of giving up, instead realizing his talent through the sale of his flipbook for $25. Doctorow mentions that Tateh's silhouettes end up in a museum. In this way Doctorow shows that these men from humble beginnings manage to be remembered and have their slice of history. 

Docorow purposefully follows up the chapter about Tateh selling his work to the novelty shop and achieving success for his art by describing Henry Ford. Ford is described as having a mechanical persona. To him it seems the only art form is precision and time saving. He cares more about the shaving of seconds than his workers. This shows the contrasting views of the lower and upper class. For Houdini and Tateh art is personal in the sense that they are performing or making art on their own. Ford however, art is repetition and perfection despite others doing the actual labor. In this way, I think Doctorow ironically compares the hardships of art for the lower class with Ford standing outside his factory as his masterpiece comes together without any of his physical work.

Doctorow further compares the upper and lower class' views on art through JP Morgan. Morgan is described as a patron of the arts. He goes to Europe collecting art and other things for his personal library (somehow gaining the sarcophagus of Seti I). The way that Doctorow describes Morgan's library shows his obsession with the ownership of art. Morgan seems to see art the way many rich people do: as a way to flaunt wealth rather than truly appreciating it. The way Doctorow describes Morgan and Ford provide a stark contrast from Tateh and Houdini who work to refine their craft. 

In the end, there is some irony as all four of these men become famous. Morgan and Ford are known for their achievements in their respective fields. Houdini, despite the lack of interest of the rich, is known by almost everyone, the most famous musician. Doctorow mentions that Tateh's work is in a museum. Even though he is fictitious, Tateh's work also gains appreciation. It's ironic that despite receiving no recognition from the rich, these poor artists end up just as well known, and more deserving than these rich men.