Writing Quirks

Obviously, there are many unique things about Mumbo Jumbo and one of those unique things is the way the text is written. What I mean by this is how parentheses aren't used to indicate when a character is speaking and that the numeral "1" is almost always used instead of its written counterpart "one." Also of note is how some characters are usually referred to by the narrator by their full name, including their nickname, if they have any. I'm not sure of what the purpose for these writing quirks is (technically no can be?), but I have a few fragmented ideas. 

The lack of speech parentheses is probably the most notable aspect of the things I’ve described, since it makes reading dialogue initially a little confusing. However, by just distinguishing who is speaking by sprinkling in phrases like “Black Herman said,” it seems like parentheses aren’t even necessary. The message still gets across and all the information you need to know a character is speaking is already present.Another thing I’ve noticed is how throughout the whole novel "1" appears in the text and for some reason it always jumps out at me when I see it. I guess it’s because I don’t see “1” used as often in other novels and I would expect a sentence like "1 woman is dressed in an exotic high-gypsy" to be spelled like ”one woman” instead (30).Hinckle Von Vampton being referred to by full name almost every time he appears in the text is another thing I kept noticing while reading. Within dialogue he’s called “Mr. Von Vampton or just “Hinckle” pretty much any time else his first and last name are given, although this isn’t always the case. “Of course you know the managing editor, don’t you, the executive pauses, turning to Hinckle” is an exception but he isn’t referred to in the same way in the following paragraph; “The phone rings. Hinckle Von Vampton and Hubert “Safecracker” Gould rush into the office. Hinckle Von Vampton picks up the phone and the fixed, tight-lipped expression on his face widens into a grin” (73, 74). I think he easily could have been called Hinckle here but instead his full name is repeated again in the following sentence. This keeps happening throughout the novel and I think Hubert “Safecracker” Gould is treated similarly; he isn’t always referred to by his full title but usually has his nickname included.

“…a man who like no 1 else captures the complexity of Negro Thought…Mr. Hubert “Safecracker” Gould!!!

The Hostess and Von Vampton take their seats as Hubert “Safecracker” Gould, white gloves, blackface, black tuxedo, walks to the back of the stand and begins to read his epic “Harlem Tom Toms” ”(157). Why is he introduced with his nickname included and not just as “Hubert Gould?” “Safecracker” doesn’t seem like it would be relevant to the audience, but it’s possible there’s no reason for it and I’m just looking too much into it. However, the themes of controlling culture within Mumbo Jumbo could give the things I’ve noticed some potential meaning. Could choosing not to use parentheses be another form of rejecting western ideals of Atonist order? Does the use of "1" instead of "one" suggest that using one over the other makes no difference in meaning?  Is the text poking fun at Atonist order and control by including the nickname of Hubert “Safecracker” Gould almost every time he is mentioned outside of dialogue? These are a few of the ideas I had but I'm sure there are better ones out there...

Reflection

I have heard of postmodernism before taking this class but I've never been aware of what the definition (and the debate around it) was until now. The notion of multiple narratives negating the existence of any "truth" in the world is an idea that I've had in my head for a while but haven't been able to define under any single term. However, after listening to discussions in class I think my thoughts can fit under the definition of postmodernism. I've considered how no day is truly the same, how there is only one 12:57 PM of February 4 in 2016 that will ever occur--I think these ideas can be described as postmodern, maybe? I feel like the ideas that have been explored in class are like my own conceptions of the world being translated into a concrete and coherent form (which sounds kinda pompous but whatever).
 Ragtime is an interesting book on its own but within the context of exploring postmodernism it becomes even more interesting. The language, content, and structure of the novel all come together to produce a commentary on all sorts of things in different manners. The tone of the narrative voice  changes to indicate criticism or lack thereof. The depiction of well-known figures in ways that are contrary to what's expected of them (e.g Houdini feeling aimless) simultaneously comments on the existence of multiple narratives and the verifiability of history. The similar tone of the beginning and the ending reflects that there was change but also no change at the same time. All of this commentary and allusions made for a unique read, in my opinion. And to go out of context a little, I feel like I've only begun noticing within the last 2 years how a book can utilize language to tell more than just a story.