In 3rd period, Elizabeth and Erin brought up a really good point about how Ishmael Reed doesn't include any seriously relevant female characters. The ones that do get included get shown in a negative light. Like at first Reed depicts Jes Grew as an anti-plague that infects people with scandalous forms of dance and sheds a good light on sexuality and having fun. However, the scene with Earline becoming possessed by a loa feels sexually repressive and almost 'Atonistic'. PaPa Labas seems kinda embarrassed and is apologizing but I would think his character would be more appreciative of this happening?
I also think it's kind of really disappointing how Isis is an extremely powerful goddess and is believed to be the most powerful magician in the world (according to Wikipedia) and Reed just writes her as easily seduced by Moses and gives away the Book of Thoth. Reed had a lot of room to develop her character and include her in more important ways in the 'alternate' historical timeline but he didn't. It just feels like a lot of wasted potential for what could've been a really cool character.
The one time I remember flappers being mentioned in this book is the small part where it's mentioned that Abdul beat some up which is terrible. In Mr. Leff's class (which intersects scarily well with this one) he talked about how against flappers were against old, modernist ideals. They were extremely rebellious and protested against the ideals of the cult of domesticity. I would imagine them as a very anti-Atonist characters and think their inclusion into this book could be pretty important. But Reed doesn't include them :(
I get Reed wrote this 50 years ago and the main focus of the book is about the repression of African culture in western society, but he could've at least tried a little bit harder when it came to female characters :/
I also think it's kind of really disappointing how Isis is an extremely powerful goddess and is believed to be the most powerful magician in the world (according to Wikipedia) and Reed just writes her as easily seduced by Moses and gives away the Book of Thoth. Reed had a lot of room to develop her character and include her in more important ways in the 'alternate' historical timeline but he didn't. It just feels like a lot of wasted potential for what could've been a really cool character.
The one time I remember flappers being mentioned in this book is the small part where it's mentioned that Abdul beat some up which is terrible. In Mr. Leff's class (which intersects scarily well with this one) he talked about how against flappers were against old, modernist ideals. They were extremely rebellious and protested against the ideals of the cult of domesticity. I would imagine them as a very anti-Atonist characters and think their inclusion into this book could be pretty important. But Reed doesn't include them :(
I get Reed wrote this 50 years ago and the main focus of the book is about the repression of African culture in western society, but he could've at least tried a little bit harder when it came to female characters :/
Yeah, Reed doesn't expand his concepts of Atonism and Jes Grew to feminism, which I found disappointing. Even if he hadn't, he could have refrained from marginalizing and over-sexualizing women, but he can't even do that. Female characters' sexualities get exploited under the guise of "sex and sex-positivity are important and should be embraced." Creating perfectly cold, desexualized female characters who are basically just "men with boobs" is a bad idea because it implicitly argues that feminine sexuality and emotion are bad or weak. But creating female characters who only care about sex and are easily manipulated with it -- even if they are sexually dominant or assertive -- is still bad because it fails to flesh out female characters beyond their sexual attributes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Reed really misses an opportunity here to apply Jes Grew to more instances than just race based or religion based oppression, and consider marginalization by a patriarchy on women. In the 1920s, there was not just the Harlem Renaissance and an increasing movement of religious pluralism, but also a feminist cultural movement centered around the flappers. Reed is a notorious anti-femenist, and completely eliminates flappers from Jes Grew.
ReplyDeleteReed is clearly into rewriting history, but this is just replacing one problematic binary narrative with another. I have a lot of respect for Reed but I agree the book falls short here.
I would argue that there just aren't any flappers around the area that is being mentioned by the book. It's not that Reed specifically cut them out, it was that there just weren't any to narrate. Flappers were in an extreme minority in society, and were not looked at as respectable people. Also, a similar argument could be said for Jazz music! Yes, it's mentioned in the book, but fleetingly and was not the focus of the story. The story was focused on the literature associated with the Harlem Renaissance, not the other things. Flappers, who were an artifact of the 1920's, not the Harlem Renaissance, would fall into this "other things" category.
ReplyDeleteAlso, flappers were focused on breaking gender norms, which is all fine and good, but realize that this is the same book that narrates the '70s as being to new age of Jes, Grew, not the massive social movement that was the 1960s! It is even described as a time in which college students, the Pinnacle of the Hippie movement, walk out on Papa LaBos as he's speaking about Jes Grew! Jes Grew is not about social reform. Both the Flappers and the Hippies are portrayed as social reform, but Jes Grew is something of a religion, not a reform. Papa LaBos doesn't seem excited by Jes Grew's appearance, because to him it's not momentous, it's just part of life. Finally, Jes Grew is not looking to overthrow Atonism, but exactly the opposite. Jes Grew doesn't need to overthrow anything because it's always present under the surface. It's not about effecting change, it's just about letting go.
The WTLDR is this: Flappers aren't in the story because they aren't Jes Grew. Not only are they not as common in the region the books describes, but they represent a movement completely separate from Jes Grew entirely. Sure, maybe the book could have benefited from more active female characters, but they just don't play an active part! I'm sorry if this comment goes against everything everyone else is saying, but I feel this is important.
I definitely agree that Reed does a horrible job of crafting strong and independent female characters. However, I think he might've had a reason for excluding the flappers. Flappers were largely well-off white women, because keeping up with the trends and the party scene added up to be pretty pricey. Fitting into a common theme throughout many prominent early feminist movements, flappers seemed to only care about the rights of white, upper-middle class women. Obviously there are a lot of female characters who aren't flappers that Reed totally under-develops, so he didn't really care about any women, but flappers don't particularly fit into the Jes Grew narrative.
ReplyDeletei agree, reeds depiction of women in his novel was over sexualized and stereotypical. It made me sad because there were so many instances in which he had the power to flesh out the female characters and make them so much greater. As you said, Isis was supposed be this powerful goddess and reed writes her off as weakly giving away the book of thoth once seduced. Having this image for the most powerful female of the book is kind of depressing when you think about the other cool characters reed has.
ReplyDelete