Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Michaela Kravalová
Parody, Meta-parody and Self-parody in Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo
Bachelor ’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Martina Horáková, Ph. D.
2009
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
…………………………………………….. Michaela Kravalová
2 Table of Contents
1. Introduction...... 4
2. The Concept of Parody...... 8
2.1 Genette’s Notion of Transtextuality...... 8
2.2 Simon Dentith’s Spectrum of Parody...... 13
2.3 Linda Hutcheon’s Postmodern Parody...... 15
2.4 Mikhail Bakhtin’s Double-voiced Discourse...... 17
2.5 Henry L. Gates’ Notion of Parody in Signifyin(g)...... 19
3. The Function of Parody, Meta-parody and Self-parody...... 21
3.1 The Function of Parody...... 21
3.2 Meta-parody...... 24
3.3 Self-parody...... 27
4. Parody in Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo ...... 29
4.1 Parody as Such in Mumbo Jumbo ...... 29
4.2 Meta-parody in Mumbo Jumbo ...... 35
4.3 Self-parody in Mumbo Jumbo ...... 37
5. Conclusion...... 40
6. Works Cited...... 43
3 1. Introduction
This thesis deals with transtextuality, parody, meta-parody and self-parody in the novel Mumbo Jumbo by an African American writer Ishmael Reed. The aim of the thesis is to explain the complex notions of meta-parody and self-parody, based on the theories about parody as such, and show how they can be applied on Reed’s novel. In order to proceed from the general notions to the particular instances of parody, the generalized concepts of transtextuality and parody are introduced first and special notions of parody (meta-parody and self-parody) follow. In the first part, the thesis explains transtextuality and parody, incorporating the theories of Gérard Genette, Simon
Dentith, Linda Hutcheon, Mikhail Bakhtin and Henry L. Gates. Later on, arguments about the concepts of meta-parody and self-parody and their possible understandings and functions are outlined. In the second part, the findings about meta-parody and self- parody are applied on the novel Mumbo Jumbo by Reed, which in this way serves as an example of the aforementioned theories.
Because the notion of meta-parody is fairly complicated, the thesis is written with a gradual complexity, starting from very clear definitions. At the very beginning, therefore, Genette’s basic terminology of transtextuality as the relationship between the texts is explained in very simple terms. Later on, the definitions are elaborated on and more complicated issues about meta-parody and self-parody are introduced.
The African American novel Mumbo Jumbo was chosen as an apt example to demonstrate these theories because it could be called a “textbook” of African American rhetoric tradition, parody being one of the most important parts of this tradition. This tradition consists of a mixture of parody, provocation and allusions in an oral or literary performance. Gates coins the term “Signifyin(g)” for this mixture. Signifyin(g) is an activity of a trickster; it is humorous and provocative rhetoric and parody is
4 undoubtedly a significant part of it as well. Gates claims that “literary Signification [...] is similar to parody and pastiche” (Gates xxvii). This is why the African American novel has been chosen as an apt example for the topic that deals with the general notion of parody and its special instances.
The theories about the concepts of meta-parody and self-parody are grounded in the notions of parody developed by scholars such as Gérard Genette, Simon Dentith,
Linda Hutcheon, Mikhail Bakhtin and Henry L. Gates. Each of the scholars has a different viewpoint on the concept of parody that supports or contradicts the other scholar’s conception, which is why the theories of parody created by this very group of scholars were chosen. They also lay the groundwork from which the conclusions about meta-parody and self-parody can be derived.
Each of these scholar’s concept of parody is useful in a different way; it either serves as a source of terminology or idea, or it supports or contradicts other scholars’ understanding of parody. In particular, Genette’s concept of transtextuality provides the general idea of a relationship between the texts. Genette’s book serves also as a source of terminology used throughout the thesis. Next, Dentith’s idea of “spectrum of parody”
(Dentith 6) and his comprehension of the polemic function of parody are useful while drawing conclusions about meta-parody and its function. Furthermore, Hutcheon’s and
Gates’ concepts both serve as a reaction: Dentith’s theories are contradicted by Linda
Hutcheon’s concept of postmodern parody and Gates’ idea of Signifyin(g) is based on
Bakhtin’s concept of a double-voiced discourse structure. These interactions between the scholars’ theories and the function of each of the concept in the whole course of the thesis suggest why the scholars’ viewpoints are ordered exactly in this sequence:
Genette’s, Dentith’s, Hutcheon’s, Bakhtin’s and Gates’.
5 Although each of these scholars introduces a slightly different viewpoint on certain aspects of parody, the basic notion of parody as a “mocking imitation in verse or prose of a literary work” (The FreeDictionary), “a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule” (Merriam-
Webster Dictionary), “mocking of an epos” (Genette 20, my translation) 1 or “relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice” (Dentith 9) is more or less accepted by each scholar. The definitions of parody by different scholars usually include descriptive tags such as “mocking”, “imitating”, “allusive”, or
“polemic”. These attributes are connected to the function of parody which is either understood as polemic (Dentith) or multilateral (Hutcheon). All of the aspects that are comprehended differently by each scholar, the function of parody included, will be discussed later.
To introduce the term meta-parody that is used in this thesis, the prefix meta- should be defined. This prefix indicates a new level of parody, which is a next layer that goes beyond the expected extent of parody. Sekules argues that “[i]t is a prefix meaning
‘among, after, behind’ and especially ‘beyond’, [...] it suggests the experience in question may be digested on more than one level” (qtd. in Safire). The prefix meta- is widely used to speak about a concept that exceeds a common scale and creates a new level above the scale. It is a fairly abstract notion of an idea that observes the precursor idea from above, so to speak. For example, meta-linguistic function of a language is speaking about a language by describing it or simply observing it. Analogically, meta- parody should then suggest a parody that describes a parody. However, the term meta- parody is not applied here to a form that describes parody but rather to a form that
1 “die Verspottung des Epos” (Genette 20)
6 parodies parody . Therefore, the prefix meta- in meta-parody is not used to indicate a text about parody but rather a parody of parody.
Within the notion of self-parody, on the other hand, it is not the function or the definition that is analyzed but it is rather the recognition of self-parody itself that is dealt with in this thesis. The author’s parody of his own style of writing, for example, might not be easily recognized because the reader might not notice any deviation from the author’s common style of writing. Genette claims that self-parody is actually impossible to recognize (Genette 173). The recognition of self-parody by the reader is dealt with later in the thesis.
Thus, all of these conceptions are discussed in the thesis: Genette’s notion of transtextuality and hypertextuality; Dentith’s concept of parody; Hutcheon’s distinction between parody, satire and irony; Gates’ notion of Signifyin(g); and my conclusion about meta-parody and self-parody that is derived from the aforementioned scholars’ theories. The instances of meta-parody and self-parody in Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo are discussed in the second part of the thesis.
7 2. The Concept of Parody
2.1 Genette’s Notion of Transtextuality
In order to generalize the attributes of a text and to find the common features that all texts share, Genette introduces new terms and definitions. 2 First, he gets the reader acquainted with the notion of architext which, he argues, is the opposite to poetics of the text. Architextuality is Genette’s first generalization: the term represents everything that a text formally consists of, such as the type of discourse, the mode of expression, and other formal categories of the text. However, the notion of architextuality is, Genette argues, still too concrete. This is why he introduces a new, even more general term: transtextuality (Genette 9). 3
In Genette’s view, the opposite of poetics of the text is not architextuality or the concrete uniqueness of the text but transtextuality, which is an abstract term that incorporates all types of relationships between the texts. It represents the transcendence of the text. The term of transtextuality, therefore, is an umbrella term for architextuality and all other kinds of relationships between the texts (Genette distinguishes five of them). Genette argues that transtextuality is the most general attribute of all texts because each and every text relates to other text or texts (Genette 20).
Based on Genette’s arguments, I would like to clarify the difference between the general unintentional notion of transtextuality and the deliberate instances of transtextuality. First, each text relates somehow to other texts even though this relationship may be unintentional. It is because every text incorporates thoughts that
2 This chapter includes my English translations of Gérard Genette’s ideas from the German edition of the book: Genette, Gérard. Palimpseste, Die Literatur auf zweiter Stufe . Trans. Wolfram Bayer and Dieter Hornigm. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1993. 3 Transtexuality should not be confused with intertextuality. According to Genette, there is a difference between the two. The notion of transtextuality is more abstract than the concept of intertextuality because transtextuality suggests any relationship between the texts whereas intertextuality is rather one type of these relationships defined by an effective co-presence of two texts (Genette 9).
8 were read in other books by the writer of the text. In addition, each text belongs to some genre and it has some architextual relationship to the other texts. It means that each text follows some norms and rules that are shared by other texts of the same genre. These texts, therefore, clearly relate in some way to each other. However, these relationships are completely unintentionally created.
Second, there is another type of transtextuality, the intentional one that has some purpose or function in the text. This type of transtextuality creates a rich net of relationships between the texts. For example, in the case of intertextuality, which is, according to Genette, one type of transtextuality, this means taking a thought, idea, sentence or word from one text and incorporating them deliberately in some form in the new text. This could also mean writing allusively or imitating a style of another text, which could be either polemic or supportive, depending on the function of the allusion.
Transtextuality is a relationship of the newly created text to other preceding texts. 4 Each and every text has some relationship to the other texts. This means that they are either derived from preceding texts or take the existence of other former texts for granted. Genette recognizes exactly five types of transtextuality: paratextuality, metatextuality, architextuality, intertextuality and hypertextuality.
First, Genette defines paratextuality as the features of the text that do not belong to the text itself. These features are for example title, subtitles, footnotes and foreword.
Paratext is, technically speaking, not the text itself but just the paratext accompanying the text. Paratext is important for a better clarity of the text itself, especially in technical texts (Genette 11).
Next, metatext is a text about a text and it could be perceived as a commentary on the primary text. It could be therefore called a secondary text. However, metatext
4 Dentith uses the terms “preceding text” and “precursor text” to denote the parodied text, for which Genette applies the term “hypotext.”
9 does not have to be a separate text that comments on the text. It could be perceived even in the text itself (Genette 13).
The term of architextuality represents formal aspects of the text, such as the type of plot or characters. It could also be understood as a genre of the text that shares its paratextual features with the other texts of the same genre. Actually, Genette uses the term architextuality to denote what is traditionally meant by genre (Genette 13).
Intertextuality is depicted by Genette as a co-presence of two or more texts. It is an effective presence of one text in some other text. Further on, Genette distinguishes two types of intertextuality, namely quotation and allusion. A quotation must be framed in the quotation marks and the source of quotation must be stated. Allusion, on the other hand, is less explicit and less literal. This kind of intertextuality is understood by different scholars differently. For Simon Dentith, for example, allusions belong to the class of parody. Dentith calls them “glancing parodic allusions” (Dentith 7). In contrast,
Genette includes parody in hypertextuality which represents another type of transtextuality.
Genette understands hypertextuality as a relationship between text B (called hypertext), and a precursor text A (called hypotext). Sometimes, the prefix meta- instead of hyper- can be used: “... [I] give up on the search of a prefix that encompasses not only hyper- but also meta -” (Genette 15, original emphasis, my translation). 5 In this sense, therefore, Genette confirms my assumption that the prefix meta- is interchangeable with the prefix hyper- because they share the same meaning: they both suggest the kind of relationship between the texts that works with derivation and transition. Therefore, the meaning of the prefix meta- and hyper- overlaps and suggests
5 “... [ich] verzichte auf die Suche nach einem Präfix, das sowohl das hyper - als auch meta- enthält ” (Genette 15, original emphasis).
10 quite the same concept, which will be important in the explanation of the notion of meta-parody later on.
Based on Genette’s definitions of hypertextuality, let me further elaborate on the term hypotext. A hypotext is chosen by the writer, subjected to a transformation of some kind and used again in another text. I believe that the kind of transformation that the hypotext goes through can denote the relationship between hypotext and hypertext.
If the relationship between hypotext and hypertext is analyzed and identified, the function of the transformation of the hypotext can be understood.
Hypertext, on the other hand, is the term applied to the transformed text. Carrard explains that the term hypertext “refers to a specific type of manuscript, one where a prior text has been erased and replaced by a new one, but can still be read in transparency” (Carrard). The transparency suggests that there is a relationship between hypertext and its prior text (hypotext), meaning that the prior text is recognizable in the new transformed text. For this thesis, it is crucial to recognize and analyze the type and way of transformation to which the hypotext is subjected.
I believe that the concepts of hypotext and hypertext suggest a vertical character of hypertextuality. To illustrate this abstract notion, the reader can imagine a double- deck object, a house for example, where the hypotext creates the basis of the object and hypertext the next floor. Metaphorically speaking, meta-parody can possibly uncover the next upper floors of the house. It is useful to call these metaphoric upper floors hyper-hypertext, hyper-hyper-hypertext, etc.
For Genette, there is an important difference between intertextuality and hypertextuality: Hypertextuality includes a transformation of some kind whereas intertextuality includes none. He claims that “a hypertext is each text that was derived from a former text by means of a simple transformation (we will talk simply about
11 transformation ) or by means of an indirect transformation (by means of imitation )”
(Genette 18, my translation, original emphasis). 6 In other words, intertextual allusion in a new text works with no transformation of the precursor text, whereas in the case of hypertextuality, there is always some tranformation or some change of the hypotext in a new hypertext.
Genette also introduces the concept of self-parody. He classifies further subcategories of self-parody: the voluntary caricature of oneself and the involuntary one. He also introduces the problems that might occur during the decoding of self- parody by a reader. However, although this notion is crucial for the thesis, it is of marginal importance in Genette’s Palimpseste .
For the sake of clarity, I stick to Genette’s usage of the terms intertextuality, transtextuality and hypertextuality and I will not include for example Julia Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality because her concept is already incorporated in Genette’s theory, as he himself points out (Genette 10). Furthermore, I use Genette’s terminology even though some scholars oppose to Genette’s neologisms (Hutcheon, for example) and consider his notion of transtextuality too limited in the field of parody. However, even though it seems that the notion of transtextuality is too general in comparison to the concept of parody as it is traditionally perceived, the notion of the relationship between transitioned texts is very useful for the analysis of meta-parody and self- parody.
6 “Als Hypertext bezeichne ich also jeden Text, der von einem früheren Text durch eine einfache Transformation (wir werden einfach von Transformation sprechen) oder durch eine indirekte Transformation (durch Nachahmung ) abgeleitet wurde” (Genette 18, original emphasis).
12 2.2 Simon Dentith’s Spectrum of Parody
Dentith is not as specific and as precise as Gérard Genette in his devision of relationships between the texts. On the contrary, Dentith does not create neologisms to denote these relationships but he rather elaborates on the traditional notion of parody.
However, he brings up a few important new ideas about parody. Especially his notion of the scale of parody, or rather, a “spectrum of parody” (Dentith 6) will be important for my elaboration on meta-parody and self-parody later on in the thesis.
First, describing his comprehension of parody, it is important to know that
Dentith distinguishes “specific” and “general parody,” “the former aimed at specific precursor text, the latter at a whole body of texts or kind of discourse” (Dentith 7). This seems to be a simple and clear division. In fact, however, I believe that the borderlines of this distinction could be quite blurred and vague. An example could efficiently illustrate this vagueness: If a specific hypotext is parodied (transformed), the hypertext might include the polemic edge to the hypertext’s genre or style as well, and so could be the division to general or specific parody unclear. Or, the hypertext might be recognized as a general parody of a body of texts but it might include separate allusions to specific hypotexts as well.
More useful, however, is Dentith’s concept of the “spectrum of parody” (Dentith
6). Dentith describes this notion in this way:
The relevant range of cultural practices could conveniently be arranged as a
spectrum , according to the evaluations that differing forms make of the texts that
they cite, with reverential citation at one end of the scale (‘My text today is
taken from…’), to hostile parody at the other end, and passing through a
multitude of cultural forms on the way. Thus spectrum would include imitation,
13 pastiche, mock-heroic, burlesque, travesty, spoof and parody itself. (Dentith 6,
my emphasis)
I understand that this distinction suggests that separate instances of parody (i.e. separate hypertexts) differ in the way and manner of transition to which the hypotexts were subjected. This scale of parody is later compared with Genette’s notion of vertical relationship between hypo- and hypertexts in the analysis of meta-parody.
Furthermore, Dentith understands the function of parody as purely critical and polemical to the parodied text. Although he later contradicts this polemic function with
Hutcheon’s understanding, he claims that parody is never neutral. Dentith admits that
“[Hutcheon] concludes that it is wrong to define parody by its polemical relation to the parodies text [...], since many of the contemporary art works that she discusses simply do not have that polemical edge to them” (Dentith 17). However, he later claims:
“Parody itself is socially and politically multivalent; its particular uses are never neutral
[...]” (Dentith 28). He, therefore, concludes that the function of parody is always critical. Parody challenges the canonical texts, it criticizes stylistic habits by “making
[them] comically visible” and it “confronts the word of the author with those of the characters”. However, Simon Dentith draws a conclusion about where this polemic is directed at: it is directed at the world rather than the hypotext. This could suggest an interesting problem which Dentith calls “a parodic paradox”: “Parody can act to preserve the very forms that it attacks” (Dentith 37). Indeed, it is a paradox because
Dentith claims that parody always has a critical function and yet, it can support the very form it subverts. This discrepancy is dealt with later in the chapter about the functions of parody.
14 2.3 Linda Hutcheon’s Postmodern Parody
Hutcheon refers to parody as the twentieth century phenomenon. Considering parody as a flexible and multivalent mode of expression, she identifies it as the universal expression of twentieth century art forms. As she points out, the concept of parody is broadened “to fit the needs of the art of our century – an art that implies another and somewhat different concept of textual appropriation. [...] Parody [...] is an integrated structural modeling process of revising, replaying, inverting, and ‘trans- contextualizing’ previous works of art” (Hutcheon 11). Therefore, Hutcheon examines parody not only in the art works of modern literature, but also in music, architecture, theatre, film and visual art.
As far as the definition of parody is concerned, Hutcheon chooses to define parody as “a form of repetition with ironic critical distance, marking difference rather than similarity” (Hutcheon xii). Hutcheon also defines other features and attributes of parody: “Like irony, parody is a form of indirect as well as double-voiced discourse, but it is not parasitic in any way” (Hutcheon xiv). Finally, she puts stress on the self- reflexive attribute of parody and its multivalent and elusive character. For Hutcheon, the notion of parody is not just a mere ridiculing imitation defined in dictionaries; it is rather the universal mode of 20th century art works expression.
Hutcheon also distinguishes between parody and satire. She argues that parody is completely different from satire, dissociating herself from other scholars’ viewpoints:
“I stress this basic fact throughout this book because even the best works on parody tend to confuse it [parody] with satire, which, unlike parody, is both moral and social in its focus and ameliorative in its intention” (Hutcheon 16). The target of satire is the real world whereas the one of parody is basically the precursor text, body of texts or style.
This leads to a conclusion that, from Hutcheon’s point of view, Dentith’s argument
15 about the polemic function of parody, invariable in its character but changeable in its direction, is invalid. According to Dentith, the function of parody is always polemic; however, “parody can have its polemic directed to the world rather than the preceding text” (Dentith 18). On the contrary, according to Hutcheon, having the polemic directed to the world is precisely the distinctive feature of satire, as opposed to parody.
Hutcheon therefore defines the function of parody in a different way: “The function of parody was often to be the malicious, denigrating vehicle of satire, a role it continues to play to this day in some forms of parody” (Hutcheon 11). However, the function of parody is not that clear in the twentieth century as it used to be. In the twentieth century art forms, the intent of parody 7 can obviously differ on a range “from respectful admiration to biting ridicule” (Hutcheon 16). In other words, the function of parody does not have to be necessarily a polemic or a criticism; it could also be “a playful, genial mockery of codifiable forms” (Hutcheon 15) or just a respectful borrowing of the prestige and authority of the great works of art.
Furthermore, Hutcheon devotes one chapter to encoding and decoding of parody, stating that parody depends immensely upon recognition. She argues that parody cannot work without the reader’s recognition, ceasing to exist completely without it. Therefore, “in order for parody to be recognized and interpreted, there must be certain codes shared between encoder and decoder” (Hutcheon 27). She argues that in some ways, parody resembles metaphor: “Both require that the decoder construct a second meaning through inferences about surface statements and supplement the foreground with acknowledgement and knowledge of a background context” (Hutcheon
33). Hutcheon argues that without the knowledge and interpreting of the background
7 Hutcheon recurrently uses the term “intent of parody” to describe the aim, the target and the intention of parody.
16 context of a text, parody gets neutralized and naturalized, adapted to the context of the whole work of art.
According to Hutcheon, Genette does not include the role of a decoder in his notion of transtextuality. On the contrary, he wrongly focuses only on formal analysis of the textual interrelations, and puts the fact that imitation and transformation of the text must be perceived and interpreted by a reader in the background of his analysis.
Hutcheon finds this limiting, observing that there is always a certain shift in perception of parody when the reader’s interpretation steps in. Hutcheon describes Genette’s formal analysis as too restricted and limited for the purposes of the modern art forms:
“Genette wants to limit parody to such short texts as poems, proverbs, puns, and titles, but modern parody discounts this limitation, as it does Genette’s restricted definition of parody as minimal transformation of another text” (Hutcheon 18).
2.4 Mikhail Bakhtin’s Double-voiced Discourse
Mikhail Bakhtin outlines a distinction between a monologue and a dialogue in his book Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (Zappen). Although this distinction might seem unimportant for parody, it is in fact closely connected to it, especially the concept of a dialogue that Mikhail Bakhtin calls “a double-voiced discourse” (qtd. in Zappen).
Most of the scholars who work in the field of parody use Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of the double-voiced discourse.
It is useful to explain Bakhtin’s theory of a single-voiced discourse in contrast to the double-voiced one. Bakhtin argues that “a monologic, single-voiced discourse is discourse that recognizes only itself and its object, discourse that does not recognize other people’s words” (qtd. in Zappen). In other words, if a discourse is single-voiced, it
17 denotes only the meaning of the text in the real world. On the other hand, a double- voiced discourse inserts “a new semantic intention into a discourse which already has, and which retains, an intention of its own” (qtd. in Zappen). Therefore, when a discourse is double-voiced, it means that the text has yet another function than just to describe of the real world. This meaning simply reveals the author’s intention in the text he wrote. Bakhtin understands parody as a double-voiced discourse where the critical voice of the writer is heard simultaneously with the text itself. As Simon Dentith puts it, in a double-voiced discourse, “we can hear [...] simultaneous traces both of the characters’ speech and the author’s attitude towards it” (Dentith 8).
This theory of a double-voiced discourse forms the basis for Henry L. Gates’ notion of Signifyin(g) in African American discourse, where these two voices of the double-voiced discourse become separate, “being what Bakhtin describes as ‘splitting of double-voiced discourse into two speech acts, into two entirely separate and autonomous voices’ ” (Gates 113). What is more, there is yet another understanding of double-voiced discourse in African American writings. According to Gates, the word
“double” might refer to the doubleness of literary predecessors of African American texts whose authors are both black and white. Gates suggests that “a novelist such as
Ralph Ellison or Ishmael Reed creates texts that are double-voiced in the sense that their literary antecedents are both white and black” (Gates xxiii). But this notion is slightly different from the one that Mikhail Bakhtin draws. Gates’ notion of parody in the
African American trope of the tropes, Signifyin(g), will be explained in the next section.
18 2.5 Henry L. Gates’ Notion of Parody in Signifyin(g)
First, it is useful to understand Gates’ terminology in the concept of
Signifyin(g). The term itself, Signifyin(g), was coined with the capital letter and bracketed “g” by Gates himself to distinguish the usage of this word from the one in standard English. Gates basically borrows a standard English term “signifying” and transforms its meaning to fit African American rhetoric tradition: “Whereas in standard
English usage signification can be represented by signified/signifier and that which is signified is a concept, [...] in the black homonym, this relation of semantic has been supplanted by a relation of rhetoric, wherein the signifier ‘Signification’ is associated with a concept that stands for [...] Signifyin(g)” (Gates 48, original emphasis).
Next, it is important to understand the notion of Signifyin(g) itself. Similarly to
Genette’s transtextuality that serves as an umbrella term for all kinds of relationships between the texts, Gates’ Signifyin(g) can be basically understood as an umbrella term for the tropes of the African American vernacular. As it was already mentioned in the introduction, “Signifyin(g) is a trope in which are subsumed several other rhetorical tropes, including metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony (the master tropes)”
(Gates 52). But it is more than that. Owens states that “to Signify […] is to tease, to provoke into anger” (qtd. in Gates 70). Signifyin(g) is a provocation, teasing, loud talking (provocation so loud that the other person can hear it but so indirect that the other person cannot respond) and playing the dozens. It could be any other kind of game with words, such as punning, joking and indirect implication.
It is crucial to understand what parody represents in the concept of Signifyin(g).
Signifyin(g) consists of many subtropes, parody being one of the central ones. Similarly to hypertextual relationship between the texts, Signifyin(g) has also a vertical character, as Gates puts it: “Signifyin(g) operates and can be represented on a paradigmatic or
19 vertical axis” (Gates 49). Moreover, Signifyin(g) is mainly a technique of allusive implication, where the hypotext could be the whole body of texts or even the hypertext itself.
Moreover, Gates makes a distinction between parody and pastiche in his concept of Signifyin(g). He points out the relation between parody and pastiche in his notion of
Signifyin(g): “The relation between parody and pastiche is that between motivated and unmotivated Signifyin(g)” (Gates xxvi). According to Gates, the difference between the two is not the “lack of intention” (Gates xxvii) because Gates is aware of the presence of intention in both parody and pastiche. It is rather the “absence of a negative critique”
(Gates xxvi) in pastiche that draws the line between parody and pastiche. Gates argues that the text of Mumbo Jumbo “constitute[s] a Signification of a profoundly motivated order” (Gates xxvii). In other words, Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed is a book in which parody is one of the central aspects.
20 3. The Function of Parody, Meta-parody and Self-parody
3.1 The Function of Parody
Parody in general can be analyzed from two points of view: the writer’s point of view (a derivation of a hypertext from a hypotext – encoding) and the reader’s point of view (a recognition of a hypotext that a hypertext was derived from – decoding). First, the process of creation of a hypertext will be described and analyzed. Second, the process of the hypotext recognition will be examined. After making both processes understandable, the function of parody will be explained.
It is understood now, according to Genette, that each hypertext is derived from its hypotext via a transition of some kind. This transition is done in a number of steps.
First, the author has the intention to parody a concrete text, a body of texts, style or his own writing. Second, he or she recognizes the text, analyses it and unconsciously deconstructs it to a number of features. Later on, the author recognizes the peculiar features of the text that make the text unique and these peculiar features are exaggerated then. The hypertext is thus created and the original parodied text becomes the prior text, i.e. hypotext. This phase could be called encoding.
The recognition of parody, which could be called decoding, is an abstract and fairly complicated process. The recognition that the text is actually a hypertext might not even be successful. It depends on cultural knowledge, general knowledge of the preceding texts, general knowledge of styles and combinatory ability to recognize the allusions and to match them with the corresponding hypotexts. I therefore believe that the nature of parody as a narrative device is vocative, which means that it depends on the readers’ understanding. This leads to a conclusion that it is always easier for a writer
21 to parody some well-known text or cultural practice because more readers will correctly decode and relate the hypertext to the corresponding hypotext.
Now, Simon Dentith’s spectrum of parody and Gérard Genette’s notion of transtextuality might be compared and contrasted. I maintain that Simon Dentith’s
“spectrum of parody” (Dentith 6), created by a mere allusion on one end of a spectrum and hostile parody on the other end, is connected precisely to the stage of encoding of parody, i.e. to derivation of hypertext. This is the point when the writer exaggerates the peculiar features of a hypotext. The extent to which the writer exaggerates the uniqueness of a hypotext corresponds to separate levels of the spectrum of parody. On the other hand, Genette’s theory of change, shift and transformation between hypotext and hypertext is connected to the phase when the writer decomposes the hypotext and chooses the features he or she considers unique for the text. Therefore, the transition could in Genette’s sense be different because different features are exaggerated. The main difference is thus between the extent (Dentith’s spectrum of parody) and the manner (Genette’s levels of hypertextuality) of the transition.
Considering the function of parody, Simon Dentith claims that the usage of parody is always polemical (Dentith 28). 8 This actually means that during the phase of exaggeration, the mocking tone is always present. There could always be some critique found in parody although Dentith later states that the polemic does not have to be always directed at the precursor text. In other words, picking out the most eminent features of someone else’s writing or of a concrete text, exaggerating them and using them again in a hypertext means actually mocking the hypotext, arguing about the usefulness of the hypotext and undermining its seriousness. This means that the actual
8 See chapter 2.2 Simon Dentith’s Spectrum of Parody.
22 function of parody is to undermine the hypotext with a new mocking tone that is added to it.
But, obviously, it is not that simple. Dentith himself acknowledges Linda
Hutcheon’s viewpoint that “many of the contemporary art works [...] simply do not have that polemical edge to them” (qtd. in Dentith 17) and the function of parody cannot therefore be only polemical. This conclusion is connected to the stage of creation of parody when the eminent features of a text are picked out. Understandably, each writer can choose different features to parody. Furthermore, the writer does not necessarily have to parody the hypotext just to mock it or undermine its credibility.
What is more, Dentith himself later introduces the problem of parodic paradox:
“Parody can act to preserve the very forms that it attacks” (Dentith 37). This implies that parody does not always mock and undermine the hypotext. In fact, parody helps to preserve it and is therefore supportive of the very genre, style or the text it parodies.
This preserving role of parody is connected to the phase of transition when the most eminent features of the hypotext are identified and later exaggerated in the new hypertext. Hypertext therefore serves as a supportive commentary text of a hypotext, with all the important features nicely pointed out and highlighted. Parody therefore preserves the very form it attacks because it shows what is standing out in a specific text.
In conclusion, I believe that parody does not always have a polemical function.
By choosing to mock one concrete text by parodying it, the writer actually achieves the very opposite at the same time. The writer actually helps to preserve the form he or she wanted to subvert or mock.
23 3.2 Meta-parody
As it was already defined in the introduction, the term meta-parody is used to describe a theoretical situation of a hypertext’s undergoing yet another transition. The hypertext becomes a prior text and a newly transformed text, which could be analogically called a hyper-hypertext, is derived. In theory, this transforming process could be a never-ending process because each new hypertext could be transformed and used again as a hyper-hypertext, shifted and used again as a hyper-hyper-hypertext, etc.
Thus, an endless chain of transitioned texts or an evolutionary line of texts linearly related to each other would be created, with each of the transformation visible at each stage of the chain.
However, as it was already stated earlier, Genette’s notion of hypertextuality is not horizontal, in fact, it is rather vertical. This is why this notion of linear chain of texts should be abandoned and a metaphor of a vertical “ladder of texts” used instead.
Elaborating on the metaphor further, each rundle of the “ladder of texts” corresponds to each level of hyper-hypertextuality. At the bottom, therefore, there is the hypotext, moving upwards on the ladder, the hypertexts of the next levels can be found.
Let me now extend this theory of parodic ladder. Understanding the nature of transition between the hypotexts and their hypertexts, it is obvious that the metaphor
“ladder of texts” is not sufficient. This is because each new hypertext and hyper- hypertext is derived from an already transitioned text, so that the original text (first hypotext) and the hyper-hypertext at the top of the ladder might not be possible to read transparently, already encompassing too many transformations at different levels of the evolutionary line. Therefore, instead of the “ladder of texts”, a new metaphor “pyramid of texts” is introduced.
24 This theoretical situation of a vertical pyramid of texts could be compared with and contrasted to Dentith’s spectrum of parody, which has a purely horizontal character.
As it was already mentioned, the instances of his spectrum are distinguished by the extent of the transition they underwent. On the one end of the spectrum, there is a
“reverential citation” (Dentith 6) with no transtition at all and at the other end, there is
“hostile parody” (6) that transforms the hypotext significantly, adding a lot of hidden meaning to it. In contrast to Dentith’s horizontal spectrum of parody, the pyramid of meta-parody is vertical. At the base of the pyramid, there is a hypotext, transformed and shifted to the next stage called hypertext. Another transition of the hypertext creates a next stage of the pyramid called hyper-hypertext, etc. The pyramid of hypertexts is vertical, whereas Dentith’s spectrum of parody is horizontal.
To be able to define the function of meta-parody, it might be useful to define the relationship between hypotext, hypertext, hyper-hypertext, etc. In other words, it is crucial to define the other qualities of the pyramid of hypertexts, apart from its verticality: for example, the number of stages that the pyramid can have.
To examine these qualities, it is useful to look back at the process of parody creation again, in particular at the part where the peculiar features of hypotext are exaggerated. 9 At the first stage, the peculiar features of the precursor text are recognized and exaggerated and the hypertext of the first level is derived. This hypertext is to be transitioned again. Analogically, the peculiar features of such hypertext depend on the function of the first transition, i.e. the function of parody of the first level. If the function of the first parodic transition was basically to mock the hypotext, there was a new mocking tone added during the transition. Thus, the most outstanding feature of such a hypertext is the mockery that was added to it during the first transition. However,
9 See chapter 3.1 The Function of Parody.
25 as it was already outlined, the function of parody does not always have to be polemic. In fact, it could be even supportive to the genre or style that is parodied. Therefore, the peculiar features in the hypertext could be various, according to what the function of parody at the first transition is.
Let me now describe the second transition at the level of the first hypertext during which the hyper-hypertext is derived. During this transition, the hypertext has to be analyzed, its peculiar features have to be found and exaggerated with a mocking tone in the new hyper-hypertext. Having already a specific intent and function (mockery, for example), the hypertext is mocked again and a new hyper-hypertext is created. In theory, this whole transition process could be repeated in a never-ending chain of transitions.
However, this cannot be practically done because of two obvious reasons. First, the function of meta-parody is already set at the level of parody. For example, if the intent of parody is to mock the hypotext, the function of meta-parody is to mock the mockery. It is therefore linguistically and communicatively unproductive to introduce yet another transition and to create hyper-hyper-hypertext with exactly the same qualities as the hyper-hypertext of the lower level.
Second, the human mind is universally unable to digest a linguistic experience on more than two levels. It blends the number of meta-levels into one universal meta- level. It is therefore not only unproductive but also impossible to introduce yet another transition of the hyper-hypertext. The level of hyper-hypertext is the last level to which a hypotext can be transitioned. I therefore believe that the meta-parody works as a vertical pyramid of parody that has only three finite levels: hypotext, hypertext and hyper-hypertext.
26 3.3 Self-parody
Genette’s mention of self-parody is of marginal importance in his Palimpseste .
However, he introduces the concept of self-parody and he describes the subcategories of this phenomenon. Genette distinguishes two of them: deliberate and involuntary caricature of oneself. Using an example of self-parody in a Proust’s essay, he calls
Proust’s parody of his own style “proustifying” (Genette 168). 10 Furthermore, he considers the recognition of self-parody as the greatest problem, noting that writing in one’s own style is nothing noteworthy in one’s text, thus being difficult to recognize and analyze as a deliberate self-caricature (Genette 173).
Based on Genette, I believe that there are another two subcategories of self- parody. First, there is parody of one’s own style, the one that Genette introduces.
Second, there is parody of one’s own text in a new text. It could be easily mistaken with a concept that Genette calls “imaginary parody” (Genette 173), 11 a process during which a fictional character’s speech is parodied, for example. This is a parody of non-existent speech, style or behaviour of a fictional character. Although imaginary parody is similar to self-parody and the borderline is quite blurred and vague, the two should be distinguished from each other. The type of self-parody where one’s text is parodied in one’s new text will be demonstrated on an example from Mumbo Jumbo , where a fictional pretext is parodied.
As it was already mentioned, an African American discourse is characterized by
Signifyin(g), the trope of the tropes, and Signifyin(g) can be described as operating on more than one level. Gates calls this phenomenon a concept of doubling and re- doubling. He points out that one sign or trope appears to be already repeated, doubled and re-doubled upon closer examination within a concept of Singnifyin(g). For
10 “proustifizieren” (Genette 168) 11 “imaginäres Parodie” (Genette 173)
27 example, the African American parodic discourse may parody itself at the same time.
Gates describes this situation as a metaphor: “Thinking about the black concept of
Signifyin(g) is a bit like stumbling unaware into a hall of mirrors: the sign itself appears to be doubled, at the very last, and (re)doubled upon ever closer examination” (Gates
44). The author writing within the concept of Signifyin(g) might also revise and double his own device, transitioning it slightly and thus creating the instances of self-parody.
This is how the instances of self-parody may occur in African American discourse.
However, it might be argued that apart from cases such as the use of doubling concept in African American discourse, it is difficult or almost impossible to distinguish self-parody from parody as such or from the concept of metafiction. Having some of the features in common, such as self-scrutiny and self-reflection, there seems to be no significant difference between parody, self-parody and metafiction. However, there is an important differentiating feature between self-parody and parody: the narrative bears an ironic relation to itself, being simultaneously written and parodied, as if hypotext and hypertext existed simultaneously next to each other, or, rather, blended one in another.
Thus, a text comments on the nature of its writing itself and a hypertext parodies not only itself but also the process of its creation. However, self-parody also differs from metafiction because it does not only bear an ironic relation to itself, this relation is parodied again, revised it and re-doubled upon closer examination. Self-parody therefore opens an entirely new level above metafiction.
28 4. Parody in Ishmael Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo
4.1 Parody as Such in Mumbo Jumbo
Mumbo Jumbo is a novel written by an African American writer Ishmael Reed.
Its plot describes the rise and fall of a revolutionary movement called Jes Grew, an abstract dance epidemic, constantly threatened by its opposers called Atonists, who employ a military organization called the Wallflower Order. In the centre of the narration, there is a trickster Papa LaBas, the Vodoun detective. “The central plot’s mystery involves the location of Jes Grew’s sacred text, which, as it turns out, dates from ancient Egypt. [...] Throughout [the central] plot, Reed threads a critique of
Western cultures and a validation of minority subcultures, most prominently Vodoun”
(Strombeck). The fact that the main figure of the plot is actually an abstract dance epidemic Jes Grew itself makes the novel seem rather absurd and difficult to understand in its abstraction. However, a detailed analysis of the novel offers multiple interpretations which help to reveal not only the concrete allusions in the fragmented flow of narration, but also offer a general understanding of the African American rhetoric strategy as such.
Mumbo Jumbo is a “textbook” of African American rhetoric tradition with numerous instances of Signifyin(g). It parodies canonical texts, African American texts and documentaries. Its satire is directed at numerous targets of the real world: “A short list of Reed’s satirical targets in Mumbo Jumbo includes Afrocentrism, literary journals,
Marxism, Warren Harding, and black power” (Strombeck). Parody in Mumbo Jumbo has an obvious critical edge that is expressed by Signifyin(g): “ Mumbo Jumbo seems to be concerned to critique and to revise the modes of representation fundamental to the
29 canonical texts that comprise the tradition of the Afro-American novel. Mumbo Jumbo attempts this critique by Signifyin(g)” (Gates 217).
Mumbo Jumbo is an untypical novel. According to Davis, “Reed escapes the problematic association with an ‘all-white genre’ through parody, in particular through breaking the pattern of the traditional Western novel” (qtd. in Strombeck). Reed’s
Mumbo Jumbo is rather a bitter parody of canonical texts embodied in an African
American text than a typical Western novel.
Mumbo Jumbo is a hypertext that parodies styles, modes and concrete hypotexts.
Specifically, the whole story of the subversive movement Jes Grew is framed as a parody of a detective novel, the detective being Papa LaBas who is also the one to reveal the criminal at the end of the detective story. However, what Reed creates is not a typical parody of Western detective novel. Weixlmann describes Reed as “tricking the detective novel into bearing the weight of untraditional black messages” (qtd. in Harde).
On the other hand, Hogue compares Reed’s writing to jazz performers’ improvisation:
“What Reed in Mumbo Jumbo does is improvise upon the conventions of the traditional detective story (much in the same way that jazz musicians are expected to improvise on the standard composition)” (Hogue). I believe that what Reed does is not only parodying the detective story but also employing the tactics of African American
Signifyin(g). Among others, Reed improvises upon parody itself. For example, his parody of the revelation, the crucial feature of every detective story, is exaggerated to the extreme: Reed covers the whole revelation in the longest chapter of the book, letting the detective LaBas dutifully investigate every smallest step of the criminal. As
Strombeck puts it, Reed provides a reader with “a parody of a dime store detective novel dénouement in which the villains turn out to have been plotting for the past 5,000 years” (Strombeck). The improvisation upon parody lies in the extreme length and
30 depth of the revelation: villain’s ancestors are tracked down no closer than to the ancient Egypt. Moreover, LaBas’s detective intention is to make a final recognition not only of the villain but also of the problems with texts: “first those [problems] from
Islam, Christianity, and Judaism; then with the Text he has been seeking, and finally in the text that holds him as a created figure” (Harde). Reed chooses to parody a typical
Western genre, a detective novel, to show that “the traditional detective story is not innocent, that it is a construct, and that it endorses Western metaphysics” (Hogue). By mocking the conventions of a detective story, Reed opposes one of the most traditional construct of a Western society. However, he criticizes this construct in an untraditional way, attacking the traditional way of opposing itself.
However, as Reed often works with meta-levels, he puts the frame of a detective novel into yet another frame: he starts the story with a prologue before the narration itself begins. This reminds of a film opening (Gates 227), where the first scenes are played out before the theme tune and title appears on the screen. Thus, Reed introduces the opening of the book as a hostile parody of a gangster movie, using a mocking tone from the very first paragraph: “A True Sport, the Mayor of New Orleans, spiffy in his patent-leather brown and white shoes, his plaid suit, the Rudolph Valentino parted- down-the-middle hair style, sits in his office. Sprawled upon his knees is Zuzu, local doo-wack-a-doo and voo-do-dee-odo fizgig” (Reed 3). It is only after the prologue, the
“opening credits,” that the title of the book, author, acknowledgement, motto and the first pages follow. Gates notes that “the prologue […] functions as a false start of the action: five pages of narration are followed by a second title page, a second copyright and acknowledgement page. […] This prologue functions like the prologue of a film, with the title and credits appearing next before the action continues.” Similarly, the book is framed with a film fade out at the end (Gates 227). It can be noticed that Reed
31 not only improvises upon the parody of a literary genre in his exaggerated revelation, but he also applies his parodic allusions across the genres, using a film structure in the opening and ending of the book and in the fragmented flow of the narrative that mirrors the structure of film scenes.
Next, Reed parodies the documentary conventions: he provides the novel with bibliography, subtexts, footnotes and explanatory in-text comments. Mumbo Jumbo is a parody of the African American documentary, with many elements explicitly explained and recurrently listed. As Gates puts it, “this documentary scheme of notes, illustrations, and bibliography parodies the documentary conventions of black realism and naturalism, as does Reed’s recurrent use of lists and catalogues” (Gates 223). At the end of the book, there is the “Partial Bibliography.” Gates claims that “the ‘Partial
Bibliography’ is Reed’s most brilliant stroke, since its unconcealed presence parodies both the scholar’s appeal to authority and all studied attempts to conceal literary antecedents and influences” (Gates 224). Analyzing this phenomenon, it should be noted that “Partial Bibliography” has many functions. First, it is a meta-parody of the pretexts and posttexts that Reed provides throughout the book. Providing only partial bibliography at the end of the book reverses these parodic attempts at academic plausibility of the text. However, Reed’s pun does not end there, it goes beyond the expected scale: the label “Partial Bibliography” seems to be misleading; it seems that no entry is actually missing. Thus, Reed opens a debate by this multilaterally cutting signification and suggests an open-endedness of interpretation. What is more, providing just partial bibliography, Reed subverts his former attempt to create an authentic, academically plausible text. Using the word “partial” with connection to bibliography that always must be “full” to be credible, Reed ridicules his subtexts, footnotes and in-
32 text comments that he has created throughout the book. By just one word, he parodies the whole scheme of the book.
It is not only style or discourse conventions that Reed parodies. He makes quite a few concrete allusions. For example, he creates names of the characters that incorporate a hidden polemic. Hinkle Von Vampton’s name is a double derivation:
“Hinckle Von Vampton […] suggests Carl Van Vechten, but his first name, from the
German hinken (‘to limp’), could suggest the German engraver Hermann Knackfuss, whose name translates as ‘a person with a clubfoot’” (Gates 224). Reed similarly derives other names, for example the name of Atonist’s military arm, the Wallflower
Order, is also an allusion. According to Gates, “ ‘Wallflower Order’ is a two-term pun on ‘Ivy League’” (Gates 225), the elite group of private institutions of higher education in America associated with social selection and elitism. “The name ‘La Bas’ is derived from Esu-Elegbara” (Gates 234), which is a figure of original trickster in African
American rhetoric tradition. Furthermore, although Reed explains the origin of the name
Mu’tafikah in the footnotes as being derived from The Koran, in fact, Gates argues that
“Mu’tafikah puns on ‘motherfucker,’ which signifies chaos. Also, as Robert Eliot Fox suggests, ‘mu’ is the twelfth letter of the Greek alphabet, suggesting the dozens” (Gates
225, original emphasis). All in all, Reed provides numerous name derivations and keyword puns of this kind, making his text full of parodic allusions.
Being multi-layered, double framed and having its tropes infinitely multiplied, it is clear that Mumbo Jumbo is not a linear text in any way. Hogue supports this argument: “Reed in Mumbo Jumbo undermines the whole idea of linearity, a structure that negates certain kinds of experience” (Hogue). On the contrary, the Western civilization is linear, having an ultimate belief in achievement, progress and destiny, trying to create a systematic world. Reed uses the linear narration only temporarily,
33 when he describes the rational Atonist order, the anti-hero of the book (Hogue). Even
Papa LaBas himself, once he becomes too rigid and linear is advised to “improvise some” (Reed 130). Hogue argues that “improvisation, in fact, is an essential element of
Voodoo, just as it is essential to the musical forms of jazz and the blues. Of course,
Reed defines both as interconnected within the African American cultural matrix”
(Hogue). What Reed parodies is actually the whole concept of the linearity of the
Western civilization that is mirrored in Western narrative strategy. By means of parody, he maintains a polemic viewpoint towards the fixed Western rhetoric strategy, and he shows that it is the improvisation upon the genre and form that can overcome the rigid and uncreative style of writing.
It could be therefore argued that Reed’s Mumbo Jumbo opens an “infinite circle of improvisation” (Hogue), where the figures are infinitely doubled and re-doubled in a multi-layered discourse. Meta-parody, though working on more than one level, has a finite number of transitions, as I have outlined before. However, there seems to be an obvious discrepancy between the infinite circle of improvisation and the finite pyramid of hypertexts that poses a question, to which the text of Mumbo Jumbo itself gives an answer: “Is this the end of Jes Grew? Jes Grew has no end and no beginning” (Reed
204). Gates, interpreting this significant sentence, states that “Reed prepares the reader for multiple meanings. This means that Mumbo Jumbo itself resists any attempt at totalization” (Gates 235). Thus, similarly to the original trickster Esu, who “is One, infinitely multiplied” (Gates 36), there is one finite pyramid of parody that is doubled and redoubled endlessly. Meta-parody can be infinitely repeated and multiply improvised upon; however, it is finite in its form.
In conclusion, Reed not only mixes the genres to create a ridiculing text, a mixture of mocking parody of white Western canonical discourses, he also employs the
34 means of African American Signifyin(g), using many layers of subtropes, such as the finite pyramid of parody, meta-parody and self-parody, doubling and re-doubling them again and again. The whole text is therefore a composition and mixture of many layers that will be examined in more detail in the next subsection.
4.2 Meta-parody in Mumbo Jumbo
As it was mentioned before, recognition of meta-parody and its hypotexts is an elaborate process. In Mumbo Jumbo , the instances of meta-parody overlap with self- parody, as Reed parodies his own hypertexts. To demonstrate the functioning of meta- parody in an African American discourse, let me choose and analyze a few situations from the book.
First, it is Reed’s meta-parody of one passage in the book where he employs a pun on one of the characteristic features of Signifyin(g), the doubling concept. “Reed underscores the play of doubles by a narrative strategy of double voices, double plot lines, and most especially by the repeating of the ‘double-double’ figure itself, ‘22’, which reappears frequently throughout the novel […]” (Gates 222). 12 However, Reed parodies his constant tendency to double and re-double in a diner scene where
Barbelang orders 2 coffees and “He knows that the coffee should be 1 cent a cup” (Reed
90). Suddenly, Reed violates his already parodied doubling scheme and the two are asked to pay 3 cents for 2 coffees. This parody is later revised and parodied again. This time, there are already three items to be paid, but the price does not fit again. It is the allusion on the previous scene: “75 cents for 3 hamburgers? Don’t look at me, the waitress says” (Reed 205). The waitress performs a ridiculously long monologue about
12 Notice Gates’ own allusive pun on the concept of doubling and re-doubling, as he defines it on page 222, using the doubling concept himself.
35 the prices, pointing out irrelevant details. The meta-parody works on the second level here.
The text of Mumbo Jumbo is a parody of African American rhetoric tradition that encompasses parody as one of its central subtropes. Therefore, the text of Mumbo
Jumbo has many instances of meta-parody. One example could be found in Reed’s usage of explained anagram in the final revelation of the criminal. The final gathering where the revelation is performed by LaBas is “held in a villa located at Irvington-on-
Hudson, so named Villa Lewaro, an anagram upon Hostess’ name, by famed tenor
Enrico Caruso” (Reed 156). 13 However, as Gates points out, “ ‘Lewaro’ is actually an anagram for ‘we oral’” (Gates 226), which is already a parody of African American tradition of using anagrams and wordplays. It is reversed and parodied again by Reed, who claims it to be an anagram for hostess’ name; however, there is no hostess in the villa and no one knows her actual name.
Multiple layers of parody could be demonstrated on one more example.
Listening to the Situation Report from the 8-tubed Radio, Adbul Hamid hears the song
“When The Pussy Willow Whispers To The Catnip.” Abdul “almost snarls: Turn off that ofay music” (Reed 32). This is, again, the instance of Signifyin(g) that employs meta-parody. Too long and too specific title of a song is a parody of a situational setting description in a Western novel. However, the song with such a long title actually exists.
It was written and performed by Vaughn De Leath (document-record.com), the name being another allusion on Hinkle Von Vampton. The song is also called “The Whisper
Song,” which is a hidden reference on Jes Grew searching its sacred Text that has to be articulated. However, “The Whisper” is already a meta-parody. It is a hyper-hypertext
13 Enrico Caruso was an Italian tenor, who is also famous for being arrested because he “annoyed” a woman in the monkey house of New York’s Central Park Zoo. He later claimed that it was a monkey who pinched the lady’s bottom (Hdtracks.com). Reed is signifying upon Caruso’s connection to a real monkey and the tactics of the Signifyin(g) Monkey, the trickster, which Caruso himself used.
36 and the corresponding hypertext seems to be “The Silence.” The original first hypotext is then retrogressively derived as being “The Text.”
This is how meta-parody works in an African American context. Obviously, meta-parody is closely connected to the notion of Signifyin(g), creating a diverse field of multiple tropes and sub-tropes.
4.3 Self-parody in Mumbo Jumbo
Based on Genette’s note on self-parody, Reed’s style is exaggerated in Mumbo
Jumbo and can be called ‘reedinizing.’ Reed over-uses noble abbreviations instead of what he calls “vulgar constructions” (J.G.C. for Jes Grew Carriers, H.V.V. for Hinkle
Von Vampton and even W.W. for Woodrow Wilson), trying to sound academically plausible and ridiculing his own style at the same time. Later, Reed parodies his attempt at academic word order and the formal tone of the discourse in Von Vampton’s line that praises Brown’s education: “But your vast knowledge of Civilization, Christ, Abelard,
Prospero, your word order, THINK NOT instead of the vulgar DON’T THINK” (Reed
116). Furthermore, Reed over-uses numbers even in phrases, where he could use words instead. His doubling concept involves a recurrent usage of the double figure “22”, but
Reed is punning on his own signifying usage of numbers in phrases such as “1 of those
Gold Diggers” (Reed 52), “I have 1 more request” (Reed 71) and “1-time” (Reed 80).
Usage of these tropes can be therefore interpreted as instances of self-parody, considering the specific occurrence in the text of Mumbo Jumbo .
Next, the text of Mumbo Jumbo relates in a specific way to self-parody, sharing an important feature with it. The narrative bears an ironic connection to itself, commenting on the nature of writing itself. It is produced and it comments on itself at
37 the same time. Gates argues that “ Mumbo Jumbo is a novel about writing itself – not only in the figurative sense of the postmodern, self-reflexive text but also in a literal sense” (Gates 220). Similarly to the text of Mumbo Jumbo , the notion of simultaneousness could be also found in self-parody, which is being produced and parodied at the same time. Self-parody as well as the text of Mumbo Jumbo requires an active decoding reader to function properly. As Gates puts it, “ Mumbo Jumbo ’s double narrative, then, its narrative-within-a-narrative, is an allegory of the act of reading itself.
Reed uses this second mode of ironic omniscient narration to Signify upon the nature of the novel in general but especially upon Afro-American naturalism and modernism”
(Gates 229). The Bakhtin’s double-voiced discourse works here. The two voices could be named in many ways: text and its simultaneous commentary; past and present narrative voices; stories of present and past; and hypotext and hypertext. The two voices are working separately, creating a double-voiced discourse of successfully applied self- parody. “Reed is able to parody even the mode of the two stories themselves and transform the structure into a self-reflecting text or allegory on the nature of writing itself” (Gates 229). Although this distance between the text itself and its simultaneous commentary is also a feature of metafiction, in the case of Mumbo Jumbo , there is yet another level to be found. The postmodern notion of metafiction, self-consciously questioning the status of fiction and its relationship to the reality, is parodied once more here. Mumbo Jumbo, being a work of postmodern literature, parodies its own parodic scheme. I therefore believe that in the postmodern work of metafiction, there is yet another layer of self-parody in the text of Mumbo Jumbo.
Gates further argues that “ Mumbo Jumbo is both a book about texts and a book of texts, a composite narrative composed of subtexts, pretexts, posttexts, and narratives- within-narratives. It is both a definition of Afro-American culture and its deflation”
38 (Gates 220). Reed creates his own body of pretexts and subtexts, in-text commentaries, newspaper clippings and footnotes. As he later parodies his own newspaper clippings in the text itself, the instances of self-parody arise. The subtexts and pretexts accompanying the text proper have therefore a self-reflective and self-scrutinizing function.
The instance of self-parody of the subtexts could be found in Mumbo Jumbo .
The detective Papa LaBas reveals the whole criminal record of the villains during the revelation of the criminal, and, suddenly, Reed makes a metatextual remark on his own narrative: “(Thermuthis cried the way 1 of my relatives from Alabama described as
‘crying proper.’ – I.R.)” (Reed 185), providing us with his initials “I. R.” after the remark to avoid any confusion with the natural flow of narrative. If Reed had not been providing the text with appropriate, academically plausible in-text comments before, this humouristic comment would have been neutralized. However, given the circumstances, this metatextual comment must be perceived as a parody of Reed’s preceding usage of his own subtexts and in-text comments, being thus a clear instance of self-parody.
39 5. Conclusion
The core of the thesis is formed by the analysis of meta-parody and self-parody.
First, based on the several scholars’ concepts of parody as such, meta-parody is examined. Basically, the result of the analysis is that meta-parody is a kind of parody where the transitioned hypertext undergoes yet another transition, the hyper-hypertext being derived. In theory, this process could be repeated in an endless chain of transitions. However, as it is explained in the thesis, the pyramid of hypertexts in the concept of meta-parody is rather finite, having only two levels and no more. There are two reasons for this: First, the function of a transition of a hyper-hypertext and a theoretical hyper-hyper-hypertext is the same; second, a human mind decoding meta- parody is not able to distinguish between numerous theoretical meta-levels, blending them all into one universal meta-level. Creating the layer of meta-meta-parody above meta-parody would be therefore functionally pointless and impossible to decode for the reader.
The thesis also deals with the observations about self-parody. Based on
Genette’s remark on the notion of self-parody, the recognition of self-parody in a text is considered as the greatest problem. Later on, parody and self-parody are compared and contrasted. They both have the feature of self-reference and self-scrutiny in common; however, self-parody differs from parody in its usage of simultaneous existence of hypo- and hypertext that are blended in one another. The self-parodied text bears a critical distance to itself, being created and commenting on itself and on its process of creation at the same time and parodying the whole concept of this commentary once more upon closer examination. However, self-parody can be distinguished from the concept of metafiction because self-parody bears a polemic distance to the process of polemic parodying itself.
40 In the second, practical part, the specific instances of meta-parody and self- parody are examined and analyzed in the text of Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed.
Supported by Gates’ conclusions about the notion of Signifyin(g), it is observed that meta-parody in Mumbo Jumbo works as one finite pyramid of parody which is, however, infinitely multiplied in the African American discourse and which might have multiple functions, according to Hutcheon. Discussing several scholarly essays on
Mumbo Jumbo , special instances of Signifyin(g) are identified and analyzed, the subtropes of meta-parody pointed out and examined. As far as self-parody in the text of
Mumbo Jumbo is concerned, it is comprehended that self-parody overlaps with meta- parody, as Reed parodies again his own hypertext. Furthermore, the notions of simultaneously working voices in Mumbo Jumbo and of self-parody are compared.
Finally, a special attention is paid to Reed’s clever usage of pretexts, subtexts and
“Partial Bibliography” that he attaches to the book, all of which are instances of
Signifyin(g) employing the subtropes of meta-parody and self-parody.
All in all, meta-parody and self-parody are shown in this thesis as fully functioning components of a multi-layered parodic discourse, which African American discourse represented by the text of Mumbo Jumbo certainly is. Meta-parody and self- parody are shown as the subtropes successfully working as African American rhetoric strategies.
As it was already outlined, Hutcheon argues that parody is a universal expression of the twentieth century art forms. However, the twenty-first century is ready for a new shift in literary analysis: the examination of meta-levels, multiple layers and simultaneous voices. The notion of metafiction becomes progressively irrelevant, being overcome with a new level that reaches far beyond the scope of metafiction. The texts are re-examined, re-considered and re-interpreted in the universal literary analysis of the
41 multi-layered discourses. This analysis offers a new perspective that enables the reader to decompose and understand different types of narrative across the wide spectrum of cultural traditions and such a universal literary analysis is very much needed in the globalized world of today. As it was demonstrated on the decomposition of meta-parody and self-parody, this type of examination has precisely the desired unifying effect that is appreciated nowadays.
42 6. Works Cited
Carrard, Philippe. “Review of Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré by Gérard
Genette.” Poetics Today 5.1 (1984): 205-208. Masaryk University in Brno,
Czech republic. 6 December 2008 < http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/>.
Dentith, Simon. Parody. London: Routledge, 2000.
“Enrico Caruso.” HDtracks . 2007. 21 March 2009
Gates, Henry L. The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African-American Literary
Criticism. New York: Oxford UP, 1989.
Genette, Gérard. Palimpseste, Die Literatur auf zweiter Stufe. Trans. Wolfram Bayer
and Dieter Hornigm. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1993.
Harde, Roxanne. “ ‘We Will Make Our Own Future Text’: Allegory, Iconoclasm, and
Reverence in Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo.” Critique: studies in contemporary
fiction (Washington, DC) Summer 2002: 361-377. Literature Online. Masaryk
University Libraries, Brno, CZ. 27 September 2008 <
http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/>
Hogue, W. Lawrence. “Postmodernism, Traditional Cultural Forms, and the African
American Narrative: Major's Reflex, Morrison’s Jazz, and Reed's Mumbo
Jumbo.” Novel: a forum on fiction (Brown Univ., Providence, RI) Spring 2002:
169. Literature Online. Masaryk University Libraries, Brno, CZ. 27 September
2008
Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms .
London & New York: Methuen, 1985.
Jessee, Sharon A. “Laughter and identity in Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo.”
43 MELUS (Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles) Winter 1996: 127-139.
Literature Online. Masaryk University Libraries, Brno, CZ. 27 September 2008
< http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/>
“Parody.” The Free Dictionary . Farlex. 20 November 2008.
“Parody.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 20 November 2008
< http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parody >
Reed, Ishmael. Mumbo Jumbo . New York: Scribner Paperback Fiction, 1996.
Safire, William. “What’s the meta?” New York Times Magazine. No.12/2005
(25 Dec. 2005).
Strombeck, Andrew. “The Conspiracy of Masculinity in Ishmael Reed.” African
American Review (Saint Louis Univ., St. Louis) Summer 2006: 299-311.
Literature Online. Masaryk University Libraries, Brno, CZ. 27 September 2008 <
http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk/>
Zappen, P. James. “Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975).” Twentieth-Century Rhetoric and
Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. (2000). 27 October 2008
44