The token white and black guys

Although it may seem like a strange comparison W. W. and Thor Wintergreen both play similar roles but on opposite ends of the color spectrum (literally and figuratively) in Reed's Mumbo Jumbo. It was brought up in class that Thor is like the token white guy. Some of the group members are wary of having Thor involved because of his race, however Berbelang stands up for him. Because of this reaction, the argument could be made that Berbelang wants Thor to be part of the Mu'tafikah so that they will have caucasian representation among their ranks.

I do not like how Reed let Thor's story play out. Thor appeared to be quite genuine in his motives for joining and helping the Mu'tafikah. While it may be true that he had not yet proven himself to the rest of the group, it seemed as though he would step up to the plate when given the opportunity. Instead, he caved in to Musclewhite sickeningly quickly. The points that Musclewhite made in order to persuade Thor to join his (the dark) side were supposed to make Berbelang look bad, and apparently to Thor this worked but to the reader it just made Berbelang look better. Musclewhite describes him as "The insolent freeman who will sit in the front of the bus and look about as if to say 'who don't like it?'" Rosa Parks anyone? In a modern day context Musclewhite's words do not sound so outrageous, making it even worse for Thor to have been so fickle. In light of this situation, the "token white guy" plays his part well showing that he is no more worthy of respect than the rest of the Wallflower group.

So how does this character of Thor related to the character of W. W? W. W. holds the role of the "token black guy" even more so than Thor. However, the main difference between what Thor and W.W. do for the novel is that Thor reinforces the idea that all of the white characters are the same, while W.W. helps to show how different the black characters are.

Woodrow Wilson is originally from Mississippi and moves to Harlem looking for a change from his ordinary life. W. W. has not yet been integrated into the Harlem Renaissance culture. In fact, he is less knowledgable on this subject matter than most of the white characters. Hinkle Von Vampton posts the sign "Negro Viewpoint Wanted" and W. W. takes the job. Hinkle assumes that all negro viewpoints are the same. He only needs this position filled so that his magazine will be somehow more credible now having  the "token black guy." His ignorance will only prove him wrong. W.W. seems only to go along with their requests because he doesn't know any better. Thus when his reverend father comes and takes him back to MS, the reader sees how different the environment that W.W. has been raised in is and sees that no matter what Hinkle wants of him, he could never effectively be the sought out Talking Android.

History as we [don't] know it

When I first pondered an answer to the question "what is the difference between fiction and history?" I focused mainly on the standards for a history compared to the standards for fiction. History is often thought of as fact-based while fiction thought of as "made-up." However, my closing thought was that fiction can also have as many truths as a history might, in which case they would not be so different. In light of having read Doctorow's Ragtime, I agree even more with my previous sentiment.

I am not saying that fiction and history are one and the same, but I am agreeing with Doctorow and White that they are closely intertwined. A fiction does not claim to be constructed entirely by events that "actually happened." The reader is not put under any illusions that there is a fact somewhere to back up what the author is saying. In Doctorow's essay "False Documents," there is a closing interview in which he says "I don't take a vow to be responsible. I'm under the illusion that all of my inventions are quite true. For instance, in Ragtime, I'm satisfied that everything I made up about Morgan and Ford is true, whether it happened or not." This is an incredibly bold statement that Doctorow makes. At first glance it might even seem outrageous. Yet he touches on the idea that something can have truth whether or not it "happened."

It is part of human nature for our understanding of the world to be based upon our metanarratives. No one's reality is going to be formed by the exact same metanarratives, but there are some broader concepts and narrations that affect the perceptions of many. History certainly plays a large role in these metanarratives, but I would argue that fiction plays an equally substantial part. Who is to say what "really happened" when every story is multifaceted? Is giving a partial truth the same as a lie? Doctorow's novel is considered to be fiction but is based both on historical and fictional events. In a sense, it could be argued that everything is fiction. The way we understand the world is no different than how Doctorow writes Ragtime; built upon history and fiction.

Finally, the idea that our metanarratives are formed by both fiction and history brings up the idea that history itself is built upon fiction. Humans make history. Humans record history. Humans understand history based upon our metanarratives. Since our metanarratives come from a combination of history and fiction, history as we see it is also a kind of fiction.