Mumbo Jumbo Youth Rebellion

Talking about Mumbo Jumbo in class, the reoccurring theme has come up that the plague the adults are so afraid of isn't a virus like it's described, but a metaphor for older generations being afraid of pop culture and youth.

This idea can be supported by several points in Mumbo Jumbo. First and foremost to me is that Reed describes it as an anti-plague. It gives life to people and makes them dance and sing and kind of have a good time if you think about it. Thinking of a plague that has this effect reminds me of when you're listening to music and you just can't help but groove a little. It's just a kind of subconscious reaction to a sick beat. So, when assuming and considering this is music and dancing adults don't approve of, it'd be embarrassing to start randomly dancing and easier to blame it on some disease.

Knowing that this "plague" is not old or unheard of further supports it being a fear of youth culture. In the book the plague is described as something generations have known of and parent after parent has dealt with. To me, this sounds like the trend you see when looking at adults first hating the waltz, jazz, rock and roll, anything that is new to them and involves closer contact between youths. This plague could reasonably be passed on through generations because of the predictability of teenagers wanting to be rebellious.

That's all  I have so far with this idea, but I'm quite attached to the idea of the entire sickness just being youth culture and rebellion.

Parallel evolution

Something I've been thinking about in terms of parallels lately is Tateh having to "evolve" himself to anywhere from lower class and Henry Ford, an already established businessman, having to "dumb himself down" in order to maintain a successful business.  In a way, I think Doctorow is kind of cynically pointing out that no matter how good you are at what you do--be that art or manufacturing or whatnot--you're never going to be enough on your own to maintain public interest.

Indisputably Tateh's work was beautiful in the world of the book. People would pay to watch him work (which is admittedly degrading) and his flip-books were so wonderfully done that they were put into a production of sorts. So, if Tateh's work was entertaining enough when he wasn't known, why did he have to change to become a successful film maker? He didn't really have to change what he was doing with his work or what he wanted to do; he didn't even have to change his fundamental beliefs. He admits to Mother at the end that he's still a socialist and has kept all the social baggage. All Tateh changes is how the public sees him. A talented man who brought himself up from nothing wasn't unique enough, or possibly the story was too tragic in origin to be palatable by movie viewers so he had to become something more fanciful like the subject of any movie.

Then, there is Henry Ford. He is very good at what he does, even though the attitude he strikes toward his work is dehumanizing (considering people as replaceable parts and all) and he decides no one will work with him if he appears too smart.  He's probably right. The way Henry Ford is narrated has a kind of grating tone that probably wouldn't appeal to consumers  so he feels/knows he has to "stoop" to their level.

Both are definitely lying to the public to have more appeal and/or to have better sales. This is not much different than modern day advertising, which tells us exactly what we have to hear to buy a product. As annoyed as we get at businesses now for leading us on, I can't really picture how outraged the public would be if they found out they were being lead on.