E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime is certainly a unique book and one that cannot easily be defined in a few sentences. Throughout the discussions we had in class, one of the big themes that especially caught my attention was the class difference Doctorow describes. Doctorow’s tale is clearly set at the turn of the century, a time when immigrants poured into America and a time when social problems,ranging from the filthiness of urban life to poor working conditions and crime, were rampant. The distinction in lifestyle can easily be seen between the rich and poor, as seen between the poor like Tateh and little girl and with the upper class like Evelynn Nesbitt.
I remember Mr. Mitchell posed a question when we were discussing the chapter on Harry Houdini and the poverty balls the upper class hosted. The question was about what perspective Doctorow was writing the book from as an author. For me, it was always hard to decide whether he was in favor of one of the social classes or was simply writing as a neutral historian. When writing this, I can honestly say that he is neither. Doctorow writes with not only so much irony and contradictions, but with lots of quirkiness and humor. While the descriptions of the upper class charity balls full of beef carcasses and Harry Houdini’s freakish nature in the eyes of the rich are only some examples of the irony and cynicism portrayed by Doctorow, the scene of Harry K. Thaw’s undressing at the Tomb and Mother’s Younger Brother’s humiliating mishap in front of Evelynn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman were some of the more quirky and almost comical scenes.
Whatever perspective Doctorow writes from, Doctorow is certainly writing as an author of historical fiction. As Mr. Mitchell said, even though Harry Houdini and Evelyn Nesbitt were real people in history, the author has the freedom to whatever he wants with these characters in his own world. Nobody can justify that Doctorow’s story is wrong because these people most certainly could have been living out these experiences unpublished. The setting the story takes place in is all the more ideal because, as mentioned before, of all the social problems going on throughout America in the 1900s. Anything could have happened behind the scenes and it is only our imagination that can truly portray what those things were.
Good points--and the passage we looked at today in class, on Henry Ford, is a nice example of a "neutral" account that remains open to the reader's interpretation (is the narrator admiring or critical of Ford and Fordism? Or both? Or neither?). But keep these questions in mind as you go through the novel as a whole, and see if a particular perspective starts to emerge. I'd say that merely *including* such detailed accounts of the violent labor struggles at the turn of the century (such as the Lawrence mill strike) serves implicitly to challenge or complicate the received story (metanarrative?) of American "progress" in the 20th century. By showing even Evelyn Nesbit becoming "radicalized," or developing a rebellious political consciousness, the novel seems to affirm that information and rhetoric can change people's minds. Is this novel too trying to change minds, in an indirect way?
ReplyDelete