Does Ragtime Make History Seem Like An Illusion
Ragtime is a novel that takes an unconventional path of storytelling. Whenever I read the novel, I find myself always not completely sound in the story, mainly because of how well Doctorow blurs the line between history and fiction, sometimes causing me to lose track of the parts that are real, and what are just Doctorow's imagination. In the story, he uses historical figures of the time, but modifies their character, mannerisms, and behavior to fit his story, when he is able, mainly since he didn't know how they would respond in certain scenes. In a way, the book is a "meta-history". At first, I thought I would learn some history while reading the book, but now I am not sure if I really learned about history, or how to use history to tell a story. Doctorow might have even referenced this in Chapter 15, where the little boy looks at his reflection in the mirror, thinking"neither of which could claim to be the real one" (Doctorow 148). This could be a metaphor for the whole the book, with neither the history or the fiction of the book being the real deal.
One character I feel fits this trope is Harry Houdini, the magician and escape artist. While this is how most of the world knew him, the audience gets to know him much deeper, using him a witness in prominent cultural and political events. Even in real life, Houdini was already a person heralded by the masses, but Ragtime shoves him in the annals of history. Doctorow used Houdini as the "main connector" between the masses, as he had a character which resonates with them, and the upper class with his celebrity like status. While Houdini and his stunts were mostly accurate, placing him in the prison with Harry K Thaw, and first referencing the explosion Coalhouse caused is the type of twisting of history that some readers might not even bat an eye toward.
Another figure that Doctorow subjects to his imagination is Emma Goldman. In Ragtime, she is given much more depth and nuance than the history books that cover her as a progressive activist. She is molded into a manipulative, radical, and judgemental to the point of cutting off from people who disagree with her views. In real life pop culture, there is a stark contrast to the borderline psycho persona she is given in Ragtime, being portrayed as a mentor like figure. In Ragtime, she is the chaos of the story, exposing other character when they are being hypocritical like Evelyn Nesbitt, and manipulates others like Younger Brother to latch on to radical politics.
Both of these characters maybe are reflective of one of Doctorow's points about post-modernism. He might be referring to his belief that maybe historical fiction isn't just to tell what happened in the past, but maybe how we want to remember events in the past, and Ragtime is an example of how he sees history being biased, maybe that history that people are taught have as much "truth" as fiction
Bibliography:
Doctorow, E. L. Ragtime. Random House, 2007 .
Hi Sri, I think that Doctorow humanizing historical figures creates this interesting blend between history and fiction. A lot of history is up for interpretation, and we will never know how these people actually thought. In the spirit of postmodernism, all potential interpretations of how a person was actually thinking are accurate, so we can't actually say that Doctorow was purely making things up. Some other examples throughout the book include Ford and Morgan, who both have interesting characterizations in the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that Ragtime isn't really about teaching readers history, but about showing how history can be shaped and retold through perspective. The example of Houdini was strong, Doctorow takes a figure who already lived in the public imagination and uses him as a bridge between different social classes, which says more about cultural memory than about Houdini himself.
ReplyDeleteYou make a number of good points in this discussion, but I'm especially struck by your query about whether reading a novel like this might amount to "learning history" in some valid way. On the one hand, we'd obviously want to warn any young history student checking out _Ragtime_ as part of their research project on the Gilded Age to proceed with caution--don't start confidently writing about the secret meeting between Ford and Morgan in Morgan's hidden sarcophagus-chamber! But at the same time, I mentioned in class how I personally had little sense of the first decade and a half of the twentieth century when I first encountered this book--it was kind of a fuzzy spot just before WWI, but I couldn't have told you much about the era. I particularly remember being impressed by Emma Goldman and her portrayal in this novel, to the point where I sought out her memoir and read it just to learn more. In many ways I DO feel much more qualified to discuss and comment on this era than I had been before reading (and studying!) the novel. So maybe it's one measure of the book's achievement that it got me interested in this historical period that had previously been rather vaguely defined in my mind.
ReplyDeleteHi Sri, I find your argument about Emma Goldman really interesting. I too observed how much depth characters like her were given in this novel. Even though it may not be an accurate representation, the imperfections that Doctorow gave characters like Goldman (reference to your point about her being the "chaos" of the story) made the novel a lot more fun to read, even though it might not be a great book to read if someone is looking to learn about history. Something about the way that Doctorow breaks down these esteemed, seemingly untouchable characters is unexpected, but a positive. Great job!
ReplyDeleteHi Sri! I find many or your points you make in this blog post interesting. I find it very interesting how Doctorow weaves and molds the "history" of real people to create this crazy story. For example, hiding events that happened in the book or twisting events to make all the characters meet in unbelievable ways is honestly very interesting and something I've never seen before. Though obviously the events are fictional, I wonder this book would give a good general idea of what the real life characters were actually like to somebody who has never learned about them. Good job Sri 👍
ReplyDeleteI think Doctorow is trying to portray history more as a joke rather than an illusion. Ragtime is filled with irony that could be interpreted as humor, and he also goes as far as to prove a point about just how far he can take this by creating fantasies about historical figures. The Goldman example is the best one, where Doctorow completely subverts the traditional perception of Goldman. He paints Goldman in a more positive light than what a history textbook might say all for the sake of irony.
ReplyDeleteDeep stuff Sri. I also had lots of trouble separating fiction and history in this story, and I think Coalhouse Walker's character did the best job of fooling me. You're very much right in how this book encapsulates a person impact on the society around them to not just remember the facts about them which we would consider typical history, but also their real life potential impact on a person, which is just as important.
ReplyDeleteHi Sri! Great work. It's really interesting how Doctorow blends the boundaries of history and fiction. It certainly makes the figures come to life: in traditional history books, one would never "learn" about the Morgan-bird interactions of Goldman's secret encounter with Nesbit. I believe that history as a subject is hard to pin down because it's unclear whether these things actually happened: if nobody observed it, then it can't be asserted as truth. Yet, traditional history also has its flaws, and Doctorow seems to be pinpointing this difference effectively. Great post!
ReplyDelete