My Thoughts on Ragtime
In E.L Doctorow’s Ragtime, the reader is transported into
the early 20th century. Although most people seldom regard the early 20th
century as a crucial time in history, Doctorow uses this “gap” in history to
not only allow for more creative license, but also to highlight some of the
broader scale injustices that plagued America just before we slowly began the
crescendo into violence.
Doctorow does a fantastic
job of portraying this by using stock characters and providing interesting and
intriguing backstories to highlight the injustices they face on a day to day
basis. Take for example Father (note the generic name). Not only does his bland
personality allow for him to be almost any upper class white American male, he
also symbolizes the “old guard” to the extent that he simply cannot understand
the concept of a confident and self-respecting African American man (Coalhouse
Walker). His son and Mother’s Younger Brother are both plausible characters and
what I would consider “woke” about social justice issues. The difference in
ideology between the generation symbolizes the idealogical rift in the time
period.
Yet with as many characters that seem to fit perfectly in the
story, there are also some characters who seem out of place. For example,
Coalhouse Walker seems to not fit the stereotypical narrative of the submissive
African-American so prevalent in this time period. However, we see Coalhouse
ultimately overwhelmed by societal issues like a surfer drowning in a tidal
wave. Ultimately he succumbs to this mentally by means outside his control and
begins to commit acts of violence, seemingly killing the good natured man we
met when we first came across him.
These ideas, however, apply to more than just the bland characters
as well. Even famous characters such as Harry Houdini and J.P Morgan suffer
from the same feelings of isolation as characters not as highly regarded in
society. I think Doctorow portrays these characters in this specific manner to
show that everybody in society, regardless of status, share similar feelings of
isolation. By using all these characters and showing their respective
struggles, I think Doctorow is clearly trying to challenge the notion that the
early 1900s were a tranquil time in American society. If you agree, disagree,
or have any other comments (I’m still figuring out how to work Tateh and Evelyn
Nesbitt into the argument) feel free to let me know!
Certainly Tateh's narrative provides and interesting counterpoint to many of those characters listed. He starts unsuccessful and unhappy, but succeeds and becomes far more happy. This is in contrast to father who as he becomes more successful he grows unhappier until he dies. Tateh seems to also become more moderate, while younger Brother becomes far more radical, while he provides a better example of the American Dream then Ford or Morgan, because he lives happily ever after. I think he seems to work against that final statement, at least at the end of the book.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that one of Doctorow's aims in this novel is to explode (quite literally, at some points) the idea that this was a tranquil and placid time in American history. "Guns were going off everywhere," the narrator notes at one point, and the novel alludes to a number of assassination attempts and a general atmosphere of political unrest and potentially violent radicalism and revolution. Emma Goldman isn't always included in those nostalgic portraits of the years before World War I, but, Doctorow implies, she *should* be. Her radical critiques of American society, and her willingness to engage in violent "attentat" acts, are a vital part of the picture of this era, at least as much as Morgan or Ford.
ReplyDelete