Even though we’ve finished Ragtime and moved on to Mumbo Jumbo, I feel that we didn’t quite
finish learning about everyone in the book. In fact, spoilers, most of our main
cast just dies at the end and I still feel that some of them felt as alien as
ever. We do get to learn more about Coalhouse and Tateh and Younger Brother and
Mother, but did we really get to know them
better? I feel as if Doctorow had a specific goal in mind when having certain characters
that we feel like we know everything about and with characters we know next to
nothing about. For the most part, the ones we tend to know about are the
historical figures, and the ones we know near nothing about are the characters
of the family and Coalhouse. A bit like history in a way. We think we know a person whose
been put into a history book because the information is written down and widely
accepted, but we really don't, we just know about everything records say about them. Who’s to say that Doctorow’s Evelyn Nesbit is falsified?
Maybe she did fade out of the public eye to visit poorer districts and become
an anonymous donor to Emma Goldman’s efforts. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t,
but regardless, we feel as if we know her because apparently her life is
documented in the history books. However, we also know that most of the
information we have on her is slanted because of the media and her public image
at the time, so it’s almost if by default we don’t know her at all, we just know about her.
Building on this is the fact that the
one person we think should have been put into the history books, Coalhouse
Walker, isn’t in any recorded events. He is oddly lacking when it comes to
information on him, and it stands out to us significantly more than the
characters who Doctorow seems to know intimately. Despite this, he also feels
the most like a realistic figure out of the cast. We sympathize with him often and seem to find
more ways to understand him even though he is the character most veiled in mystery. All of the historical figures seem so removed from
reality in their own way (ie. Ford is like a machine, Morgan feels transcended above
the common folk, etc.). In reality, we really do learn the least about the
family and Coalhouse, but we get to know them better than anyone else. In contrast, we learn the
most about the historical figures and what their lives could have been like,
but we know them the least. They still feel like some sort of legend instead of
human beings, and it raises the question once again: Is there a difference
between history and fiction?
I think that the purpose behind Doctorow making the characters as generic as possible and having us learn so little about them, is so that they can represent almost anyone in their situation during that time. That creates a blending of history and fiction because the characters are false but the situation is very real.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much objectiveness is really in our universal knowledge of historical figures and events. Even as a story is passed on from the first source to a secondary source, there are so many opportunities to skew the details, essentially creating an entirely different story. There comes a point where we have to ask ourselves how correct historians can be, if human error and bias are always factors in passing down history... And with Doctorow's sly "pockets" of time, where "fictional" characters could have very actually been part of these events but no one would really ever be sure, I don't think we will ever get to a point where neither fiction or history is 100% objective.
ReplyDeleteI understand why you feel like you know the fictional characters better than the real ones, but, with the exception of Coalhouse, I feel the opposite. I feel l that I know people like J.P. Morgan and Harry Houdini better than I know Mother or Father. The fictional characters are totally anonymous: they have no names, and everything they do is meant to represent the sentiments of a portion of the population. Meanwhile, we see Houdini as a complete person, and we have several intimate moments with him, learning things about him that give him more depth as a character.
ReplyDeleteCoalhouse is a particularly interesting example, because he is one of the most dynamic and compelling characters in the novel, but we never get "inside his head" or into any great detail with his backstory. His role in the novel is exceptional in that he takes on a more central, traditionally "heroic" role in the plot (even if his heroism raises ethical concerns)--we align ourselves with his quest for justice, and we're intrigued by questions about how far he'll go, and the role of violence in political revolution. He remains an enigma in many ways--he's an enigma to the other members of the Coalhouse gang at the end, when they can't figure out why he's "giving up"--but he's a fascinating enigma who gives the novel a heroic plotline.
ReplyDeleteNice post! It's kind of weird that Coalhouse Walker is never seen as an actual historical character. We have people like Houdini and Morgan who are real people, but it is Coalhouse who we seem to get the most. Maybe Doctorow is giving a statement that it isn't the most powerful people in the world who are the most interesting. Maybe he is saying that it is the unknown people who become the most interesting.
ReplyDeleteInteresting perspective! I never thought about it that way. I liked your point about how we get to know Evelyn more, but it’s still in the realm of the history we know from her. Sometimes I forget that Doctorow still uses the guidelines history laid out, which could be a source of subjection from the start.
ReplyDelete