The Allure of the Unknowing

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?

Dwelling on Passive Remarks

          So we've finished a decent amount of Ragtime by E. L. Doctorow, and although we've read some seriously postmodern passages and shocking topics, Doctorow's writing style is still what intrigues me the most. Namely how with most introductions of characters, applying most recently to his characters of Henry Ford and J. P. Morgan. Doctorow opts to write with a more passive voice, applying heavy satire all the while. Personally I haven't read many books utilizing this sort of a style, yet it permeates the entirety of Ragtime in some way or another. Though the character introductions tend to have less striking descriptions of events or people in the passive voice, such as the description of the poverty balls or the child workers in earlier chapters for instance, the character introductions have this passive voice satire more consistently.
      
          Through the use of passive voice, everything must be taken with a grain of salt. Chapter 18, where we are introduced to Henry Ford, is a prime example of Doctorow's passive satire. It becomes so littered with satire that it's hard to tell what is and isn't meant to be satire. On one hand Doctorow says things like "Instead of having one man learn the hundreds of tasks in the building of one motorcar, walking him hither and yon to pick out the parts from a general inventory, why not stand him in his place, have him do just one task over and over, and let the parts come past him on moving belts. Thus the worker's mental capacity would not be taxed." and "He allotted sixty seconds on his pocket watch for a display of sentiment. Then he sent everyone back to work.", but also says calls him a genius without any other implications. Additionally, his allotment of a mere sixty seconds can be seen as admirable dedication to his work. The entire chapter is filled with these sorts of statements that are blatantly satirical, but also statements that can be read one way the first time, a different way a second time, and possibly even a third meaning the third time. It's quite perplexing to have a reading where, when you do a double-take, you pick up another understanding of the moment. The passive voice is a brilliant tool to make scenes like Ford's introduction seem just off enough for us to second guess ourselves and search for the meaning behind the satire. I'm personally bouncing back and forth ideas on what exactly Doctorow intended for the reader to interpret in this section (pre-meeting with J. P. Morgan) and how that fits into his meeting with Morgan.  Regardless, Doctorow's passive voice through the novel is an effective medium for the hypercritical satire he imposes constantly in my opinion. 

Change comes around (New Class!)

To all who might be following this blog after the roughly 6 month gap between posts, this blog is going to be used for the History as Fiction class posts until further notice.

Just a friendly PSA.

Have a good afternoon!

Home Alone

After some thought, and seeing just how Benji and Reggie's life is, I'm debating just how their home life affected them and if it was really a good or bad thing. Specifically, the fact that they are left alone all week for nearly every week of the Summer. I'm on edge with whether or not them being home all alone is a good or bad thing considering their home life.

In general, Benji and Reggie seem to have their life in order alone during the week what with having their own jobs and being functional human beings. They seem to get along with the other kids in Sag Harbor and are establishing their own identities through emerging cultures. They also don't seem to mind not having their parents around for a variety of reasons. With this however, whatever lessons their parents gave them (however many or few that actually is) aren't enforced and they are left to figure out how to deal with life by themselves. Normally I'd say this can be acceptable for parenting, letting the children figure out life by themselves, but not to this extent. Without either parent at home for a significant period of time over the Summer, there isn't much opportunity to form better relations within the family and at certain periods, this really shows. Part of this disconnect can be based off of previous years, as Ben mentions later in the novel when the cookout is described, but I'd say that due to experiences like the cookout, moments like that every once in a while don't really chalk up to a functional family.

To me there really isn't a clear distinction to whether or not being left alone most of the Summer is a good or bad thing because each has valid reasons I think. Being left alone means that Benji and Reggie are able to determine their direction over the course of the Summer, be able to get a chance to be independent and self-sustaining, and get time away form what seems to be an abusive father. Being left alone also means that can't form an effective relationship with their parents over the course of the Summer which most likely would affect the time to come, have to artificially be of age and control their own life (debatable if this is a negative or positive), and have little positive parental influence. To Benji and Reggie, they're quite fine with being left to their own devices as Ben hardly mentions his parents until the chapter where it is explicitly about them. Maybe in the future Ben regrets this as he brings up the point of not knowing why they never defended their mother from their father, but at the time, they seemed content about having no parents around for the extended time that they were away.  

 

The Tale of a Wallet

                Serious moral dilemma time in the book. Aren’t moral dilemmas just so much fun?! More seriously though, I like to view situations like these from many angles, so having a whole chapter related to a moral dilemma of Jason’s was an interesting read. To preface all of this, I feel the need to state my final opinion on the subject because bias will show up. I agree with Jason giving the wallet back in the end, however I don’t agree with the reasons why Jason kept the wallet in the first place (the whole keeping because of complete spite). I just want to take a look at the scene in a way I read it and compare it to the rest of Jason’s decisions on a scale of sorts.

                Taking the side of moral high ground, I’ll take a bit of a look at the situation. Initially, Jason does take a moment to contemplate giving the wallet back, which in itself is a good choice. It kind of goes south after that when he keeps the wallet out of spite once he sees it belongs to Ross Wilcox. It just seems petty to keep it for that one reason only and retcon his decision to give the wallet the fair grounds owner. At that point it really is stealing rather than keeping until you find the right person to give it to. Shortly after, he enjoys seeing Ross in a state of panic where he starts to make plenty of mistakes. It just seems wrong to get that much joy from the suffering of someone (Personal note: I don’t fully enjoy Ross’ panic, but there is some satisfaction there). Once he’s told that that wallet actually has hundreds of pounds in it, he gets some sense back and realizes that stealing Ross’ wallet really is an issue, but he’s still not thoroughly convinced he should give it back. He has reasons to use the money, but the ones he mentions really aren't for any other purpose other than personal gain. What makes it worse is that he’s told the consequences to Ross when he doesn’t bring the money back, he likes it; he really feels that it would be one of the best things that could ever happen to him. After a quick talk with his own dad, Jason is hit by sense again and he decides to finally give the wallet back as is. Morally, he ended in the right place, but it was a bit rocky getting there. Not the most satisfying way to think about the scene for many people because the ending of the incident also kind of makes the revenge seem less so there. It’s there and Ross does end up with some karma for his actions, but losing his leg is pretty harsh don’t you think?

                Now a look at the rest of his story that we’ve gotten. I’d say this incident would actually fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. The fact he spent as much time as he did between either giving the wallet back and keeping it is really what makes me put it there. I don’t blame him for wanting revenge and to be honest, the opportunity wasn’t that bad, but I just don’t agree with the amount of time he spent debating it. In the end though, the decision seems thoroughly Jason in that he does give it back but before then, a massive amount of thought that went into it. Can’t help but notice the logical Julia make a very visible impact on his thoughts and life.

Your Bridges are Burning Down

To say the least, the last two chapters of "Housekeeping" really threw some important events at us, whether they were expected or not. Ruth running away with Sylvie, being presumed dead, leaving all behind and moving on a truly transient lifestyle as well as finally cutting off all ties with Lucille. What really struck me though was in chapter 11 with the burning of possessions and the house before leaving Fingerbone for good. It's mentioned that they do it because the things they would be leaving behind were personal and either weren't good for anything when they were gone (they were sentimental things) or they just couldn't let others have them. Afterwords, they were forced to cross the bridge in order to leave Fingerbone without anyone finding them. Taking the visible parts of both of the acts, you get burning possessions and crossing a bridge, but in my mind, they both come together as one thing: "burning bridges".

They literally didn't burn down the bridge (that would be a plot twist!), but in the metaphorical sense that they are eliminating all ties to something. With the house, they are burning all of their belongings, which included family sentiments and memorabilia. These are all reminders and ties to the past and to their life there, while the house itself is the anchor. By burning it all, they are effectively severing all ties with Fingerbone as a place. The house not actually ending up burning down is besides the point; it's the act that really counts. The second part of "burning the bridges" is the crossing of the bridge. By crossing the bridge, they go to a place where the inhabitants of Fingerbone will never go, leaving them behind. With this, Ruth and Sylvie cut all ties with the people of Fingerbone. Their supposed deaths only solidify this truth; to Fingerbone, Ruth and Sylvie are now ghosts, taken away by the lake never to be found again like many before them. At this point Fingerbone has no more ties with Ruth and Sylvie apart from it being a place where they had once been, all bridges burned down now free to do whatever they want.

 (Side note, couldn't help but think these lyrics fit the post and moment perfectly, so here they are)

"Gather in the ashes (Your bridges are burning down)
Everything thrown away (They're all coming down)
Gather in the ashes(It's all coming round)

Scatter as they blow away" 

- Foo Fighters, "Bridge Burning"      

Beneath the Bell Jar

I’ve been noticing lots of people writing about Esther and her views as being trapped under a bell jar and I decided to throw in some things I've noticed as well. In post, after reading Esther’s feelings of her depressed state and feeling trapped beneath a bell jar, some of her interactions and descriptions make more sense. For starters, in class we talked about how Esther’s descriptions of other characters seem more like caricatures than reliable, realistic descriptions.

This could be a side effect of Esther looking at the outside world as if she were looking though a bell jar as they are made of glass and when looking through glass (especially curved glass) features of things on the other side get distorted and exaggerated which is exactly what happens to Esther’s caricature descriptions of other people. Doreen has a massive puffball head of hair as her defining physical characteristic, Dr. Gordon has his smile, and Dodo looks like two eggs stacked to Esther to give a few examples. This also extends to their personalities, but given Esther’s state it can be more difficult to tell just how true those are but for the most part they just seem exaggerated but true.

Esther also had some memorable interactions with this sort of distortion or at least the “observer/observed” dynamic that goes along with the concept of a bell jar. With bell jars normally being used in scientific fields for observation and killing, the concept fit extremely well. The tour of Yale with Buddy can be seen as an observation sort of interaction where Esther was observing, with the placid and critical eyes at the moment, the medical facilities. She was unfazed by the cadaver, babies in jars, and the facility itself and the only thing that tripped up that view was the birth. On the more grim side, Esther’s attempts at suicide could be seen as the “killing of the specimen” aspect of bell jars as she is trying to kill herself beneath the bell jar of her life. Of course it can’t be ruled out that Esther herself is being observed, literally, by doctors when she is being treated by both Dr. Gordon and Dr. Nolan. This makes the observation aspect of the bell jar go both ways and creates an interesting dynamic where Esther views the world from inside the glass and describes it to the reader and the outside observers seem like monsters, not understanding or caring explicitly what happens to the specimen (not applicable to all characters). Esther’s mother, as one of the observers, can’t quite grasp the totality of Esther’s situation and therefore thinks that when the bell jar is lifted from Esther’s life, she can return to it like nothing has happened. For Esther, that’s impossible, she’s experienced the feeling of being trapped and watched as well as the freedom on the outside, being able to also observe herself now that she is not in the midst of the bell jar. The stark contrast of the environments creates a memory for Esther that can never be forgotten.