E.L Doctorow and the Structural Ingenuity of Ragtime
E.L Doctorow and the Structural Ingenuity of Ragtime
Robert Gao
When analyzing the numerous crossroads embedded within fictitious writing, historical fiction is one that most bends the rules of its respective subgenres. With fiction, we submit to the author’s depiction of an entirely fantastical world—one in which there remains no expectation that the plotline will remain consistent with earthly fact. On the other hand, historical writing is a genre that prompts an author’s strict adherence to pre-established occurrences. Strikingly restrictive and polarizing, these definitions imply that the two criteria must be met in order for the genre to succeed in its inherent purpose—to recount a snapshot in time.
In his historically fictitious depiction of pre-World War I New York City, E.L Doctorow attempts to challenge these preset rules, simultaneously embracing the creative freedom of prose while upholding the historical contexts in which the novel is situated. Utilizing the titular metaphor “ragtime” as an underlying narrative motif of structure and improvisation, Doctorow deconstructs the myth that history and fiction are mutually exclusive by weaving intricate, yet interconnected narratives of historical figures that shaped early 20th-century America. In Ragtime, we are reintroduced to timelessly familiar names, such as brilliant escape artist Harry Houdini and automobile mogul Henry Ford, and more elusive characters, including Russian-born anarchist Emma Goldman and American architect Stanford White.
Perhaps the best illustration of Doctorow’s ability to deliberately blur the lines of history and fiction is how he structures the text itself. When Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud first experiences the turmoil that 20th-century America presents, he proclaims that the country “is a mistake, a gigantic mistake” (Doctorow 39). Although this opinion is relayed to the reader by a third-person omniscient narrator, the text dutifully juxtaposes Freud’s stated judgments with Doctorow’s internal commentary. We see this repetition presented in satirical, overly specific statements such as “employers liked to think of [children] as happy elves”, “one hundred miners were burned alive [a year]”, and “guests smoked cigar butts offered to them on silver trays” (39-40). These deliberately descriptive, yet strategically critical sets of narration showcase Doctorow’s strikingly effective mode of storytelling. Historical documentation and sensationalism, through the lens of Doctorow’s carefully crafted narrator, become conjoined. Recounting the past by no means erases the ability to recolor it.
Great job in emphasizing and explaining the intricate details of how Doctorow blends history and fiction into a different category of itself. As you mentioned, many of the descriptions in Ragtime are overly exaggerated but are stated as such to fit within Doctorow's idea and perspective of early 20th century America. Doctorow truly does a well job of adjusting historical context into a fictional world with his way of wording.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I especially agree with Doctorow's technique of not just satirically stating various "historical" figures as fact, as you mentioned, but also tactically presenting them as simultaneously exaggerated and as a subtly, ironically "straight-faced" delivery of the not-so-clearly unhistorical.
ReplyDeleteHi Robert,
ReplyDeleteThis was quite the read. I definitely agree that Doctorow deliberately blurs the distinction between history and fiction. In the characters, he makes historical characters seem fictional and fictional characters seem historical, leaving the reader completely guessing as to whether a character is truly historical or fictional, or if there is any distinction at all between them. One character that does complicate this argument is Coalhouse Walker, and I think this would be an interesting opportunity to further analyze what Doctorow is actually doing. Great post!
- Bruce
Why are you so juicy?
ReplyDeleteAmazing critical writing! Doctorow masterfully manages to blend fact and fiction in a way that leaves room for personal opinion while still suggesting an air of contempt and satire, demonstrating postmodernist ideas in his writing. While historical writing usually has to adhere to a strict timeline, the addition of fiction to the genre allows for a whole new world of possibilities.
Robert this blog was extremely juicyy. I really liked what you talked about in this blog, especially when you talk about the ways that doctorow blended history and fiction together. I think that the way he combined the too together was extremely clever and witty. Keep up the juicy blogposts.
ReplyDeleteAs with ragtime music, Doctorow's ability or willingness to improvise with the historical record still mainly takes place within a familiar historical frame or structure--so, for example, while an actual man named Coalhouse Walker Jr. may never have existed, Doctorow's fictional invention (or borrowing from German lit!) still must exist within a recognizable version of early twentieth century history and culture. Doctorow makes his story fit plausibly within the larger frame of history, as if this COULD have happened and we may never have learned about it, if indeed the episode is as immediately forgotten (by Morgan and others) as Doctorow suggests at the end.
ReplyDeleteBut he doesn't go nearly as far with the anachronisms and improvisations as we'll see Reed do--Doctorow's narrative is still anchored in a familiar and historically grounded context of American economy, society, and culture at the time the book is set. Just as ragtime is not free jazz--there is a structure, within which the improvisational flourishes contribute to the whole.
Robert-this was a really fascinating piece on E.L Doctorow's portrayal of Ragtime through manipulating the seemingly set bounds between history and fiction. As it turns out, the difference between the two aren't as clear or identifiable as they appear, something that Doctorow takes into advantage in the fusion that is Ragtime. Like you mentioned in your blog, E.L Doctorow employs heavy irony and satire within the novel by playing around with the boundaries of "fact" and "fiction".
ReplyDelete