It is undeniable that the history portrayed by Doctorow in Ragtime has its elements of fiction. But Doctorow writes the book so that some of what he made up has an element of plausibility. This is especially true towards the start of the book where he would add small details to show that the events he was talking about happened but nobody else knew about them. This creates this bubble in history where something could have happened, but as far as we know didn't. But the bubble only remains if you don't look farther into what Doctorow is writing about. If you do, there are small details that can disprove it. An example of this is the strange scene in the prison between Harry Houdini and Harry Thaw. At the end of the scene, Doctorow writes, "Houdini was to tell no one of this strange confrontation". Of course, if you look into it Thaw was in a different prison than the one Houdini escaped from. However, if you didn't look it up you have to consider the fact that it might have happened.
Throughout the beginning of the book, Doctorow continues to hide his fake events in bubbles in the past. Another example is the meeting between Ford and Morgan and the secret society no one else knew about. However, as the book progresses, Doctorow does less and less to make it seem like the events are true. This starts around the time of Coalhouse's retaliation for the vandalism of his car. In fact, after the bombing and attack on the second firehouse, Doctorow does the exact opposite of what he was doing before. Instead of having very few individuals know what happened, all of America knows. He writes, "The story of Coalhouse's second attack made the front page of every newspaper in the country". Of course, this raises the question of why Doctorow would specifically write it so that it shows that everyone would have known about it. I think that it is so he can show just how easily events that are thought to be incredibly famous at the time can so easily be forgotten over time. And at the same time how easy it is to write a fictional story that can just seem like forgotten history.
I think that the idea of forgotten history is important in Ragtime. As you said, Coalhouse's rampage is likely to make us all think about all the front-page news we've forgotten over the years, as well as how relevant the stories therein could still be. However, I think that the idea of these barely plausible histories are also examples of made-up but forgotten histories. After all, what's the difference between having forgotten and never having known?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree. I also think that Evelyn is an example of forgotten real history. I never heard of her until this book, and Doctorow could have said anything about her and without the ability to check, I would have believed what he said. I feel like this idea of forgotten fake history could be just as useful as real history sometimes. Hearing about Coalhouse's struggle or the family dynamics of the two families can be more helpful to us getting a personal understanding of the past than something that never focuses on the lives of everyday people.
ReplyDeleteI think the last parts of the very last chapter in Ragtime also help show that it can be easy to forget history. Even through all of the things that happened with Coalhouse that were very fictional and didn't exist in a plausible "bubble" created by Doctorow, at the end of the last chapter everything continues as normal and what seems like "real" history continues to happen. This has the affect of making Coalhouse seem like even through everything he did it was quickly forgotten and didn't change the continuing timeline of history.
ReplyDeleteI would have found it totally believable if someone had told be Ragtime was actually a historical narrative built through research that Doctorow did. I think a very important part of fiction, especially historical fiction, has to do with making the narrative seem real, something that Doctorow does well. As I was reading Ragtime, I didn't really notice that big shift in Doctorow's style when he says everyone knew about Coalhouse, and I think that your explanation for this makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteWell, the novel also reminds us that stories that are plastered across the headlines of every newspaper in the country also end up falling down the memory hole: the Stanford White murder and Evelyn Nesbit scandal was "the crime of the century" in the 1910s, and none of us had heard about it before reading this novel. It is still plausible, I'd say, that a story like Coalhouse's could be on every newspaper and then forgotten about--just as Morgan himself "forgets" about the black man and his army occupying his library during his Egyptian sojourn.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, though, a story like this one--with so many implications for civil rights and racial-justice history in America--likely would have been preserved, or rediscovered, as part of conventional history.
Most of these events that were hidden in the pockets that Doctorow seem fairly plausible to me, which I suppose is exactly what Doctorow was aiming for. It's a bit jarring at times to think that some of the events Doctorow writes about could be just a fictional creation given how real or even just outlandish enough they are. They flow very well into the novel.
ReplyDeleteI think Doctorow intentionally makes it seem less and less plausible. Similarly to Mumbo Jumbo and Slaughterhouse Five, it doesn't matter if the events seem real. The epitome of postmodernism analyzes the world we are looking at, so what's the harm in changing the "truth" in that world a little bit to better illustrate a point?
ReplyDelete