How Does Doctorow Mesh Real & Fake?
While reading Ragtime, it was quite interesting to see how E. L. Doctorow approached depicting the characters in the novel. I initially planned to write solely about how Doctorow links both real and fictional characters, but I noticed a small commentary he wove into the book while writing the rest of the blog.
Doctorow tended to take quite odd liberties with characters who were actually part of history. Houdini, for instance, is someone so iconic that he’s well known even today, but Doctorow arguably wrote the boldest fake details for him. Just 30 pages into the novel, he wrote about a prisoner undressing and shaking his naked body at him. He then followed it by saying that “Houdini was to tell no one of this strange confrontation” (Doctorow 30). Doctorow filling in gaps that don’t necessarily need to be filled, especially with such an outlandish story, helps reinforce that the story is ultimately historical fiction. Houdini wasn’t actually flashed in a jail cell (At least as far as we know). He reminds the reader that although characters like Houdini existed in real life, their depictions in the novel aren’t 100% accurate.
Doctorow also satirizes the unknown by doing this; he made up a crazy story to mess with our understanding of Houdini’s story only to imply that he doesn’t know whether it happened for sure. I think this concept is more explicitly shown later with Evelyn. Evelyn began to hang out with Tateh in the Lower East Side. Although she spent her time quite unproblematically, she was soon depicted by the media as anything but that, “Gossip columnists began to infer from Evelyn’s disappearances that she was engaging in reckless liaisons, and her name was linked with dozens of men around town. The less she was seen the more slanderous the reports became” (Doctorow 45). Similar to Doctorow making up crazy stories about Houdini, the media took their chance to sensationalize Evelyn. They found gaps in her timeline where they could make any speculations they wanted, and they likely rounded off their columns with a weak sentence saying that they didn’t know for sure, just like Doctorow wrote that the story happened, but it was just that Houdini just didn’t tell anyone. They add a bit of damage control after spending so long messing with their image.
In contrast to the more sensationalized depictions of real people, with Coalhouse, Doctorow instead chooses to leave the unknown as being unknown. Doctorow later dedicated around half a page to emphasizing that not everything about Coalhouse was known. He leads on by saying, “Here, given subsequent events, it is important to mention what little is known about Coalhouse Walker Jr.,” and uses language such as “apparently,” “it is still not known,” “but that was never proved,” etc. when talking about his background (Doctorow 183). By sort of tip-toeing around the validity of Coalhouse’s background, it reads a lot more like a bibliography. This approach grounds Coalhouse in the real stories Ragtime is derivative of, and his more “historic” descriptions do what hearing Houdini’s name prior to reading the book would do; it gives a necessary background that makes the story feel less jarring.
I think that Doctorow did a pretty good job at linking what was real and what wasn’t. Even though I knew a good handful of the characters and their stories were real, it didn’t subtract from the novel as its own thing. The characters were all pretty harmonious as a cast (definitely not in reference to the book’s plot), and it made for quite a smooth read.
I really like the observation that Doctorow depicts the media doing with Evelyn Nesbit a version of what he himself does with Houdini--projecting a narrative onto "gaps" in the official record, in this case a narrative that accords with the public perception of Evelyn and even serves to reinforce it. It is an interesting example, as the made-up stories are much more "sensational" and designed to stoke the scandal-hungry readers with what they want (this harlot is out there carrying on affairs while her poor husband is in jail!). In the case of the media, we view this tendency critically--and we see the anticipation of the rise of tabloid journalism in the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteBut so then should Doctorow receive similar criticism for the liberties he takes with Houdini? Is there a difference between "reporting" such stories in a newspaper, even if they're little more than gossip, and creating a fictional scene within a fictional novel, based in part on true-life factual events? If journalism is the first draft of history, we're seeing here a *distortion* of history at its source. With both "invented" pocket-plots, Doctorow succeeds in calling attention to how the official record itself is likely full of distortions we can neither prove nor demonstrate. Both Evelyn and Houdini come across as fundamentally misunderstood by the public--they both suffer the distortion of public image overshadowing their more complex underlying reality. And perhaps history is constantly engaging in this "flattening" of complex characters, in order to fit the narrative.
Hi Sandaru! I also noticed a pattern of Doctorow creating weirdly specific, fake details about real historical characters in the novel. As you mentioned, Houdini's encounter with Thaw at the jail was pretty strange and unexpected. I think that another good example of this is Doctorow's characterization of J.P. Morgan. Most of Morgan's (few) appearances in the novel are of him obsessing over ancient Egypt and the pyramids, which is a very specific and odd detail that seems to consume his identity in the book. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHey Sandaru! It is interesting to think about how Doctorow made the novel Meta by making us question his character descriptions -- I thought your point on that was really intriguing. I also thought the Jail scene was incredibly weird and made my question the books reality a little bit. I wonder how some of these other characters fit in, like Mother and Father, who are kind of left without background in order to be a fictional character, although to be they still felt quite real. Great post!
ReplyDeleteSandaru, I agree that Doctorow has a super unique attitude towards the "reality" of history. The way he makes no effort in Ragtime to be historical accurate, and takes all kind of liberties to make the story illustrate the points he wants it to. I do find it fascinating how he fills in the blanks in all kind of creative ways. Great work!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! This blog did an excellent job of summarizing some of the key lines between real and fiction. For example with Coalhouse's character, at first you really wonder whether he's real or not and if so what is going on. I always thought it was really interesting that he would leave so much mystique around fictional characters and get into actual historical character's lives in very personal ways. Again, it's sort of that way Ragtime tends to mix history and fiction and how we think of them. Amazing blog!!
ReplyDeleteHey Sandaru! Really well done blog. One of the first things that comes to mind when I think of Ragtime and specifically how he writes the novel using a unique blend of fiction and history is the characters. How he bends reality using these historical characters to convey highly controversial conflicts of the time, like race. And I wonder, what would this novel be like if it was solely fictional characters? Coalhouse walker is a great example of what he can do using fictional characters, but the way that he comes up with the craziest scenarios for real people (Houdini specifically) is mind boggling to me. More irony sprinkled across this novel.
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! I think that Ragtime would work a lot less well if Doctorow didn't add as much irony and blatant falsehood as he did. I think if the reader got the impression that Doctorow was genuinely trying to convince us of these fake intimate details of the lives of different historical figures, we would completely write the whole book off. I also think this aspect makes the book a lot more entertaining! Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru,
ReplyDeleteI was almost going to write my blog post on this! It's interesting how Doctorow turns his historical figures into enigmas and caricatures while keeping his fictional characters realistic through newspaper mentions or words like "apparently". This might be what he meant by the fiction has more truth too, since by using the enigmas of the historical figures, their impact on society is explored instead of their real-life characteristics, and their presence can provide more examination to the historical context. I think you chose a really interesting topic, great job! :)
hi sandy! its very interesting how this book seems to blend fiction and fact while still making a clear narrative. Doctorow is very unique at creating a story that uses the unknowns of historical events to give whatever message he wants. The argument that "oh well it could of happened" is a very interesting premise that creates a book that is in a gray area between fiction and truth. In your blog, you did an amazing job breaking down the historical figures Doctorow talks about. Its not easy!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! I loved the topic that you chose to do. I think that if you know the historical characters, it's really easy to pick out what is real and what is fake. I completely agree with you that even with the fake elements, it still fits with the story and helps to create a unique novel. Good Job!!
ReplyDeleteHi Sandaru! The way that Doctorow blends reality and fiction is so interesting, and is one of the things that really sets it apart from other historical fiction novels. He doesn't shy away from this aspect at all, and often breaks the fourth wall by poking fun at the often ridiculous sitations in his book. However, even if Doctorow doesn't take everything that seriously, the times where he does can be quite powerful and really send a message to the reader. Great blog!
ReplyDelete