E. L. Doctorow’s Manipulation of History
When I first signed up to take the class History as FIction, I didn’t quite realize how much history would be involved in even the first book we read this semester. I had read some historical fiction novels before, but they largely just used history as a setting for a story that was unrelated, hardly ever involving real historical figures in the narrative. The way Doctorow manipulates historical figures in a way that technically can’t be disproven really grabbed my attention and made me think about how much reality is in actual history.
At the start of Ragtime, we are immediately thrown into a world where the author manipulates historical figures. Houdini’s spontaneous appearance after the little boy’s extreme interest in him is mentioned, is a flaunting of Doctorow’s narrative abilities. The way he is humanized by his description is a good introduction to the casual way Doctorow treats historical figures, “he surprised them with his modest, almost colorless demeanor, he seemed depressed,” (Doctorow, 9). Bringing in a character as famous as Houdini - a still well-known figure today - sets the tone for how the rest of the novel is treated.
Next, it would be impossible to discuss this topic without bringing up the relationship between Emma Goldman and Evelyn Nesbit. Both characters represent the tensions surrounding women at this changing time in history. Although they do this on their own, through Goldman’s radical philosophy and Nesbit’s complex situation and attention, combining their experiences illustrates this a lot more. Despite their meeting having no evidence, Goldman’s actions attempt to free Nesbit of the world’s ways through her ideas of anarchy and early feminism. Nesbit’s character is used to show the appeal of these extreme ideologies, since she is not seen as radical at all prior to meeting Goldman. Additionally the references to the fictional natures of this story continue. As Goldman says to Nesbit, “your life was destined to interact with my own… your heart has directed you to the anarchist movement,” which seems to be a nod to Doctorow’s hand playing the role of destiny (Doctorow, 57).
Last, we have the meeting between J. P. Morgan and Ford. Doctorow treats them with the same manipulative methods he does all historical figures. He uses the juxtaposition of their characters to compare and contrast two different types of successful figures at the time. It’s referenced multiple times that Morgan is seen, by himself and others, as somehow better than all other people. His only exception to this idea is Ford, as “he had sensed Ford’s achievement… he might not be alone on the planet,” (Doctorow, 138). I also find the analogy to pharaohs extremely interesting. Although it’s presented as an interest of J. P. Morgan’s, “Morgan was now florid with excitement,” I think it’s another example of Doctorow manipulating the story to send his message. In this case, the message is that capitalism lends itself to people having too much power, essentially getting a pharaoh or god-like status.
Overall, all these examples show Doctorow’s unique writing style, where he flaunts his ability to manipulate the narrative of history, something typically interpreted as clear-cut and factual. He uses this unique aspect of historical fiction to prove points about the historical period the book is set in: the complexities of being famous, the way women are treated, and the capitalist hierarchy. For me, his style and narrative elements sparked a lot of thought about how we interpret history.
Hey Violet! You had some really good points your blog, I totally agree with you that Doctorow really utilized manipulation in his book to really blur the lines of history and fiction. In my opinion, I think that he also used this technique to convey irony. Like when the boy was just happening to think about Houdini and then his car crashes in front of his house?! HYPOTHETICALLY it could have happened and may have not been recorded. Furthermore I find it really intriguing how Doctorow uses the idea of personal, unpublished documents to "explain what really happened" over the course of history. Specifically I'm thinking of younger brother's journal mentioned at the end of the novel. This brings up the point of whether Doctorow really IS 'manipulating' history, or just interpreting it in a more personable way to convey issues of race, gender, social class, etc. But overall super cool blog!
ReplyDeleteNice analysis Violet. The manipulation of history is the key point of this book in my opinion. Many things Doctorow shows/tells us that we either can't quite disprove or although very false, are grounded in some sort of history. Things like the blueprints left to father can't technically be disproven, but there is no way that it happened.
ReplyDeleteI like the way you describe the unique nature of _Ragtime_ as a historical novel at the start of this post: traditional historical fiction often uses the past setting for mood, atmosphere, background (cool costumes, references to obsolete technology; people sealing letters in wax, stuff like that). But Doctorow's novel is really "about" history in all kinds of ways, and you do a nice job of articulating how the blurring of history and fiction itself serves this "ontological" role, drawing attention to the tenuous nature of all historical discourse, and attuning us to the forces that determine what stories get told and what stories are lost. But at the same time, incredibly, the author doesn't work too hard to create an illusion of reality: I mentioned the flaunting of "coincidence" at the start, when Houdini just pops up in front of the family's home ("as it happened" lol), and you cite another good example with Goldman talking about "destiny" bringing her and Evelyn together--read "the author" for "destiny" and this is a perfectly accurate statement!
ReplyDeleteHi Violet! I was also pretty surprised by the way that Doctorow integrated history into his novel. The way that he takes a successful figure like J.P. Morgan and turns his character into something unexpected creates a truly unique blend of history and fiction. Instead of simply just allowing the historical characters in his novel to exist without interference, like one would expect, Doctorow forces the intersection of fact and fiction, which was a pretty interesting concept. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHey Violet!! I shared the same surprise about fiction being in the novel. I don't exactly know what I expected, but it was a bit jarring to hear fictionalized retellings of real people. I remember thinking the name Houdini was just a coincidence, and I spent the rest of the reading slowly realizing it was actually him. I really enjoyed how Doctorow warped historical stories to fit the narrative he wanted to tell, and I agree that the novel was incredibly though-provoking! Great post!!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your original reaction to the style of "Ragtime". This novel definitely took me by surprise in how it intertwined history and fiction and how seamlessly it did so at that. I am interested to delve deeper into the differentiation between these two elements and how personal the line can be from reader to reader. Thank you for your insights!
ReplyDeleteHi Violet! I agree with your blog, especially on your point about how nothing in the novel is fully real or fake, and it can't proven otherwise. True to post modernism, it shows how subjective history is, a theme reflected heavily in Ragtime. I also like how you compared it to other pieces of historical fiction, highlighting how unique it is as a novel. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHey Violet! I also found it a little jarring by the way that Doctorow integrated history into the novel as well. I really liked how you explained his manipulation of historical figures like Houdini and the Goldman-Nesbit meeting. Just like how we talked in class, it is quite true to postmodernism the history written in Ragtime is as subjective as it is. Continuing with that point, I also really liked how Doctorow did whatever he wanted, and warped historical tellings to fit his narrative that he wanted to put out into the world. Thanks for your blog, it was great!
ReplyDelete