Historical Figures in Ragtime

 One of the biggest discussion points we've had in class so far (which isn't a surprise, because the name of the class is History as Fiction) has been the role that historical figures play in the novel. Authors have been fictionalizing (if that's even a word) actual historical people since the beginning of time, but there is a key difference in the way that E. L. Doctorow does it. Not only does he incorporate actual people, but he often completely changes their personalities. He makes up events. He even sometimes completely disregards logic in order to bring two characters together who would not have been in the same social circles whatsoever. For example, as we discussed in class, the whole scene with Harry Houdini and Harry K. Thaw in the prison made absolutely no sense because Houdini wasn't even doing his escape in that prison in the first place, but Doctorow decided to ignore historical facts and change the course of the lives of two people who really did exist. 

In other cases, he attributes characteristics of historical figures to people that he has made up, such as with Coalhouse Walker. Many of the aspects of his life line up with those of Scott Joplin, and while reading comparisons are automatically drawn between the two.

I found this to give a really weird effect (kind of like we were peering into an alternate universe with the same people but different stories. Doctorow definitely took a lot of creative and historical liberty when writing his book, and it is very refreshing to me. I think too many authors these days are focused on doing everything perfectly, following details as carefully as possible, and reading Ragtime has a completely different vibe.

Comments

  1. Tracy LiJanuary 31, 2022 at 8:36 AM

    Great job! I really like how you describe the way Doctorow mixes real history with fiction by taking historical figures and basically just using his creative license as an author to have fun with their personalities, and sometimes even completely ignore logical sense. I agree, this really makes a weird but unique and enjoyable effect, as contrast to how many other historical authors write their characters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rithika PatnamJanuary 31, 2022 at 1:48 PM

    This is definitely true. I feel like Doctorow is almost aiming for that shock factor and tries to be very sarcastic and ironic so that readers are always kept on their toes. It forces you to think deeper about what he is saying, but also stay entertained at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AditiJanuary 31, 2022 at 8:38 PM

    I agree, it's a very unique and interesting way of telling the story and bringing characters together. Do you think being able to see into this "alternate universe," as you called it, helps us gain a new perspective of or sends a particular message about actual historical or modern-day figures/events?

    ReplyDelete
  4. TitusFebruary 7, 2022 at 11:08 AM

    I do like Doctorow's style of writing in regards to him using historical figures and events, and then using fiction to fill in the gaps. I like how you referred to this as an 'alternate universe' implying that Doctorow is creating his own world. I think that the intersection of historical events in fiction novels is an effective and nice way of creating your own story.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RylandFebruary 8, 2022 at 5:55 PM

    I agree it is refreshing but I would say that Doctorow's style is not random, it is still very well researched and calculated. he very clearly knows a lot about every historical figure he has chosen to namedrop. I do think it is pretty funny to make Morgan believe in reincarnation and Evelyn Nesbitt to be an anarchist but he did a lot to set these ideas up as somewhat believable given the information that he has on these people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Luke YouFebruary 17, 2022 at 6:40 PM

    Definitely. I found his writing style to be refreshing as well, although I will say that I think he took too many historical liberties in some sections of the book. At some points, such as the meeting in the prison between Houdini and Thaw, it just felt like Doctorow wasn't even using his brain to come up with meaningful events.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ethan RobertsFebruary 23, 2022 at 2:52 PM

    Hello Lorenzo. I agree that Doctorow took quite a few creative liberties when writing this. I LOL'd (Laughed Out Loud) when you said "the whole scene with Harry Houdini and Harry K. Thaw in the prison made absolutely no sense" just because that was my exact reaction throughout reading the book. I think the many liberties that Doctorow took made the book more enjoyable and more unique, though. Specifically, I'm thinking of when Mother found a crying baby buried in her garden. This is so far fetched and would obviously never happen in real life, but Doctorow knows that. By forcing this to happen in the book, he is challenging the conventions and poking fun at the idea of historical fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clara WoodFebruary 24, 2022 at 8:47 PM

    Yeah, I definitely agree that the tone of Ragtime is very unique and refreshing to read. Its an interesting dynamic, because yes, Doctorow fabricates events and characters that get in unlikely situations, however, it's not a revisionist history. He keeps the general consensus of history mostly the same, and just messes with how his characters interact with these big ideas and movements. It was a tone I hadn't really seen before, and it was lot of fun to dissect. Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  9. yamunayanikMarch 5, 2022 at 1:11 AM

    Blue Titanium Cerakote by Dafabet | Vitanium Art
    Blue Titanium titanium watch Cerakote. A is titanium a metal classic cerakote which titanium iv chloride you will find titanium iphone case in a variety of shapes and sizes. Its shape and omega seamaster titanium shape varies by shape, colour and shape €9.95 · ‎In stock

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jason's Coming of Age

     I know this is a broad topic, but I thought it was important to address Jason's broad coming of age in this book, and, more specifically, the ways in which we can tell. His behavior changes a lot from the beginning to the end. At the beginning, we can tell that he is uncomfortable, immature and scared to speak up, even when other people are hurting him. However, he goes through many growth experiences throughout the book that open his eyes, the most notable of which being his interactions with Eva. She points out many interesting things to him that he hadn't noticed before, and kind of exposes all of these things that Jason has been keeping locked up inside of himself (like his stammer and the "hairy barbarians").      One of the biggest changes we notice in Jason is the fact that he stops using the word "gay" to describe things, and even sometimes uses words that he would have described as "gay" before (like "beautiful" when he'...
Read more

Triggering the Atonists

     Mumbo Jumbo. A phrase we have all heard throughout our lives to describe gibberish, nonsense, and the ridiculous. As a extremely stigmatized term, I wonder: why would Ishmael Reed use it to name his novel?  In fact, for someone who seems to be trying to destigmatize a lot of the things in his book, why would he seemingly make his novel so much more confusing for readers who have probably never heard these terms before?     I think the answer has been right in front of us the whole time: he's trying to weed out the atonists. Now, hear me out. In the context of the novel, a possible explanation is that the atonists are purposefully trying to delegitimize the book by adding in typos, making it seem more confusing, etc. But let's take it outside of that context for a second. What is Reed's actual reason for making everything so confusing? I think it's to both weed out and anger the atonists, the enemy. What would be an atonists worst nightmare? A nove...
Read more

Oswald and Ruby, Ruby and Oswald

 When we started reading the part of Libra  on Jack Ruby, something immediately stood out to me: the eerie similarity between Ruby and Lee. They're obviously different in a lot of ways (Ruby is trying to take out loans from the mafia, whereas Lee is advocating for communism and the advancement of communist ideals in the United States).  The similarity, however, lies in their personalities and the way in which they are viewed by the world. They are both guys with really bold ideas who think they are important in the grand scheme of things, but with huge insecurities. Everyone else around them views them as a joke, and the serious actions they take (Lee going to the Soviet Union or Ruby beating the guy up) aren't really seen as that important. No one thinks they are actually a danger or at risk of really acting on their words, which is really interesting when you think about what they both end up doing. Obviously, Oswald ends up assassinating John F Kennedy and Ruby ends up...
Read more