What Starts With Chaos, Ends With Chaos
"Happily ever after" is a phrase we have heard very often in stories every since we were little. The stories all follow a similar pattern: there's a problem, two people fall in love and solve the problem at the same time, and they live happily ever after. However, with a book like "Ragtime", this pattern becomes very complicated, because of the multiple plots going on at once without any real sense of logical progression. So what does the conclusion look like?
Death. That's what it looks like. While reading, I noticed that in order to wrap up the book in a seemingly quick and simple way, Doctorow just kills off all the characters he doesn't know what to do with. Coalhouse? Dead. Mother's younger brother? Dead. JP Morgan? Dead. Father? Dead. In fact, it seems like the only significant people left alive might be Mother and Tateh, who do get a "happily ever after" ending.
So what led Doctorow to this choice? Honestly, I think it might have just been laziness. In class, we talked about how he may have just run out of things to say and ended the book before it was completely finished, and I think that's what happened. Instead of just wrapping up the story in a way that would have left us feeling satisfied, he just decided he didn't care and killed everyone. But isn't that perfectly in line with everything he's done so far? He constantly shows that he doesn't care about anything (historical inaccuracies, random plot points, etc.), so maybe he's just sticking with his writing style. In the end, this doesn't seem that out of character for him, and the abrupt finale might actually be the perfect way to end a book as chaotic as "Ragtime".
Hey @lozoreaper!!! I really like your post! Great job! Its frickin awesome! I really like how you focused on the theme of death in the novel at the end. I hadn't really thought about that. I definitely think there was a bit of laziness involved. Once Doctorow brought his main story across he just didn't feel like writing more.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you. The entire book just seemed like one random collection of ideas without any logical connection. I think the book would have done better had it focused on a smaller cast of characters and more progression, but I guess that's just how Doctorow is. Joey described the book as a historical fan fiction, which I think is surprisingly accurate.
ReplyDeleteI sort of mentioned this in class (I think in your section), but we could read the somewhat arbitrary ending ("the era of Ragtime had run out") as reflecting a postmodernist view of history and the concept of a "historical period." We impose the narrative/fictional structure of an "era" onto the chaos of history, so these multifarious and chaotic first decades of the 20th century are the "Ragtime era," followed by the "Jazz Age," and so on. And maybe Doctorow plays into that idea by killing off so many of his (male, violent) characters at the end of the era covered by his book. But this phrasing at the very end, and the comparison to a player piano, seems more arbitrary--time keeps moving forward, the arbitrary years covered by this book are now over, so the book must be finished. A new piano roll can be loaded into the player piano, and a new era will begin. But there isn't necessarily any *meaning* in that ending--it's just some years finishing and new ones starting.
ReplyDeleteWow what a scathing critique. I've read a lot of negative reviews on the last chapter but yours is certainly the least forgiving. To a large extent however, I agree. Even if it was intentional (which it must have been- right?), I don't think the point he was trying to make with his new writing style and pacing (and I'm not sure I even know what the point is) got across super well to the readers. I might not go as far as to call it laziness, but I might consider it a miscalculation. Good post.
ReplyDeleteDang that's a harsh critique. I kind of see your point about laziness on the author's part as I feel like sometimes we as readers can give the author too much credit where it isn't due. But I also thing this whole book Doctorow is trying to keep us on our toes and to expect the unexpected. And a strange, abrupt ending would do just that. While I don't exactly agree with you I do see the points you make. Good post
ReplyDeleteI mean everyone dies at some point. Of course he could have stayed more relevant to the story but at least he followed the characters we know while also revealing more about their inner character. I would rather we get this than nothing, he could have just stopped writing after Coalhouse died or changed the subject to talk about something else until the era of ragtime ended. It's also a pretty funny statement he makes, the mental imagine of him being like yep my work here is done after the ragtime era ends and just clocking out is funny. The true postmodernist historian.
ReplyDeleteI could see the "lazy" part I suppose. When reading I compared it to those end cards in "based on true events" movies where they show a black and white picture of each character later in life with something like "Jacob went on to publish 3 books and died happily with his family" or something.
I definitely agree with your analysis of the ending. It was really confusing and it felt rushed, and like you said it felt like he got lazy in a way and just had to throw something in. Interesting critique at the very end suggesting that he doesn't care about anything at all, personally I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But i do think he has sort of a carefree vibe.
ReplyDeleteWhen we started reading Ragtime, it seemed like Doctorow was nothing if not a detail-oriented writer, but at the end he does seem to just stop caring and kill everyone for the fun of it. But, the aspect of his writing that definitely doesn't change through the book is his love for chaos, as we start with a jumble of unconnected plots all happening at the same time and end with all the plots ending suddenly, most often with the death of the characters involved. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI also hadn't noticed the extreme prevalance of death, but now that you point it out they do kill virtually everyone off. Houdini was also left alive but I do agree that the ending felt rushed and kind of lazy and I want to attribute some deeper meaning given how artistic most of the book felt. But it really did not feel, to me, like some analogous commentary but more of a deadline thing. Emma Goldman wasn't killed but deported (which did happen in real life, but some timeline fudging) and that feels like it serves the same functional purpose
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I like the tone you use in your post. Makes reading your words seem like your true and utter opinion, which is ultimately what we are looking to hear. There are still many questions left to discuss and wonder about in regards to how Doctorow chooses to end the novel and why so abruptly. As we kind of mentioned in class, it almost seemed that Doctorow either: a) was meeting the page count on this piece, still had many storylines left running, and chose to conclude many of the characters' stories suddenly instead of leaving the ending open for discussion, or b) was running out of time and needed to meet that 11:59PM deadline.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Lorenzo! I really like your argument that the conclusion is so inline with Doctorow's personality. I completely agree, Doctorow's writing has shown how arrogant he is at points. Ultimately it seems that he is making a statement about history with this conclusion, just like he does with making up historical events and interactions between characters, that he can do whatever he wants with these stories and they will be equally disprovable as what some historians conclude.
ReplyDeleteI think Ragtime is a perfect example of a book that keeps realism within grasp, even though it plays with elements of fiction throughout. Part of where Ragtime succeeds in this, as you mentioned is the beginning and ending of the book. Unlike real life, most books both start and end cleanly, wrapping up almost everything in a nice package for the reader to digest. In contrast, Ragtime leaves things on an unsatisfactory note to many, just like how life is in reality.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this chapter was very jarring to read, from how Doctorow jumped between completely unrelated storylines to how lazy many of those ending felt. But if we're giving him the benefit of the doubt, there is some merit in the postmodernist idea that there are no solid endings to things, especially not eras like Ragtime. But it's interesting that he doesn't do much to make us feel like we are entering a new era, instead a bunch of people randomly died, so it's more like the ending of an era rather than the beginning of a new one
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a really interesting take! I guess I'm a little skeptical of the idea that Doctorow "doesn't care about anything." As you mentioned, he's certainly not concerned with historical accuracy or traditionally fulfilling story structures, but I think these decisions are deliberate. I think, while he certainly doesn't bog himself down with historical specifics, one of Doctorow's primary goals is the convey the essences of what this Ragtime era was like. The chaotic, fragmented nature of the book does definitely feel like a reflection of the way we perceive this period in history, and despite the factual liberties he takes, he seems concerned with depicting historical figures in ways he feels are true to how they would have acted.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Lorenzo! I can tell you feel very passionately about this topic, but I don't think you are giving Doctorow enough credit. Some of the things you pointed out, like historical inaccuracies definitely aren't just Doctorow not caring about anything. This is a common trend in postmodern books, and it pokes at the idea of objectivity. However, I do agree that the ending wasn't ideal, at least from the reader's perspective. Nobody can tell exactly what Doctorow was getting at by the ending, but whatever it is, I think its intentional and not just Doctorow getting bored. I guess its just speculation.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I don't quite agree with your take. Ragtime is pretty tightly woven and consistent, in my opinion. There are historical accuracies, yes, but they seem very deliberate. The last chapter certainly does feel hurried, though. The question that remains is this: is this deliberate too? I think that it is, and that Doctorow is intentionally mirroring the rapid changes in the world at the same time that the ending of the chapter takes place, but it's certainly up for debate.
ReplyDelete