Ragtime: More that Just a Novel

The following is my response paper on Ragtime. I think it better illustrates why I think the novel does have a point.

At first glance, Ragtime’s detached narrator and unusual mix of fictional and real characters can easily be used to pass off the book as pointless. This couldn’t be further from the truth; not only is Ragtime not pointless, but it also speaks great volumes as to the nature of historical truth. In writing the novel, Doctorow calls into question the way we think about history—namely, as distinct from fiction in its “truth.” His cast of characters and their relations to each other, along with ambiguous narration, create complex situations which help illustrate the multi-faceted nature of history.

One of the first things readers are bound to notice in reading Ragtime is its narration: detached almost always and ambiguous often. The first couple lines read,

In 1902 Father built a house at the crest of Broadview Avenue hill in New Rochelle, New York. It was a three-story brown shingle with dormers, bay window and a screen porch. Striped awnings shaded the windows. The family took possession of this stout manse on a sunny day in June and it seemed for some years thereafter that all their days would be warm and fair. (Doctorow 3)

The tone is very dry and sounds almost as if it could be the narration of a documentary. One reason Doctorow may have chosen to keep his narration detached is that it mimics the way in which history is presented. Historians take great pride in their writing being purely fact-based, scholarly, and unbiased. In writing in a style similar to that of historians, Doctorow seems to invite us to re-think the way we distinguish history from fiction. Furthermore, he doesn’t name some of the most important characters in the novel: Mother, Father, Younger Brother, etc. This adds to the sense of detachment Doctorow creates through the narration.

Similar to the way the narration resembles historical discourse, the ambiguity it creates can also be seen as a parallel to the nature of history. Doctorow seems to be pointing out that there are many different ways to interpret situations, and that history generally strives to paint a monochromatic picture. One of the best examples is Doctorow’s description of Ford: “He had caused a machine to replicate itself endlessly…Tears were in their eyes. He allotted sixty seconds on his pocket watch for a display of sentiment. Then he sent everyone back to work” (112). There are many ways to interpret this statement: Doctorow could simply be pointing out Ford's discipline and nature; on the other hand, given the nature of Ford's whole theory, we may be inclined to view this as Doctorow mocking Ford's lack of humanity. Both interpretations are valid because there is no way to verify what Ford was thinking (nor does it really matter) and because a second-hand account is inevitably skewed. There is no way to completely accurately portray any person or circumstance, as there are so many layers to everything, and Doctorow subtly points that out to readers.

Perhaps the most unique part of Ragtime is the way the cast of characters—both fictional and “real”—interacts with each other. In writing in characters we recognize, Doctorow simultaneously molds them to meet his purposes and creates his own version of these people. For example, he doesn’t claim that he is presenting Ford and Morgan exactly as they lived. Instead, he says,

I'm under the illusion that all of my inventions are quite true. For instance, in Ragtime, I'm satisfied that everything I made up about Morgan and Ford is true, whether it happened or not. Perhaps truer because it didn't happen. (Levine, 68-9)

Doctorow completely acknowledges that he made up stuff about Morgan and Ford, yet he believes it is still true—in the sense that it could have happened, specifically within the framework of the story he writes. It’s also true in the sense that Doctorow describes dynamics that readers recognize. This is a great example of when an author is able to embrace uncertainty and run free with an idea to address certain points, whereas a historian would most likely feel the need to choose a particular theory or interpretation to portray.

It all comes down to what we, as a society, have come to expect from fiction and history. We allot an author a lot more creative license than we do to historians, and that creates a lot of the distinction we perceive. Having said this, it is still important that we remember that history and fiction aren’t all that different, especially since we have an unspoken idea of what we think the distinction is. Doctorow serves us very well in this regard; he makes up things for real characters without so much as considering their ridiculous nature. At the same time, he makes it seem like he has done plenty of research on fictional characters. For instance, Doctorow’s Morgan “[L]istened to the dark and stared at the dark and waited for whatever signs Osiris would deign to bring him. After some hours he dozed….He became aware of being crawled upon” (Doctorow 262). It seems outlandish that J.P. Morgan tried to spend the night in a king’s chamber in the middle of the desert, and serves as a reminder that this is Doctorow’s created version of Morgan. In contrast, Doctorow pretends he has researched Coalhouse Walker Jr. even though he is not a real person:

Here, given subsequent events, it is important to mention what little is known about Coalhouse Walker Jr. Apparently he was a native of St. Louis, Missouri....There were never located any of his school records in St. Louis and it still is not known how he acquired his vocabulary and his manner of speaking. Perhaps by an act of will. (152-3)

Again, we see that although Coalhouse is a fictional character, he isn’t any less real than Doctorow’s representation of Morgan. In fact, to many readers, Coalhouse may seem like he is based on a real person. In any case, Doctorow does a remarkable job of mixing up his “constructed real” and fictional characters, making us reconsider our notion of truth.

Most readers will probably find Ragtime an interesting read plot-wise, but the novel’s real merit lies in the way it questions our ideas about history and fiction, and how we respond when the line between the two blurs. Through narrative and a unique cast of characters, Doctorow creates a novel that’s more than just a novel.