As the story in Ragtime unfolds, I have started to notice that Doctorow has a tendency to push forward the characters he has created and find flaws and ridicule those historical figures he has plopped into his novel. Doctorow brings out the eccentric, pretentious side of J.P. Morgan, the brazen, selfish side of Robert Peary, and the cold asshole side of Henry Ford. Some could argue that these portrayals are in fact quite accurate, yet, as I read on, these portrayals quickly went from amusing to flat out ugly. Though I am enjoying the story so far, my biggest gripe about Ragtime is Doctorow's need to lampoon some of the great figures in our past. Without J.P. Morgan's financial expertise and genius, the country would not have been as successful in its economic flourishing, Henry Ford revolutionized and pioneered a new century of American manufacturing, and Robert Peary brought out the intrepid nature of America. Even Evelyn Nesbit exuded a strong, feminine power that seems to be slightly ignored by Doctorow.
This isn't to say that Doctorow does not mention these figures merits, he does, but he makes it seem almost as if he is forced into doing so. Almost as if he is contractually obligated to tell the audience about there achievements and then a page letter, slams these figures. Truthfully, I would be alright with this if the lampooning was done to the characters he created. Doctorow seems to be positioning his characters to be better received than the historical figures in the book, which to me, implies that he is trying to impose his idea of what true American greats should be. Of course, some sweeping generalizations have been made, but nonetheless, every time a section with a historical figure pops up, I can't help but wonder what Doctorow's motives were.
1 comment:
I see these "slams" of historical figures as a little more ambiguous than you do--there's a slippery kind of irony in these portraits of Ford, Morgan, and Peary. Of course, Doctorow is writing "against" mountains of hagiography--or "hero-worship"--so there is a "revisionist" quality to these portraits. These Great Men have been amply praised by History (caps. intended), and there is indeen a mischievous impulse to puncture these bloated popular images. In other words, Doctorow's primary target is maybe not the men (and women) themselves, but the way they've been portrayed in literature and history. Likewise, Emma Goldman has been subject to years of character assassination in historical writing ("The Most Dangerous Woman in America"--an actual epithet by which she was known, before she was deported, that is)--Doctorow sees in her a principled and inspiring figure who has a number of legitimate and far-sighted gripes with the way capitalism has constrained freedom in America. In both cases, the author is writing about other writing, as much as the people themselves.
Post a Comment