"You can't prove it didn't happen": Narrative tools of Doctorow in blending history with fiction
In the novel Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow the characters of the story who remain unnamed are constantly intertwined with the real events of history. For the most part, the characters in the story who are unnamed can be regarded as the fictional ones, but the way they interact with reality and the known historical events of the early 20th century is all too real. In order to confuse reality and play with the ideas of postmodernism, Doctorow poses the question of “why shouldn’t this have happened?” through his characters and narrative setup. In almost all of his sub narratives and chaptered sections, Doctorow introduces a historical overlap with his fictional characters that makes use of small anomalies and gaps in historical knowledge within which he can operate due to the lack of credible recorded history within that piece of the timeline. My favorite example of this strategy in the book is his use of the Peary Arctic Expedition, a mission to find the exact northmost point of the globe. Beyond commenting on the uselessness of the expedition in the grand scheme and using irony to diffuse its achievement, Doctorow also inserts Father, a member of the unnamed family, into the narrative by suggesting him as a character that could’ve been there, almost daring or challenging historians to prove he was not. By suggesting this, he can take credit away from real historical figures for a number of well-known historical artifacts and achievements, and displays/flexes his narrative omniscient power. Doctorow is also able to effectively blend history and fiction, at least for the average reader who is not historically savvy about the exact details of an expedition that took place over a hundred years ago, leading us to fall prey to his strategies of historical manipulation.
Going along with the Arctic Expedition example, the most prominent way in which Doctorow inserts his own false narrative into known history is through the use of the expedition flag, found in the photo of Peary and his team. In Doctorow’s version, father, an unnamed and fictional character, gives this flag to Peary as a token of good fortune. This is an artifact which is unclaimed by any historical figure but that can be clearly found in the history books and recognized, and by associating it with Father, Doctorow can thereby forcefully insert Father as a part of history by linking him with a recognizable real world object.
His detailed and journaled account of the details in the photo and his emotional journey through the arctic as well as the various complex interactions he has with the very real historical members of the Peary team, makes his argument for Father’s supposed presence in history even more convincing. In this case, Doctorow operates in the historical gap of the side players who contributed to the execution of the Peary Expedition but were exempt from the fame and recognition of those who did the final trek and made it into the photo. Through this strategy which involves giving excessive detail in regards to Father’s character and his interactions as if to prove to us his existence by giving his character depth, Doctorow is able to subconsciously convince the reader to believe that Father was actually there and involved in carving the path for the team that ended up making the final push to the “Northmost” point of the Arctic. Additionally, even if he didn’t make the final appearance in the arctic photograph, we are inclined to believe he existed because we have no easy way to disprove it. Sure, if one were to check the records his existence would be undeniably false, but the average reader has no way to refute his claims and usually simply chooses the easier path of trusting Doctorow, sometimes forgetting to question his narrative reliability and that the book is a piece of historical fiction.
Moreover, his ability to describe the personalities of the characters of the real world with such confidence through the eyes of Father also leads us down a path of easily trusting Doctorow as a reliable narrative navigator. The way he, without stuttering, describes the traits and behaviors of a man like Peary who was very real, yet of which we have no emotional account, he presents us with unheard information that sounds so matter of fact it is easy to believe. Although many of us might simply know Peary from a factual standpoint, his emotions and behavior throughout the trip are an unfilled space in the scope of historical narrative, further allowing Doctorow to use it as a point of operation for his own narrative means. With this narrative technique, Doctorow is able to make the story into a piece so detailed and feasible that he can almost make us forget that we are reading the stories of his fabricated characters overlapping with a fabricated account of the personalities and caricatures of real figures and their historical dealings.
Additionally, Doctorow’s use of the common 20th century narrative style of the unknown expedition aimed to accomplish a new human-feat helps his case for implying that Father was present on the Peary expedition, but only introduces this as an ironic contrast to the solidified ideas of postmodernism. To start, Doctorow makes use of the idea and stereotype that, with the expedition being a common surviving narrative from the time, people of that era were habitually engaged in these expeditions left and right, making it all the more reasonable to propose that a random man like Father took part in one of these journeys. But unlike other parts of the story, the Peary Expedition has a quality about it that makes it feel more dated and contrasted to other parts of the book. For example, Coalhouse’s storyline adopts themes from contemporary 70s lifestyle (the time period in which Ragtime was written), most notably the emergence of domestic terrorism and the justifiability of the bombings, especially within the minds of members of higher education, and overall is a more modern storyline which he treats with much more severity. By contrast, in the Arctic storyline Doctorow adopts the tired-out early 20th century literary trend of the expedition, but makes use of subtle irony throughout to diminish the power of this older narrative style and make these superficially significant accomplishments seem less grandiose, in accordance with postmodernist goals. His most prominent use of irony comes out as they finally reach what they assume to be the exact north pole (or close enough) and let out a victory cheer, at which point Doctorow laughs in the face of the expedition members as he depicts their cry to be nothing but a waste of breath blown off in the wind. This mocking of Peary’s superficial life goal aligns with the postmodernist technique of using classic narrative styles to redefine people’s perception of the significance of prevailing historical storylines to promote a changing of the human condition and generally suggest the untrustworthiness, manipulability, and one-dimensionality of classic literature.
All in all, the expedition is just one example of the way in which Doctorow is capable of manipulating the past. He is able to create the ultimate historical fiction novel and does so by taking well-understood events and figures and taking advantage of uncharted historical territory to make up his own version of the behavior and emotions of popular contemporary figures. Through the lens of his fictional characters Doctorow can make us believe that figures were less cartoonish and more complex than what we perceived them to be at surface level, a tool which he can either twist to better historical on a subject or worsen it. For example, Doctorow ends up demonizing many American icons by “revealing” their emotional/personal side. The most notable of these is J.P. Morgan, a man known for his entrepreneurship and robust financial contribution to a growing America. Doctorow’s clear depiction of his superiority complex which he uses to justify his ridiculous wealth also works to show Morgan’s delusion and lack of touch with humanity. As we clearly come to see, he has disdain for Morgan, making him subject to the full extent of Doctorow’s irony as he depicts him talking to a seagull for lack of any friends and painting him in a different, more negative historical light. This power to change our perception of real past figures is perhaps the most powerful narrative ability of Doctorow. As the story comes to a close I’m sure others like me will irreversibly continue to see historical figures differently, despite the fact the book is well-known fiction.
Going along with the Arctic Expedition example, the most prominent way in which Doctorow inserts his own false narrative into known history is through the use of the expedition flag, found in the photo of Peary and his team. In Doctorow’s version, father, an unnamed and fictional character, gives this flag to Peary as a token of good fortune. This is an artifact which is unclaimed by any historical figure but that can be clearly found in the history books and recognized, and by associating it with Father, Doctorow can thereby forcefully insert Father as a part of history by linking him with a recognizable real world object.
His detailed and journaled account of the details in the photo and his emotional journey through the arctic as well as the various complex interactions he has with the very real historical members of the Peary team, makes his argument for Father’s supposed presence in history even more convincing. In this case, Doctorow operates in the historical gap of the side players who contributed to the execution of the Peary Expedition but were exempt from the fame and recognition of those who did the final trek and made it into the photo. Through this strategy which involves giving excessive detail in regards to Father’s character and his interactions as if to prove to us his existence by giving his character depth, Doctorow is able to subconsciously convince the reader to believe that Father was actually there and involved in carving the path for the team that ended up making the final push to the “Northmost” point of the Arctic. Additionally, even if he didn’t make the final appearance in the arctic photograph, we are inclined to believe he existed because we have no easy way to disprove it. Sure, if one were to check the records his existence would be undeniably false, but the average reader has no way to refute his claims and usually simply chooses the easier path of trusting Doctorow, sometimes forgetting to question his narrative reliability and that the book is a piece of historical fiction.
Moreover, his ability to describe the personalities of the characters of the real world with such confidence through the eyes of Father also leads us down a path of easily trusting Doctorow as a reliable narrative navigator. The way he, without stuttering, describes the traits and behaviors of a man like Peary who was very real, yet of which we have no emotional account, he presents us with unheard information that sounds so matter of fact it is easy to believe. Although many of us might simply know Peary from a factual standpoint, his emotions and behavior throughout the trip are an unfilled space in the scope of historical narrative, further allowing Doctorow to use it as a point of operation for his own narrative means. With this narrative technique, Doctorow is able to make the story into a piece so detailed and feasible that he can almost make us forget that we are reading the stories of his fabricated characters overlapping with a fabricated account of the personalities and caricatures of real figures and their historical dealings.
Additionally, Doctorow’s use of the common 20th century narrative style of the unknown expedition aimed to accomplish a new human-feat helps his case for implying that Father was present on the Peary expedition, but only introduces this as an ironic contrast to the solidified ideas of postmodernism. To start, Doctorow makes use of the idea and stereotype that, with the expedition being a common surviving narrative from the time, people of that era were habitually engaged in these expeditions left and right, making it all the more reasonable to propose that a random man like Father took part in one of these journeys. But unlike other parts of the story, the Peary Expedition has a quality about it that makes it feel more dated and contrasted to other parts of the book. For example, Coalhouse’s storyline adopts themes from contemporary 70s lifestyle (the time period in which Ragtime was written), most notably the emergence of domestic terrorism and the justifiability of the bombings, especially within the minds of members of higher education, and overall is a more modern storyline which he treats with much more severity. By contrast, in the Arctic storyline Doctorow adopts the tired-out early 20th century literary trend of the expedition, but makes use of subtle irony throughout to diminish the power of this older narrative style and make these superficially significant accomplishments seem less grandiose, in accordance with postmodernist goals. His most prominent use of irony comes out as they finally reach what they assume to be the exact north pole (or close enough) and let out a victory cheer, at which point Doctorow laughs in the face of the expedition members as he depicts their cry to be nothing but a waste of breath blown off in the wind. This mocking of Peary’s superficial life goal aligns with the postmodernist technique of using classic narrative styles to redefine people’s perception of the significance of prevailing historical storylines to promote a changing of the human condition and generally suggest the untrustworthiness, manipulability, and one-dimensionality of classic literature.
All in all, the expedition is just one example of the way in which Doctorow is capable of manipulating the past. He is able to create the ultimate historical fiction novel and does so by taking well-understood events and figures and taking advantage of uncharted historical territory to make up his own version of the behavior and emotions of popular contemporary figures. Through the lens of his fictional characters Doctorow can make us believe that figures were less cartoonish and more complex than what we perceived them to be at surface level, a tool which he can either twist to better historical on a subject or worsen it. For example, Doctorow ends up demonizing many American icons by “revealing” their emotional/personal side. The most notable of these is J.P. Morgan, a man known for his entrepreneurship and robust financial contribution to a growing America. Doctorow’s clear depiction of his superiority complex which he uses to justify his ridiculous wealth also works to show Morgan’s delusion and lack of touch with humanity. As we clearly come to see, he has disdain for Morgan, making him subject to the full extent of Doctorow’s irony as he depicts him talking to a seagull for lack of any friends and painting him in a different, more negative historical light. This power to change our perception of real past figures is perhaps the most powerful narrative ability of Doctorow. As the story comes to a close I’m sure others like me will irreversibly continue to see historical figures differently, despite the fact the book is well-known fiction.
Good post! I also noticed that Doctorow doesn't seem to like Morgan. In a way, I think Father and Morgan both represent something with the older world. Morgan is this person with old money that he's built up in the old world and once he meets Ford, the newer figure, he sort of gets humiliated. In the same sense, Father is pretty insignificant in Atlantic City, since we see the newer figure, Tateh, outshine him. You say in your blog that our perception of past figures are changed, but I think every character's perception have changed, especially Mother, our perception of Father, MYB, and Tateh.
ReplyDeleteNice post, Kelby! It reminds me of discussions we had earlier in our reading of Ragtime, back where we were all trying to wrap our heads around/process Doctorow's style of interweaving both historical fact, and his own fabricated history, and after reading this, I think that you perfectly encapsulated *how* he does it, especially when you broke-down the Peary Expedition segment with Father. Doctorow's ability to do something like this so casually is something that sort of...unnerves me? I constantly felt the need to be fact-checking, or double-taking when he describes certain events, even when they were seemingly straightforward, because Doctorow's way of gaslighting us into questioning our knowledge of history was just *that* good.
ReplyDeleteI like this example of the Peary expedition because it's a case where it really doesn't change anything too significant if we can imagine Father somewhere miles away when that picture of his flag was taken--and it is a fun "loophole" to propose to the reader that the flag in the famous picture came from Father's factory (prove to me that it didn't!). But he's sort of "there AND not there" in this case: he comes on the expedition, yet he is as anonymous to history as the Inuit people who help Peary at every turn (a more consequential case of historical erasure). There's a good analogy to Mathew Henson, I think--he HAS been elided in many histories, though I've seen him listed in Black History Month materials, suggesting his role in history is being rehabilitated. But it's much more consequential, and historically significant, to neglect to include the facts that a Black man is essential to this expedition--in contrast, leaving poor frostbitten Father out of the picture might not seem so bad. He's both "there" in the history book and completely erased, as indeed he does NOT play any significant role on the expedition. He is just a passenger.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really well-crafted post! I agree that Doctorow navigates the historical context very carefully and intentionally. I think another good example of his usage of these so-called "pockets of plausibility" would be Evelyn Nesbit and her frequent visits to Tateh and his daughter in the beginning half of the story. Historically, it was assumed that she had frequent affairs with various men, but some of it was never confirmed. Doctorow utilizes this by inserting his own version of history by confidently claiming that during these times she was running off to visit Tateh. He really plays with the idea of what COULD have happened.
ReplyDelete