In the seven chapters of E. L. Doctorow's Ragtime that we've read so far, I can't help but notice that it is different from a normal historical novel. This difference was brought up in class today, and I observed it more and more in tonight's reading.
In other historical fiction, the author attempts to put you directly into the time period, as if you were just another made-up character. In historical non-fiction, the author attempts to inform you about a time period and give you all the facts. What Doctorow is writing seems to be a combination: an attempt to inform you about a time period and give you all the facts about made-up characters. It's kind of unsettling because it's written in third person, and the distance from, yet insight into, the thoughts of the characters that the narrator has is little bit frustrating. We don't know what relation the narrator has to any of the characters, but we know that he knows everything. But what he knows is happening in the early 1900s, even though he is writing in the 1970s. He's trying to put us in the setting, but he knows he's trying to put us in the setting. Yeah. Exactly. Confusing right?
I'm not sure if I like this self-conscious attempt at a historical novel. I enjoy the voice and I'm really interested in the story and want to find out what happens next, but at the same time, I wish he would either play along with the game he got us into, this setting a scene and trying to transport us there, or not. Either delve whole-heartedly into the novel and make us feel like we're there, or write us a non-fiction book about New York in the 1900s. The third person narration and the matter-of-fact style is more suited for such a non-fiction book, so I think he should pick a style and stick with it.
While I don't like the narration set-up, I do like Doctorow's writing style. His short, comma-less sentences remind me of Hemingway, which makes me grin a little bit. This sort of neutral, straight to the point writing leaves you to fully engage with the story the writer is telling while still appreciating the simple, good writing.
One last thing that I noticed after these first two reading assignments was that all of the individual story threads are slowly being connected together; how the family of Mameh and Tateh and the little girl were brought in at the beginning, and later Evelyn met them and begins to help them out, and how Freud sees Evelyn's portrait being cut, and later how Evelyn notices her "secret admirer" which is, of course, "Mother's Younger Brother." I love it when there are multiple threads in a novel and they all combine; it's like life: one person could know this person who saw that other person at the same time they were on their way to see another person. I think it's really neat, and I enjoy that Doctorow decided to use that kind of storytelling technique.
1 comment:
While I do like Doctorow's narration, I definitely agree with you when you say that Ragtime isn't like "typical" historical fiction. I find that it immerses the reader more deeply in the history than most historical fiction because not only are the characters in a historical setting, but there are real, historical people that are an integral part of the story.
I also like that there are many different smaller stories within the narrative that seem random and don't look like they're going to connect, but then when they do it's really cool to read.
Post a Comment