2022 take on a 1975 book about 1912

This book is interesting but I feel like Doctorow is saying very little novel. Because postmodernism is the setting and worldview in which we have all been raised, ideas that were once new and foreign are now commonly accepted. This book suffers as a result and I find myself following Doctorow’s bland characters that are intended to be vessels for his ideas rather than the ideas themselves. (I will say the book is picking up a lot with the introduction of Coulhouse though.)

The main message of the book appears to be that exploitative capitalism is bad. Oh no! Really? I was under the impression that people getting their hands chopped off at the end of their 16 hour shift was a good thing. I don’t think a single person went into this book with an opposing opinion on the gilded age. I mean maybe these themes were subversive and crazy at the time when the US was the economic powerhouse in the world but I am not impressed with this thesis by Doctorow. Anyone with an education past the 4th grade has heard these horrors time and time again. Doctorow’s descriptions, while ironic and creative, are just so unnecessary to convince anyone anymore. And the people who are still, in this day, in support of child labor and exploiting workers, I don’t think the subtlety of this book will do anything for them.

He also paints the racist attitudes of everyone with irony and disapproves of the actions taken by the white characters. The paternal racist attitudes of Father and Pearry are especially on blast when he demonstrates that they would only have made it with the Eskimos. Some people definitely need to learn this lesson still but I think the broader society does not see this as a crazy position and in fact it is the well accepted norm. I will give him a lot of leeway with this one because just a few years prior, several civil rights leaders were assassinated. But in 2022, this message is heard said better elsewhere. The introduction of Coulhouse is an interesting one, making you sympathize with him and despise Father even though he is taking violent actions, but once again, I think everyone was already going to sympathize with him. 

Really the only thing I have seen that would be any where near a problem is Doctorow using Emma Goldman as the voice of reason in the book, She was a violent anarchist who was involved in the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick. But despite the violence that she stirs up, I don’t think any reader who knows about the situation was going to side with Frick. Her ideas about anarchism may have fallen out of favor but her position of opposition to the government and corporations have certainly risen in popularity. This is Doctorow’s most controversial move and it would barely faze most 2022 readers.

Overall, I have to say that the ideas that Doctorow seems to be rooting very strongly aren’t things that would be disagreed with now. Everyone is aware of poverty and exploitation in the current economic system. Everyone is aware of the racist problems of America and are not saying Coulhouse should just be passive. These are just what is taught now and I think that what was once controversial is now widely accepted and promoted, ultimately making this book sound like a rehashing of these ideas even though it was at the forefront.


Comments

  1. Emily SJanuary 31, 2022 at 8:38 AM

    You do make several great points regarding the utterly unimportant-ness of this book, but I'll be honest, I kinda disagree with you. The messages in this book are still important even in 2022, as it allows us to visualize the timeperiod to which it is written with its racism. And of course its a little overdone- everything in this book is- but with the way it writes it presenting it as fact (because of the perspective its written in) I don't think it necessarily says "ruh roh racism bad"- it sort of forces the reader to understand why its bad before understanding the satire behind it. I think Doctorow has written it kind of strangely- for sure. Is this book great for 2022? Not at all. However your post here brings up a great debate for this novel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isabel Tolman-BronskiJanuary 31, 2022 at 6:01 PM

    I see what you mean, but I don't think the author's intention was to point out social issues that have never ever been touched on before. While many of these ideas aren't aren't necessarily revolutionary, they were hugely important at the time and continue to be hugely important today. For example, the US still has a huge problem with workers' rights today. Certain industries (like slaughterhouses, an example from the text) still have many of the problems they did in the gilded age (exploiting immigrants, on-site injuries, disease outbreaks). And satire isn't necessarily meant to solve the world's problems. It's also entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JanakiFebruary 3, 2022 at 11:08 AM

    I get where you're coming from but I also think's important to note that Ragtime is a novel and not meant to be some sort of socialist manifesto. Most people probably picked this book up for light reading or even entertainment and Doctorow's main goal is probably not to make people aware of injustice in society. However, I also think this book points out a lot of really interesting and important problems in American society and may be an even more impactful way of learning about something like worker's rights. I found the scenes of Tateh and his daughter to be especially touching because of how they relate to the world's problems. As a novelist, I don't think Doctorow has any responsibility to portray a full historical picture or to try to make a more impactful revolutionary point - he's at the freedom as a writer of fiction to do what he wants and it happens so that he makes some good points about American society which are relevant today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stefania February 3, 2022 at 10:24 PM

    This is a really interesting blog post! I too have been thinking about whether the stuff Doctorow is discussing is actually that useful. Of course, I agree with many of his opinions. The point where his novel comes to an actually controversial issue, Coalhouses actions, hasn't actually made any clear points here. I guess I still agree with him that that is in fact a controversial issue that's difficult to answer, I haven't learned much... Maybe there will be more substance toward the end, I guess I'm just not enjoying this book that's entire point is to poke fun at things without really making any strong points or constructive ideas.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Butler and the 1619 Project

Image
I was doing a little bit of outside reading on the background of the book and I was struck at the reason why Butler decided to write this. A young African American man told her that he was ashamed of his ancestors and their subservience and wishes he could kill them. She wrote the book to illustrate how someone from the future would have done the same. We touched on this a little bit in class by looking at the loss of her sense of self over the course of the book and how we agreed we would probably have done the same in her position so this motive makes a lot of sense.  I just think this outlook is so foreign to me. In school we were always taught about the subtle forms of resistance that slaves performed to rebel against the owners like intentionally breaking things or doing their tasks slowly. The teachings of slavery before this was that they were all submissive and allowed themselves to be subjugated. In fact, this was a time when a lot of people didn’t even want to teach about...
Read more

Mumbo Jumbo is a Kid's Show

Image
As dense as this book is, this would make a great cartoon episode from the 60s. I know Mr. Mitchell mentioned that Reed himself referred to this book as cartoony but I just cannot stop reading this book like a Scooby-Doo episode. The pacing and goofiness just lend themselves to the medium so well. I was adding my own sound effects to every scene throughout the book. Firstly, Hinckle Von Vampton and Hubert “Safecracker” Gould are two of the most stereotypical villains I have ever read. Vampton even wears an eye patch. Vampton even has the wacky maniacal laugh that every villain written for 5-year-olds has. “Heh heh. He laughed. Heh heh, Hinckle laughed. Passersby stopping to watch this man double up on the street HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH.” It is just impossible not to see him and his evil henchman as the most basic antagonists ever devised. Their schemes for villainy are also very reminiscent of Doofenshmirtz's plans, just the most surface-level logic being applied. The scene w...
Read more