Why Some Characters in Ragtime Are Left Unnamed
At first glance, it may appear that E.L. Doctorow's characters are just inconsequential stories of fiction. I believe the unnamed characters in Ragtime represent quintessential American stories at the time, a literary choice that deliberately blends the genres of history and fiction. For example, the New Rochelle family (Grandfather, Mother, Father, Son, and Mother's Younger Brother) represent the average "American" family at the time, with values and familial dynamics rooted in the Ragtime historical period. Father is depicted as a small business owner and as the provider of the family, as (when preparing to leave for the Peary expedition) "a burly man of strong appetites, but he appreciated his wife's reluctance to assume the indelicate attitudes that answered to his needs. In the meantime the entire household girded for his departure" (Doctorow 11). In this passage, Doctorow establishes Father as the center of the household's dealings, and Mother as a background character, but this soon changes after his departure.
Doctorow deliberately leaves these characters unnamed, steering away from the conventions of fiction, as typical works of fiction name their characters explicitly (e.g. Bob and Alex Jones). Mother and Father could refer to any generic household in New Rochelle, and the historical setting prompts the reader to question whether or not these events really did happen. Perhaps Doctorow uses this to characterize the shift in American sentiment in the early 20th century, represented with events in the fictitious family. Simultaneously, as Coalhouse enters the families' lives with weekly courtships, sitting in the suburban home and playing ragtime for the family (Doctorow 158-161). On a national scale, ragtime music expands from hubs like NYC outwards, and African Americans and white Americans began to occupy the same spaces, leading to social stereotypes being broken by Coalhouse Walker.
Doctorow's depiction of the unnamed family as an personification of 20th century American households is far more nuanced than the discussions above, especially when considering the development of Mother and Mother's Younger Brother throughout the novel. Doctorow also uses the unnamed family to further blend the genres of history and fiction. Despite being rooted in a historical setting, it is impossible to verify whether or not these events did occur, perhaps prodding at the postmodernist notion of rejecting objective truth. Leaving the family unnamed is a deliberate choice by Doctorow to raise questions about defining history and fiction: Did it really happen?
I agree with you that the unnamed characters in Ragtime better comes to represent the general trend of America in the early 1900s. Maybe these characters are just movie props that Doctorow can use to engage the story or perhaps concepts and ideas of America written down in the form of Ragtime characters, fitting within the idea of postmodernism.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your blog. The names being left blank are a purposeful decision made by Doctorow in order to make you second guess what did and did not actually happen, aligning with postmodernist ideas. He manages to describe 20th century America while at the same time highlighting features or stories that he thinks are important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your blog. In Ragtime, the unidentified characters reflect early 20th-century America, giving some indication as to whether or not the figures were fictional. Perhaps, Doctorow utilizes these people as the central characters and as a representation of American concepts and ideas, keeping with postmodernism.
ReplyDeleteThe stories of Mother and Younger Brother resemble the stories of many women and young white liberals in 1970s America. I think its important to note that Tateh's journey from a generic ethnic title for father to a distinctive "Baron Ashkenazy." I think this represents how uncommon a successful American Dream really is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was an interesting and intentional choice for Doctorow to leave certain central characters unnamed. It allows him to do things with them without the burden of historical accuracy, yet at the same time generalize a demographic from the time of the novel.
ReplyDeletegreat post! I certainly think that the choice to make the family unnamed is interesting, and I agree that it adds to the ability to apply the family as a whole to american tropes. MYB seems to contain themes that could be linked to white participation in militarist social movements in the 70s, father could show a reluctance for change, and mother a breaking down of gender norms. All very interesting and great post!
ReplyDeleteI think Doctorow definitely left the "fictional" characters nameless in order to cement them into this history. We can't prove that those events didn't happen, so they might as well be real. However, with Coalhouse Walker, things are different. He is given a name-- and yet he appears nowhere in history. There's no question that he is fictional, because his story would have certainly appeared in history books had it been real. I think he is given a name because although he is fictional, he comes from a "source" character, Michael Kolhaus.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely incredible work Bruce. I find it interesting and totally agree with how you connect Doctorow's decision to not naming her characters into blending fiction with history. Additionally, I also love how you connect the story to previous lessons learned about postmodernism. Superb work as always!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the Doctorow's careful manipulation of the unnamed characters, maneuvering them through the cracks of unknown history. With the exception of Coalhouse Walker, this "plausible deniability" is definitely an essential plot device.
ReplyDelete