Great American Books

This is the official blog for the students of Monica Osborne's Great American Books course at Purdue University.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Doctorow: Ragtime


We've talked a bit about what it means to write historical fiction. We've also discussed whether the fiction-writer has a moral or ethical responsibility to be "truthful" when it comes to historical fiction. What questions and concerns does Doctorow raise about the nature of historical truth? How does his use of historical figures (Emma Goldman, JP Morgan, Henry Ford, Harry Houdini) in Ragtime serve the greater purpose of his novel?


Please post your response no later than Saturday, April 11, 12:00pm.

posted by Monica @ 3:22 PM  

23 Comments:

  • At 5:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well when it comes to history, yes most people expect historic events to be correctly whether it be in a novel or a history book. But just because it is those types of books, doesn't always mean that it is all correct to a "T." It is the readers' job to look more in to the historic events that arrouse them or that they tend to question. Not the authors job, it is their job to entertain.

     

  • At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that Doctorow raises the question of who's truth it is. I think that truth is anything BUT absolute. One person is not able to tell another person's truth without biases, nor is someone able to tell their own truth without an agenda. I think that Doctorow is forcing readers to read EVERYTHING with a critical eye.

    As for the historical figures, I feel that he uses them to give the reader something to relate to and a reason to care. Most people have heard of at least one of these historical figures so it adds some fascination with hearing about what their personal life may or may not have been like. The way Doctorow ties all the characters together is so fun and interesting that it almost wouldn't be such a good book without doing so. So, overall having these characters in the novel gives a taste of what their lives may have been like and gives the reader a reason to care about them. Then, if the reader is really interested, he/she can do some more factual based research about them later!

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    (sorry, I hit the enter key)...any ways, by the author using these historic people makes us become more intrigued in the story. It makes us want to keep reading especially the way he breaks up the chapters as well as the larger print! I enjoy the fact that he uses historic events even from the past that we still question today. It makes me want to keep reading, I love that!

     

  • At 7:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with with Lauren that it is the reader's job to find out what is true and what isn't true. That is the what makes it so great. It is a learning process cause it makes you think about our history. As for Doctorow using historical figures in the book, I think that it is his way of connecting us to the past. In todays society we all seem to be into finding out about famous peoples lives. We want to know as much as we can about them. I think that Doctorow keeps us interested in Ragtime because he knows that we are like this.

    Brittany T

     

  • At 8:48 PM, Blogger Lisa W said…

    By the copy write date on the book, 1974, 1975, I’m not sure that Doctorow had intended for his audience to pull away from celebrities. In the 1970's I'm not sure that that was of such great interest as it is now, but I could definitley be wrong.

    I don’t feel that a fictional writer holds any obligation or responsibility to uphold historical facts. The work is classified as fiction for a reason.

    As for his use of historical events and figures...I feel as though it intrigues a bit of each individual’s curiosity. The curiosity to imagine what someone famous's life might have been as Danielle had stated is touched on in this novel. I’m definitely not a history fan, but Doctorow made it pretty interesting to view the past.

     

  • At 9:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with pretty much everyone in that the writer has an obligation to the point to be as historically accurate as possible. However, I do think that the made-up lives of the historical characters definently adds something to the book and makes these celebrity figures more real and down to earth. Like the part where Houdini does the prison-escaping stunt au naturel...and he acted ashamed of his body. It makes you think that like the superstars of the past, maybe the superstars of today aren't the perfect people that we make them out to be. Also, the scene with Evelyn Nesbit and Emma Goldbloom...anbd the nudity...and the astingent...a little creepy. But it makes you wonder what Emma Goldbloom was like behind the mask and beyond the photographs.

     

  • At 10:33 PM, Blogger kelli m said…

    I do not feel like writers of historical fiction have a moral or ethical responsibility to be completely truthful in their writings. I liked the way Doctorow put these real historical figures into fiction. It made it that much more interesting for me to read and it also sparked my interest in the true lives of these people. I agree with Lauren and some others that it is the reader's responsibilty to do the research on these characters. I think that by using these well known names, he was able to catch reader's attention better. When I was reading the parts about Houdini, I found myself growing very interested in his life. I seriously wanted to research his escape stunts and learn more about his life.

     

  • At 10:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that the truth is only what we think it to be. Each of us can read the exact same book and find completely different "truths" from it. I think that Doctorow raised the question about what the truth really is and how important is the truth of other people's personal lives? In today's society everyone seems to be obsessed with the "real" lives of celebrities. I do not think that this was Doctorow's intention when he chose to include historical figures in this novel.
    I agree with Kelli about becoming more interested in these characters because of the plot developed in the book. I was definitely intrigued to find out more about the real lives of these people and how closely Doctorow's portrayals of them are or are not. This novel gives me a new insight to reading historical fiction.

     

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Samantha R said…

    I do not think that Doctorow's purpose of the novel was to upset people by not keeping the history of the characters completely intact. The only reason he used the people that he did, was that most people have at least heard of them. Since they were prominent figures in history people are able to have a role model, like many of the prominent figures seem in this book.
    As far as keeping the history completely on track, people should not be ignorant about what has happened to this nation. And if they are they should take it into their own hands to learn more about it.

     

  • At 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Historical truth can be manipulated in a fiction novel, and that's what Doctorow does to keep Ragtime interesting. He plays with the intimate lives of American celebrities and legends, letting us imagine what they really experienced behind closed doors. I think that we want to connect to celebrities and feel like they are vulnerable and fallible just like us. So, as Doctorow shows us the faults of these American icons, he is reassuring his audience that there really isn't so much of a difference between them and us. His purpose - bridging the gap between the famous and the civilians - can only be achieved by manipulating historical fiction.

     

  • At 5:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I read through everyone's comments, I think people had some really good points. I'm totally sold on what I think about fiction writers obligation though. On the one hand, I feel that when a writer choses to use a real person in their fiction, they are stradeling the line right away. It is border line from the start to write a ficticous tale about a real person. On the other hand though, I really believe that most of the responsibilty lies with the reader to acknowledge that it is a Fiction book...they make no claims that it is real. I really agree with Danielle though, that Doctorow is making his readers question everything. I think this is something that we have kinda lost the ability to do, but back in the 60's and 70's there was so much changing occuring, that is all that was happening. I think his use of historical figures is just the way he chose to engage his readers into a more critical read. Using real people makes people more interested in finding out the truth and questioning what they know to be the "truth."

     

  • At 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Alex....

    In my opinion, it is very doable and acceptable to use historic events and people as part of a novel. The presence of historical pieces adds to the story and makes it appear more 'real' to the reader, as opposed to complete fantasy that is the figment of the author's mind.

     

  • At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    In my opinion Doctorow changes these historical characters to represent or reflect the turn of the century America. Since he is writing a “novel,” he may do as he pleases and so maybe these characters change as a result of his reaction to a changing America. I also think that Doctorow’s method of writing is an insightful way to make the typical reader think outside the box. His style of reality intertwining with fantasy is something that breaks our comfort zones and sparks a concrete reaction. Using this method, Doctorow makes us think, he makes us more intrigued, and for some, he makes us dive deeper into those history books. His use of historical figures is what lures the reader and the fantasy is what hooks them.

     

  • At 11:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I think when Doctrow uses these famous characters, he is almost helping the reader formulate opinions about them. Readers are able to pull from information that they've read or already know about the famous people, and then weave those personality traits they believe the characters have into the story line. Having the knowledge that Harry Houdini is a famous escape artist, or that Emma Goldman was a woman's rights activist helps their characters seem more real. Since readers have most likely heard stories of things these people actually did in their lives, it is easier to believe the things they do in the book.

    I think the questions Doctrow raises are whether it is the reader's responsibility to take everything in books as the truth, or why it seems that books are taken as more credible than other sources. Reading something in a book that might seem to be a historical account may in fact just be a creation of the author.

     

  • At 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The topic of historical fiction is definitely an interesting one. I believe, however, that the author would have two responsibilities: 1. to be entertaining. 2. to not betray the reader. We must remember that the writing of books is primarily a financial endeavor for the writer. If a story is better sold with a little embelishment, then so be it. In the end, if no one will read the book, what is the point in writing it. The other responsibility is to not so grossly misrepresent the past, that the reader goes on believing the distortions as fact. It is not reasonable to say that the reader should research every fact stated in a book. It's just not going to happen. While the reader does bear the final responsibility, I also believe that the writer should be careful to embellish with the intent of creating a better story, not attempting to change people's perceptions of the past as a result of his own, perhaps biased, agenda.

     

  • At 12:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Like everyone else, I don't believe the author has any moral or ethical responsibility beyond labeling his book as fiction.

    Doctorow brings into question the character of historical figures who readers sometimes may only see the fondly remembered images of or outright misconceptions. He seems to simply be asking us to have some skepticism about us.

    The use of historical figures seems to serve two purposes. For some it is to actually be characters involved in his story. The other reason, in my opinion, is that these characters are part of the setting of the novel and give it a very grounded-in-reality mood.

     

  • At 12:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I believe that when writing fiction, the author has full rights to fictionalize the truth. While it may be ridiculous or misleading, it is still fiction. I agree with others that it is the responsibility of the reader to find out whether the information is true or not. I think this is the question Doctorow raises about historical truth: How far can you fictionalize the truth? Is there a certain point where it is not okay? His use of historical figures allows readers to set the story in a time frame, knowing some facts about who was around and doing what.

     

  • At 1:59 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I do not think that writers of historical fiction have a moral or ethical responsibility to be truthfull because I think that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make their works more interesting. I feel that Doctorows use of figures like Henry Ford and JP Morgan are to draw the attention of the readers because these people are known by everyone and are ones whos lives are very interesting to most people. I agree that because of the plot developed in this book I became more interested in these historical figures and would like to learn more about them.

     

  • At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I believe that historical writers shouldnt be forced to correctly document events, but ethically they should not damage the historical figures with slander in their books. In my opinion Doctorow makes this book much more interesting than the others we have read in the past because of the famous characters. Also, if Doctorow puts something in his book about Henry Ford maybe people will become curious and look up information on their own about him and others in the book. I think writing about historical figures (if it is true or not) gets the reader excited because they are already familar with these popular names, but they can also create the historical figures personailty with the help of Doctorow.

     

  • At 12:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with everyone else that a writer had no moral or ethical responsibility to be historically correct. If you choose to read a book, it is your responsibility to distinguish between what is fact and what is fiction. I also agree with everyone that the book made me want to research the characters to learn more about their own lives. Without the use of real historical figures that the reader has heard of, would the book be anywhere near as interesting to people? I do not believe it would be. Everyone wants to read about something that could have been true, not something that you would never be able to believe or relate to.

     

  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger BlainMcDowell said…

    To be honest I'm not sure that Doctorow's use of historical figures, whether in real, or fictional tense, is such a huge deal. For the most part, it's a fictional story, using real celebrities in mostly cameo appearances to help move the story along. Does the reader have an obligation to be able to distinguish fact from fiction? Yes and no, but I think a reader of average intelligence would be able to, for the most part, decipher what is factual, from what is ficitonal. Anyone who reads the part with Goldman and the whole "rubdown" part and thinks that it is real, is pretty gullible. In summary, yes the author should provide background information about the real-life people, but they shouldn't have to take time within the story to decipher fact from fiction

     

  • At 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with the general consensus that fictional characters can drift from the inspirational celebrity. However I think Doctorow must uphold the strong image or perception of an individual which he does do. Keeping a little bit of character and personality is important when creating a mirror image between a real individual and fictional one. Also, by no means should an author have the right to shed negative light on a historical individual that has no ability to defend himself. History can be distorted within reason.

     

  • At 12:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I believe writing historical fiction is perfectly fine. Like we talked about in class, it is the readers choice to walk into the fiction section, and grab a novel. Not a history book. Frankly if one cannot tell the difference between the two, they shouldn't be reading it. I also agree with some of the other post, this book has got me interested in the different characters. Harry Houdini is a very interesting person. I think Historical Fiction allows readers to find common ground with some of the greatest figures of our times. Even if Houdini didn't stick up for the common man, it is great to think someone of his celebrity would help the common people.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home