I honestly dislike this book to a certain extent already. I get that Ishmael Reed is in fact writing a post-modernist novel, but I do think that this novel would be somewhat easier to comprehend if he had in fact used the historical context as to what the Jes Grew epidemic is referring to. Reed gives us a time and a historical context placing this story in 1920, so why not continue with the history?? Why not just write a novel about the spread of jazz music through out the United States at this time?? Would it not still be a post-modernist novel if he did this?? There are still the fictional characters and the obscure language that is put to use through out the novel, there is also the real characters and events such as the election of the mayor.
I'm not asking Ishmael Reed to have written the novel like Ragtime with the historical illusions but still keeping the story factual to a certain point, no not all. I find that the novel flows more naturally than that of Ragtime. I think it was Nikita that said Doctorow seemed to just throw fictional and historical things into the story just to show us that he could do it. Reed on the other hand, it seems as though he just wrote the story. Of course there was thought behind it in order to make the Jes Grew epidemic representative of the jazz spread, but Reed does not seem to make an effort to put in historical allusions and the interaction of historical figures and fictional characters, everything just seems to all happen and fit together quite well.
The novel has this deeper meaning that one must uncover, referring to the Jes Grew representation of jazz music. Though personally I feel that the meaning could have been more direct. I did not really get this meaning until it was discussed in class. I knew that Jes Grew wasn't an actual disease, but I had no idea there was a deeper meaning to it. It's a post modernist novel... I learned from Doctorow not to suppose that characters or events are real, Colehouse Walker for example. My main issue is that Ishmael Reed isn't direct with what he has to say, and to make matters worse he writes in this made-up language. The book is so playful for it to have a deeper meaning, it's distracting.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Lack of emotion in the novel
After listening to the presentation that Maia gave in class today, I couldn't help but wonder how the novel would have really changed if there had been more emotion present.
The main area in which this occurred to me, which was also the main theme of Maia's presentation was the relationship between Colehouse Walker and Sarah. I would like to imagine them living with such romance as depicted in the presented songs.
The first song Maia presented, "Your Daddy's Son", gave a kinda history that i wished was present in the book. The song refers to Colehouse in being a musician had many women and there was no way that he could want to falling love with Sarah and raise a child. As much insight this provides into the history that Colehouse and Sarah have I would have like to have seen it portrayed in the novel, with more such as to how they met and how their relationship was. Was it just a 1 night stand or did they date for a few week/a couple months? In this song we do get the despair and the voice of Sarah as she is burying the baby in the garden, which would have been great to have gotten in the novel. After Mother finds the baby in the garden and take in both Sarah and the baby the first words Sarah speaks are when she says to send away Colehouse. She is not said to utter a word about the burial or to even provide an explanation for it. Even after the appearance of Colehouse there is not much mention of what drove her to feeling the need to bury her baby.
The second song "Wheels of a Dream" is the most compelling and what I really wish had been in the novel. It may seem somewhat backward that Colehouse should court Sarah after they had already had a child together, but I find it as a way of justifying what they did wrong the first time around. Though it is made evident that Colehouse was indeed in love with Sarah when he goes into his rage after her murder, but we don't really witness this before her death. I would have appreciated the story of Colehouse and Sarah more if there had been more of a romance between them. If they had maybe actually taken a day and went on a drive in his Model T or went on a picnic. If he maybe played a song for her on the piano. I also would have liked to have seen Colehouse, Sarah, and the baby represented as their own family. Colehouse and Sarah making plans for the future of their child and for their own future as in moving out of the family's home.
The lack of emotion in the novel and especially in the story of Colehouse and Sarah does not prevent us from making a connection with the character but it does make it more difficult. I don't know how I can sympathize with Sarah without knowing what she was thinking when burying her baby. Sure I can assume that it was an act of desperation, but how will I ever know for sure??
The main area in which this occurred to me, which was also the main theme of Maia's presentation was the relationship between Colehouse Walker and Sarah. I would like to imagine them living with such romance as depicted in the presented songs.
The first song Maia presented, "Your Daddy's Son", gave a kinda history that i wished was present in the book. The song refers to Colehouse in being a musician had many women and there was no way that he could want to falling love with Sarah and raise a child. As much insight this provides into the history that Colehouse and Sarah have I would have like to have seen it portrayed in the novel, with more such as to how they met and how their relationship was. Was it just a 1 night stand or did they date for a few week/a couple months? In this song we do get the despair and the voice of Sarah as she is burying the baby in the garden, which would have been great to have gotten in the novel. After Mother finds the baby in the garden and take in both Sarah and the baby the first words Sarah speaks are when she says to send away Colehouse. She is not said to utter a word about the burial or to even provide an explanation for it. Even after the appearance of Colehouse there is not much mention of what drove her to feeling the need to bury her baby.
The second song "Wheels of a Dream" is the most compelling and what I really wish had been in the novel. It may seem somewhat backward that Colehouse should court Sarah after they had already had a child together, but I find it as a way of justifying what they did wrong the first time around. Though it is made evident that Colehouse was indeed in love with Sarah when he goes into his rage after her murder, but we don't really witness this before her death. I would have appreciated the story of Colehouse and Sarah more if there had been more of a romance between them. If they had maybe actually taken a day and went on a drive in his Model T or went on a picnic. If he maybe played a song for her on the piano. I also would have liked to have seen Colehouse, Sarah, and the baby represented as their own family. Colehouse and Sarah making plans for the future of their child and for their own future as in moving out of the family's home.
The lack of emotion in the novel and especially in the story of Colehouse and Sarah does not prevent us from making a connection with the character but it does make it more difficult. I don't know how I can sympathize with Sarah without knowing what she was thinking when burying her baby. Sure I can assume that it was an act of desperation, but how will I ever know for sure??
The crazy history-fiction mash up of Ragtime
I was reading the novel and after a while it just seemed like after every turn of a page, there was an allusion to a historical event or person. Though at the same time Doctorow develops his fictional characters at the same time as those that are actual historical figures. We are exposed to the fictional characters such as Mother, Father, Younger Brother, the little boy, and even Tateh and little girl. We see them develop personalities even though they are never given real names. Which I guess in this sense can be seen as one thing that does separate them from the historical figures. The historical figures we are introduced to are also molded with these fictional personalities and taking part in events that we can not say are 100% true.
Though with the appearance of historical figures we are allowed to form a time frame, yet with the event such as the presidential elections mentioned in the novel we can narrow down the time frame to exact years. The only date that is stated in the book is when Father built the house in 1902. From there on we are left to determine the time from such markers that Doctorow provides us with. The presidential election between Taft and Roosevelt for example allows us to put the time at 1908 for the events occurring in the 9th chapter. With the production of the first Model T at Highland Park, Michigan we can place the events occurring in chapter 19 in the year 1910.
Doctorow gives us times in very indirect ways in order to follow the story of Ragtime throughout history. This thus providing the historical aspect to the novel. Though where he differs from the average historical fiction novel is when the historical characters take part in non-factual events. The first account of this is Evelyn Nesbitt's interaction with Tateh and the little girl. There is no evidence that Evelyn Nesbitt ever took part in such things as slumming or ever had such encounters with a man or girl by the likes of Tateh and the little girl. Other such events are the interactions between Evelyn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman, the relationship between Evelyn Nesbitt and Younger Brother.
The mash-up of history and fiction that occurs in the novel is similar to that of a historical fiction novel but differs with the interaction of the fictional characters with the historical characters. Though at the same time it causes confusion as to what to believe to be historically accurate and what to see as fictional. This applies to both the events and characters.
Though with the appearance of historical figures we are allowed to form a time frame, yet with the event such as the presidential elections mentioned in the novel we can narrow down the time frame to exact years. The only date that is stated in the book is when Father built the house in 1902. From there on we are left to determine the time from such markers that Doctorow provides us with. The presidential election between Taft and Roosevelt for example allows us to put the time at 1908 for the events occurring in the 9th chapter. With the production of the first Model T at Highland Park, Michigan we can place the events occurring in chapter 19 in the year 1910.
Doctorow gives us times in very indirect ways in order to follow the story of Ragtime throughout history. This thus providing the historical aspect to the novel. Though where he differs from the average historical fiction novel is when the historical characters take part in non-factual events. The first account of this is Evelyn Nesbitt's interaction with Tateh and the little girl. There is no evidence that Evelyn Nesbitt ever took part in such things as slumming or ever had such encounters with a man or girl by the likes of Tateh and the little girl. Other such events are the interactions between Evelyn Nesbitt and Emma Goldman, the relationship between Evelyn Nesbitt and Younger Brother.
The mash-up of history and fiction that occurs in the novel is similar to that of a historical fiction novel but differs with the interaction of the fictional characters with the historical characters. Though at the same time it causes confusion as to what to believe to be historically accurate and what to see as fictional. This applies to both the events and characters.
What is the difference between history and fiction??
We ask this question, but is there really any meaning to it?? Is there really a difference between history and fiction?? Sure we might define fiction as a story, something that is created and constructed to be read for entertainment, it is not true of factual it's a mere fantasy. But can we really say that history is the complete opposite from this, or even different at all? History is what we believe to be true past events, that may tell us the story of why certain present events occur and may happen to reoccur as in the saying "history repeats itself". But if we were not there to view such events and occurrences how can we say that they are clearly factual and actually happened?? Is history not the recounted events of such a historian who has decided to to tell the story of such events that happened in the past, whether they witnessed them or not??
Both history and fictions are narratives of events, they tell the story of event from the point of view of the narrator. In fiction we do not get the point of view of many more characters other than the narrator or the main character, the same applies to history. The narrator of history, could be considered to be the historian, they tell the events from their point of view and only their point of view. Historical figures may be quoted but there voice is not really expressed. History being only a persons point of view on events, it conflicts and contradicts other histories. So which one can be said to be the "real" history?? Its not possible for things to have happened exactly as a person says, due to bias and the human memory is not that reliable. So what is history except for the mere fictions of the past?? The characters can be proven to have existed, but not every single event can be proven to have happened exactly as recounted
Both history and fictions are narratives of events, they tell the story of event from the point of view of the narrator. In fiction we do not get the point of view of many more characters other than the narrator or the main character, the same applies to history. The narrator of history, could be considered to be the historian, they tell the events from their point of view and only their point of view. Historical figures may be quoted but there voice is not really expressed. History being only a persons point of view on events, it conflicts and contradicts other histories. So which one can be said to be the "real" history?? Its not possible for things to have happened exactly as a person says, due to bias and the human memory is not that reliable. So what is history except for the mere fictions of the past?? The characters can be proven to have existed, but not every single event can be proven to have happened exactly as recounted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)