In class, we have discussed Doctorow's use of irony when describing most of the characters. However, he seems to write without any irony about Harry Houdini and Evelyn Nesbit. This may be for a multitude of reasons, but I think that it has to do with metanarratives, or rather the lack thereof. Most of the characters follow certain metanarratives, such as capitalism, the poverty balls, and even Mother's Younger Brother's infatuation with Evelyn. Doctorow pokes fun at Goldman because she is so obsessed and caught up in the metanarrative that is anarchy, and at Riis for his obsession with air shafts. I don't think that Doctorow is laughing at any (or at least most of) these characters directly, but rather at the metanarratives they believe, and just the fact that they follow any single metanarrative. This also explains why he even makes fun of characters who act like him.
Evelyn and Houdini do not have any particular guiding principles or ideas or metanarratives that they follow and stand by. Both of them simply live their lives, take things as they come, and do not think overly much. This lack of guidance can be seen as a sort of sincerity, because they act on how they feel and what they want instead of committing to a metanarrative and only doing things that are seen as okay from that particular viewpoint. They are in a sense jumping from metanarrative to metanarrative as the whim takes them. This seems like a very postmodern thing to do, and perhaps Doctorow thinks it good or even wise of them. This in itself is ironic, that they are wise to not think as much about what they are doing, but it does have a certain logic to it, and explains Doctorow's lack of irony when discussing them.
Interesting point Tim--I almost think that Evelyn has been so subjected to other people's metanarratives (such as the metanarrative of gender essentialism, or at least restrictive gender expectations/baisis) that she's never had the chance to think about her own.
ReplyDeleteSo, the ideas in your post would suggest that Doctorow believes the only way not to subscribe to a metanarrative (which he see's as negative) is just not to care? I sort of buy that, but I also believe that Doctrow himself cares, and has his own agenda/moralistic judgements (even if they are one's readers will largely agree with). So perhaps he's a hypocrite, or maybe it's more complex. Nice post!
It's interesting, in this context, that Doctorow's narrator attributes a lack of "political consciousness" to both of these characters. He encourages *us* to see the potentially larger "meaning" of their experience (through Emma Goldman's own analysis, and through the way he refers to "the great map of revolution laid out by [Houdini's] life" (34)), but as you say, neither of them seems to fully see, grasp, or articulate any larger significance to their experiences. But I would say that Houdini seems to conceive of his story in terms of an "American Dream" narrative of self-creation and upward mobility, even though he's becoming disillusioned. And I agree with Sierra that *we* can see how Evelyn's life has been shaped by others' metanarratives, or how they see her and what they make *of* her, and that gender seems to really limit her capacity for self-determination.
ReplyDeleteDoctorow also seems to make fun of his readers believing in metanarratives too. We talked in 5th hour that the way he portrays Ford is pretty neutral, but undermines the metanarrative in the '70s that treated Ford like a god. I think he would also see Sierra's metanarrative of Evelyn as incapable of forming an identity for herself or choosing her actions due to stifling male expectations as an oversimplification. Maybe he would feel the need to undermine this metanarrative if he were writing Ragtime today instead of 1970. Good post TIm
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that Evelyn is sort of innocent(If that's what you were saying?). Evelyn, in my eyes, is a product of her environment. She uses what she was given to survive, and up until the point of the murder incident, she's lived how everyone expected of her. Just like mother's changing role in the household, and Goldman leading revolutionary movement, she also represents the changing views/ 'nature' of women at the time. She no longer sits still, playing a passive role, but she went looking for what she wants. Although a minor point, I think it embodies the role of women and how they're slowly moving to the driver's seat.
ReplyDelete