Book Review: Ragtime
Ragtime for me was something I enjoyed reading a lot. There were some unexpected moments, like when Coalhouse turned into a radical terrorist, that caught me off guard. I like stories with sharp twists, because sometimes when you are reading something, you can always anticipate the ending. I thought that Coalhouse would later become the first jazz pianist in the 1920s, before Duke Ellington, however, racism was very big back then so it feels like white people just want to drag him down.
Other characters I liked was the Little Boy and the Mother, since they represent millennials one hundred years ago, telling Father "it's the 20th century, get with the times". I always feel like some people today still think in this "old way" and it slightly annoys me because "it's the 21st century, and you can't think like that anymore". Emma Goldman was certainly ahead of her time, and I think that a moral of this story is that you can't be behind of the times, or you will miss out, but you can't be ahead or you can find yourselves in dangerous situations.
I like how Doctorow incorporated important events in the first 15 years of the 20th century, and made a great story out of it. I usually do not like historical fiction novels, since you have an idea what is going on before you read it. Here, however, even if you knew about Emma Goldman, or the murder of Stanford White before reading it, you will definitely not say "I can learn the same thing reading a history textbook, which is all facts" after reading this novel.
Other characters I liked was the Little Boy and the Mother, since they represent millennials one hundred years ago, telling Father "it's the 20th century, get with the times". I always feel like some people today still think in this "old way" and it slightly annoys me because "it's the 21st century, and you can't think like that anymore". Emma Goldman was certainly ahead of her time, and I think that a moral of this story is that you can't be behind of the times, or you will miss out, but you can't be ahead or you can find yourselves in dangerous situations.
I like how Doctorow incorporated important events in the first 15 years of the 20th century, and made a great story out of it. I usually do not like historical fiction novels, since you have an idea what is going on before you read it. Here, however, even if you knew about Emma Goldman, or the murder of Stanford White before reading it, you will definitely not say "I can learn the same thing reading a history textbook, which is all facts" after reading this novel.
Interesting perspective, Tri. But I would disagree with the notion that you need to think during your century’s time. It’s fine if someone holds viewpoints outside your time, as it brings different ideas to the table. Something representative of this would be something like vintage clothing or furniture. Just because we’re outside of the time doesn’t mean we can’t look back on it and pick up a few things. Remember the furniture relies on the past.
ReplyDeleteI would say that if we all thought the same and held the same view points, then humanity would never see change. It isn't inherently wrong for somebody to have an opinion that has been though before in history and it isn't wrong for somebody to bring up an opinion that has yet to be voiced ("ahead of their times.")
DeleteWhile there is some truth in the moral you got ("Stay with the times"), I feel there's more than the single moral within the novel. It's chock full of nuanced details as well as the stories of Tateh and Little Girl, which, if the moral is to stay with the times, mean nothing. If we are reading exclusively from the perspective of the Mother-Father family. I can agree that a moral of that story is to understand the world you live in.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Doctorow does an excellent job of presenting his version of the first 15 years of the 20th century, and that a moral of the story is to keep up with the times. However, I do think that there is more than one moral, as the whole story of Tateh and the little girl, and their involvement with Evelyn and eventually the family would have a different meaning behind it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Mumbo Jumbo and Ragtime, I like how both authors address the falsehoods included in their novel. While Doctorow excuses his unproveable "facts" by saying that they were written in a private, unpublished journal, or, like with Houdini and Thaw in the jail, never said out loud. Of course, there comes the question of how did the narrator learn about it without speaking to Houdini or reading the journal, but nonetheless Doctorow at least attempts to hide the falseness of the "facts." On the other hand, Reed doesn't seem to care. The majority of his characters seem to be fictional and he doesn't even attempt to hide his twisting of history. I don't know if this is actually related to what you were writing, but it popped into my mind while I was reading. Good job!
ReplyDelete