History versus Fiction in Ragtime

To open the semester, the intent of our first notebook prompt was to explore the distinction between history and fiction, and how one views each as a consumer. The ideas within my response from then have remained the same until now, in that there is a degree of discernment required when reading history that is nonexistent in fiction, which can just be taken for what it is. History consists of seemingly true facts and events that (from an educational point of view) undeniably happened. However, no two historical texts are the same. Based on the political, cultural, religious, or some such predisposition of the author, the account has the potential to be biased. To add on that, people have the right to question history as a whole since we can never know what really happened. Fiction, though often plausible, is imaginative from the start so there may be a level of curiosity, but never outright questioning.

After reading Ragtime, I can now reflect on the fine lines between history and fiction in the novel. Doctorow most definitely incorporates both, and often at the same time. He mixes the two so much that  a question comes to mind while contemplating this occurrence throughout the book: Does is matter whether or not we know what is fact or fiction (what sort of reactions does it create)? This is a question that stems from the very first prompt and is specific to the novel. To a certain extent, yes, it does matter. There is a natural mindset assigned when reading history and fiction, and they differ. There is simply no way around it. However, the primary layer of importance should be the symbolism and overarching themes of the time, so overall the distinction between history and fiction should not matter. In other words, the lens through which we see the text may alter slightly, but that should not distort the content and intents of the author. The novel is so rich in terms of symbols through various characters as well as generalizations/indications of the early 20^th century, particularly those of race and class. When Evelyn Nesbit and Emma Goldman have their moments together, the world of fiction is entered. Using the two entirely real people, Doctorow sets up fictional dialogue to delve into topics such as Nesbit’s beauty in relation to capitalism, and the narrator refers to her as a “sex goddess.” Symbolism and a stage to represent the feel of the times is set up in this way. Another instance where highlights were made of a real person’s life actions was the conversation between Booker T. Washington and Coalhouse Walker towards the end of the book. While the meeting between Goldman and Nesbit has an extremely slim chance of ever happening, the example of Washington is one that could not have occurred for certain. In real life, Washington had the goals of educated the freed black man, and working to set a good reputation for black people In general. By founding the Tuskegee Institute, he set up a system for them to earn respectable jobs. In Ragtime, Washington stresses the importance of image/appearance to Coalhouse, and how he needs to stop ruining it for black people.  He expresses that the actions of Coalhouse are those that have the potential to wipe out all of his life’s work.  The scene with Washington is one that has symbolism that uses but is not part of history.

So my “final answer” to my own question would be no, it does not matter so much. Doctorow has a way of stating everything in style so matter-of-fact that it blends history and fiction together even more, in addition to the jumping around from story to story (except for the end) that takes the focus slightly away from the plot. While it is easy enough to pick out what is fact and fiction throughout the book, it is not of necessarily high importance as the consistently straightforward tone of the narrator suggests. What matters more is the connections, references, themes, and symbols that present themselves through the characters, whether real or fictional.