At the end of Ragtime, we get this conclusion of what
happens to all the characters. We find out that Mother and Father divorce and
that Mother gets married to Tateh. We discover the endings to Emma Goldman and
Evelyn Nesbit. In the finale chapter, Doctorow doesn’t hold back, and just hits
us with all these blunt statements of what happens to all the characters that
we met throughout his book. Yet, the ending still seems almost unsatisfactory.
To be
honest, I kind of disliked the ending. After having read so many fiction
stories, I kind of almost expected like a fairy tale ending where there was
either a cliffhanger ending that gives readers something to dwell on, or even
an ending where everyone lived happily ever after. Instead, we get statements
like “The anarchist Emma Goldman had been deported. The beautiful and
passionate Evelyn Nesbit had lost her looks and fallen into obscurity”
(Doctorow 320). Everything just seemed so bland like it doesn’t really matter
what happens to the characters. In a way, that’s kind of true.
This is
because Doctorow tries make the book seem realistic. He wants the ending to be representative
of history. In real life, people don’t end up having these fantastical endings
that everyone thinks they have. For example, after the American Revolution and
presidency, George Washington didn’t go on some new adventure. Instead, retired
to his plantation to live out the rest of his life. Nobody really cares about
Washington in his post-presidency. Life just moves on. The same happens in
Ragtime. Doctorow doesn’t end on a high note. Instead, he makes the book seem realistic
by making the characters almost ordinary in their endings. It gives the
illusion that the book itself isn’t really a work of fiction, but rather a
series of chapters in someone’s life.
While I see where you're coming from, I prefer Doctorow's idea of what makes for a good ending. It reflects what we've talked about for a while and what Doctorow himself believes - that history doesn't have any strict endings or beginnings, it's just one long never-ending narrative. But I think, more importantly, that it reflects how the evils in America didn't end with WWI. Someone benevolent like Goldman was booted out of the country, while Harry K. Thaw was free to roam the streets.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the lack of detail Doctorow gives in describing what happens to each character is frustrating. I did like how the ending had (most of) the characters go in separate directions. The book started with a bunch of characters who seemed unrelated and then through the course of the book we saw how their lives came together so it's cool that time moves on and we see their lives separate again even if Doctorow facilitates that with some somewhat abrupt deaths.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting thought - the way that Doctorow ends the novel really does make it seem like everything he says is truth. Because of the lack of any fantastical happenings, he continues to push his narrative of realism, continuing to say "yeah, this could have happened. Who are you to say that it didn't? Were you there?!"
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this blog post a lot. I'm really over fantasies and how they end so perfectly in so many contexts. It makes the movie/book seem so unreachable instead of relating to the audience. It gives us false hope in what to expect in real life. I think by ending the book this way, the reader may seem crestfallen but will be able to relate more and understand what went on in the book better.
ReplyDelete