Usually, when I read a book, it takes me quite a while before I am able to discern any particular tone the narrator is trying to set. This is likely because unless specifically instructed to search for a voice, I file narrators under two general categories: confusing or straightforward. However, the narrator of Ragtime doesn't seem to belong to either one.
I think we can all agree that this book can be considered postmodern if, by postmodern, we mean something that doesn't follow any regular conventions and is free-forming, malleable, and subject to change without warning. The narrator seems to branch off on seemingly unrelated tangents at the end of chapters leaving the reader to wonder why the hell he stuck that chunk of text in the place he did.
Personally, I find the author's narration style interesting and, frankly, amusing. Oftentimes, the narrator just lists strings of facts in a very matter-of-fact manner with a morally ambiguous tone. If I had to select one word to describe it, I would choose "detached". The enormous paragraph that Doctorow passed as an introduction to Chapter 1 is a perfect example of this, as is the section describing the poor working class of America at the end of Chapter 6. Despite the disturbing images of carcasses and entrails as well as mutilated children described as "happy elves", the narrator's tone implies neither approval nor disapproval.
Interestingly, there are also points in the story when the tone dramatically shifts from detached to mocking. This became apparent to me in two cases. The first was the portion of text describing Peary's final picture at the North Pole with his colleagues and Eskimos where the last sentence regarding the photograph read, "Because of the light the faces are indistinguishable; seen only as black blanks framed by caribou furs." I felt like this was the the narrator's way of saying "Good job, Peary. You're at the North Pole. However, judging from this photograph, nobody really seems to care." Again, this mocking tone appeared later while describing Teddy Roosevelt's African safari. He called the former president "the conservationist". While this might be closer to irony than mocking, the sudden jab at Mr. Roosevelt came out of the blue, characteristic of the narration style up till this point.
It will be interesting to see how this style will develop or change later on.
This is a very good description of some of the disorienting aspects of Doctorow's narrative style--the juxtapositions and flat, ironic pronouncements seem to have a "point," but it isn't always easy to tell what that is. With reference to the description of the photo of Peary at the North Pole, the fact that the Esquimos' faces aren't visible maybe also comments on the fact that *Peary's* name is the only one that's recorded in the history books, when in fact he never would have made it to the Pole without Esquimo assistance (and their "system," or methods of survival in the tundra climate), but we don't know their names or anything about them. The "reality" is in many ways erased in the official narrative. Likewise, his African American assistant Matthew Henson was almost entirely erased from the historical record (when in fact he likely actually reached the Pole *before* Peary, according to what I've read)--*his* face, too, is just a "black blank" in the official history.
ReplyDelete