Tateh and Capitalism

Tateh's story in a lot of ways is the perfect picture of the American Dream (ignoring the fact that he's not technically American). Tateh starts out in extreme poverty and through his own creative genius and skill he is able to make a fortune and pull himself out of the slums life. He is able to make the capitalist system work for him whereas before he was toiling under it and rebelling against it., though I wouldn't call him a capitalist. Despite Tateh's newly acclaimed affluence, I don't believe he has changed his opinions. Tateh merely realized that though the socialist ideals were valuable and something he still believed in, he realized that they were simply that: ideals. He did the sensible and responsible thing, considering he had a young daughter to support and protect, and left the socialist strike. It wasn't as though Tateh denounced socialism and made a conscious decision to become a capitalist, he just left to find something else that would make his life better since the socialist movement hadn't gotten him anything thus far. I feel as though Tateh would treat people working under him well and give them adequate pay since he was once in their position, and that's what really separates him from actual capitalists. (I do think it's an interesting note that its not until Tateh leaves the socialist movement for good that he makes it big with his art; it makes me wonder if Doctorow sees any value in socialism or movements of the sort).

Sarah

I've been very intrigued with the character Sarah. When we first met her, she was basically only a tool for Mother for her own selfish gains, mainly the child; Mother didn't pay much attention to her. Only when Coalhouse Walker comes around  and she realizes Sarah will have to be actively apart of the relationship if this romance is going to happen does she start to interact with her more. As far as her role in the novel, she only really serves as the vehicle for Coalhouse to enter the story. I didn't really think much at first of Doctorow skimming over Sarah so quickly and shoving her in an attic. However, after reading how she left the house and tried to talk to the Vice President to plead on Coalhouse's behalf  then ends up getting killed, I was kind of surprised and a little disappointed because that meant that we wouldn't get to learn more about her since Doctorow killed her off so soon.

I mean if you think about it, she's much more interesting than many of the characters such as Younger Brother, and Doctorow devotes a lot of time talking about him. Sarah gets pregnant by a well-to-do pianist who is much older than she is (and we don't even know if it was consensual or not) then bites the cord and tries to bury the child, and is caught. That's some crazy shit. And we have no idea why she did any of it, or the complications of her and Coalhouse's relationship. I was also surprised that no one in the family even really tried to learn about Sarah. She's living in their house, you'd think they'd ask her where she came from or something, if nothing more than for peace of mind to know that they didn't just let some crazy delinquent into their house. Even Mother, who strikes me as a busybody, doesn't try to get the scoop even though she's the one who invited them in in the first place. It seems to me like there was a really interesting story right there, but Doctorow kind of buries it under everything else that's happening, and we don't get to hear any of it.

"Postmodernism"?

Before History as Fiction started, I had never heard of postmodernism. As we delved further into reading about what different scholarly people thought postmodernism is (or was) I found myself wondering what was even the point of defining something that was so complicated/elusive/indescribable. Why even bother? It seems so wannabe elitist to spend so much time writing a paper on the definition of postmodernism while at the same time claiming that it can' be defined. After the first two days I still had no idea what postmodernism meant. Obscure comparisons between two film directors and their really old movies, and how one was postmodern while the other wasn't, helped nothing.

I forgot about feebly attempting to pin down the definition of postmodernism once we started Ragtime, which I am heartily enjoying. In fact, just at a glance I think the books we read will be really interesting this semester. I was excited when I saw Slaughterhouse Five was on the list because I thought it was really interesting and I read through it in a day, which is saying a lot. There are very few books that I will sit down and read straight through. There's something refreshing about both Slaughterhouse Five and Ragtime compared to other books I've read. I can't quite pin it down; perhaps it's the way the writing is so nontraditional and doesn't follow the normal layout of a story where the reader follows one character straight through a chronological order of events with obstacles that the character overcomes and then lives happily ever after. Maybe it's more interesting because sex is interspersed throughout both stories so unabashedly. I don't know the reason, but both Ragtime and Slaughterhouse Five are postmodernist works. Even though I may not be able to define postmodernism, I think I like it.