At a first glance, the
way E. L. Doctorow treats his characters is seemingly meaningless. But upon
closer inspection, one can see how postmodern it is. In traditional literature,
at least in my experience, there are three general ways in which the authors treat
their characters: (1) all of the characters are seen from a distance, (2) all
of the characters’ thoughts are written down in explicit detail, or (3) the
author pays more attention to the thoughts of the main characters than the
supporting ones. Doctorow does none of these. Rather, when he focuses on the
thoughts of a character, it’s typically a means to add irony to a scene. An
example of this might be when Mother’s Younger Brother sees the living room
where the rest of the family sits as “suffocating.” Normally, attention
wouldn’t be brought to something as trivial as a scene where the family merely
sits quietly in their home, but Doctorow turns it into something very dramatic;
at least in the eyes of Younger Brother.
Conversely, when something
important is happening in the story, Doctorow backs off and lets us form our
own opinions. For example, when Coalhouse Walker is being confronted by
volunteer firemen, rather than getting into Coalhouse’s mind to see if his
thoughts match his calm exterior, Doctorow sits back and lets the scene play
out. Given how Doctorow treats all of his other characters, this gives
Coalhouse a certain significance in the story. The author is no longer playing
with history and creating strange vignettes that combine the magic of fiction
and the solidness of history. Now, he’s transported us to a world that could
potentially have historical truth to it.
However, one shouldn’t
take this completely seriously. In a way, I think Doctorow is playing with our
minds. He throws us into a world of insanity, where babies are found in
gardens, and fictional characters interact with historical ones, and then yanks
us out to drop us in a more realistic setting. Then, after you’ve grown
accustomed to the seriousness of the situation, he tosses you right back in
with the fictional madness. It’s a
clever tactic, and I believe it enhances the story in a way that doesn’t bring
attention to the fact that he’s playing with us. This way, rather than focusing
all of our energy on figuring out the what/why/how of this strategy, we’re free
to look at other parts of the story.
I definitely agree the way Doctorow writes it post-modernist within itself. Besides not following the basic outline how authors typically treat their characters as you said, he doesn't use quotation marks when his character speak. This at times confused me because I would get confused who was speaking at some points, however overall I think it really supports his post-modernist writing style.
ReplyDeleteDoctorow's irony is slippery at times, and it allows for a kind of "both/and" arrangement. We are to some extent "outside" of YB's perspective in that scene where he's "suffocating" in the parlor listening to Father read the maudlin "editorial" about the emergence of the spring peeper--there is something overblown and quasi-adolescent about this 20-something guy running from the room, choking from all the suburban bourgeois blandness, and his agony is treated with some ironic distance here (which extends, perhaps, to the idea that his infatuation with the Coalhouse issue is basically another form of this quasi-rebellion, distinguishing himself from the parochial realm of his family).
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, however, we can read such a passage as a more or less conventional representation of a subjective point of view, in the "free indirect discourse" style, where the author reflects directly the character's own consciousness and emotional realm. The irony is to some extent a matter of perception: the scene can be read "straight" as a reflection of YB's consciousness, and also the reader can sense the author smirking ironically in the background.
When you mention how Doctorow drags us out of the historical world and throws us into a fictional creation of his with a hint of realism it reminded me of our recent in class discussions about critically thinking about history. As Jacob's class did, Doctorow forces us to consider the logic of the historical knowledge we are given and consider whether or not it fits within the context of that world.
ReplyDelete