The Crazy, Wacky, and Silly Ending to Ragtime
During our discussions in class there was much heated debate about the ending of Ragtime. Some enjoyed it and saw it is a clever way to end the story, while for others it left a lot to be desired. A lot of people complained, saying the ending was rushed and didn't provide a satisfying ending to some major characters in the book. Others defended it saying that it was just a way for Doctorow to show how the era of Ragtime is over at this point, and that it signifies the continuation in time past the book. While the ending can leave a lot to be desired, I think that Doctorow does this on purpose and isn't just a "bad ending".
Doctorow cuts off a lot of the main characters quite mercilessly, quickly skimming through how each character dies. Of course this leaves the reader feeling very unsatisfied, but I think that Doctorow uses this to show how "life goes on". We fell in love with the characters and felt they needed better closure, but in real life, people don't get the closure that some people feel they might deserve, and that's just life.
I think that this ending signifies the characters that Doctorow has made up becoming a part of history as well. I think the biggest example of this is Mother's Younger Brother. At the beginning of the book we can tell that Mother's Younger Brother is a fictional character just like Mother and Father. Coalhouse is a fictional character that Doctorow writes as a real historical figure. He does this so well that a lot of us had to search up whether he was real or not. I think at the end of this novel, Doctorow does a similar thing to Mother's Younger Brother. He integrates him into major historical events, joining the the revolutionary forces of Francisco Villa and Emiliano Zapata. This gives him a feel similar to Coalhouse, where you wonder if he actually existed.
There is also the idea that the era that this book covers is over, and history continues. This plays into the postmodernist area of the book, as Doctorow makes fictional characters that you can differentiate from real historical characters. This ending is maybe trying to say that this book has always been a history book, and that's why the ending has a historical feel to it. When Doctorow begins to summarize is when the "Ragtime Era" ends and a new era begins which is World War I. Because this Ragtime era is over, Doctorow feels it's not in his area to cover what goes beyond what he covers.
Either way, I think that this ending, while unsatisfying, is purposeful from Doctorow, and that is something I can appreciate.
I found it pretty funny how ruthlessly Doctorow followed Younger Brother's story before letting him die. On 304 he lists the names of each leader that was overthrown during the revolution, serving almost no narrative purpose, giving every detail of brother's life. Brother rode off into the sunset at the end credits, away from the story, but Doctorow followed him and kept filming the entire rest of his life instead of focusing on the flow of the main story. And then, like you said, it all gets cut off once the era of ragtime ends and Doctorow clocks out for the day.
ReplyDeleteI also like how Doctorow just gave Emma Goldman and Evelyn Nesbit one sentence each at the end. It sucks that a terrible person (Harry K. Thaw) gets to be in the final sentence, but it's definitely on purpose. Like you said, change (as embodied by Ragtime) is never going to be perfect.
ReplyDeleteViewing it as an analogy for life going on makes it a bit better. The idea of it being a continued story explains many of the sudden deaths and quick explanations of different characters' endings. It would also make sense with the interpretation of historical eras coming to an end. Either way works with the message Doctorow was (probably) trying to portray. At the same time, even if it was intentional, it still wasn't a very good ending in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis on the ending of the book. I certainly see it as a nod to "the way history goes on" and agree that, although unsatisfying, it's a fitting end. It's interesting to me which characters Doctorow picked to focus on in the last chapter. I would have expected more mention of Ford or Nesbit and certainly a lot more emphasis on Emma Goldman, but instead he chose Younger Brother and J.P. Morgan -- two characters with very contrasting stories. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI like your interpretation of Ragtime's ending and Doctorow's potential motivations for ending the book like this as I think your explanation is perfectly reasonably. While the ending may seem "rushed" or "unfulfilling," I do agree that the ending serves a purpose. As readers, we almost expect that every storyline will be completed or granted the conclusion we deem necessary, but Doctorow reminds us that as you said, history keeps moving. Ultimately, as the writer of this fictional work, Doctorow still holds the power to end the narrative however he chooses.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your analysis that while the ending might be unsatisfying, it is realistic. It could jar the reader back into reality in a way, after having a detailed storylines following each character's development throughout their life. Doctorow purposely takes an eternity even setting up the characters before the main plot even kicks in, and this ending is a stark contrast to the pacing of the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was funny how Doctorow cut the stories off so quickly – it seemed like he had periods where he was super interested in writing about a character or writing a story, and eventually he got burnt out and cut it off quickly. Then, at the end, he tries to tie everything together by mentioning Emma Goldman, Evelyn Nesbit, and Harry K. Thaw, but does it horribly because he's tired of writing the book.
ReplyDeleteLike a lot of other people, apparently, I thought that the ending of the book was very anticlimactic and left much to be wanted, however I agree that that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for this book. The ending was anticlimactic, but oftentimes so is life. Perhaps by ending the book this way, Doctorow was looking for a way to make it more realistic. While I would have preferred, personally as a reader, for a longer, more built ending, I think the ending perfectly fitting for the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, this ending makes sense as it fits with the continuation of time. Although the ending is short and unsatisfying, I like how you brought up that this type of ending is purposeful to Doctorow. Unlike fictional novels which seem to have a definite beginning and end, this story goes on. Doctorow almost seems to solidify the reader’s reality by ending it this way. Great post!
ReplyDeletehonestly, i didnt have any strong opinons on the ending of this book. only thing i strongly disagree with here is your statement of "We fell in love with the characters"- cuz thats just blatantly incorrect. otherwise, yeah, it does feel mildly anticlimatic, but then again its really just the style of the book. like one of those movies that follows the characters 10 years from now with a montage of "billy went on to be arrested for war crimes in antartica!". ragtime starts and ends with ragtime, stays contained to its era as the "era of ragtime is over so haha no story left for u" of the last chapter suggests.
ReplyDeleteThough Doctorow gave many of the characters a quick ending, resolving their stories, I think that Mother's Younger Brother's ending was a bit too drawn out. I agree that Doctorow was trying to show how history moves on, but to me it feels like Younger Brother is being shoved into a main characters role too late in the story (despite how much is focused around him earlier). For the rest of the characters I do like their endings, cutting off the story and leaving the audience to not have to speculate about further story.
ReplyDelete