Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

Who's ready to discuss our first group read of the new year?

I'm about 30 pages in (I started a bit late because I was reading a book for another group read, but now that one's done and I'm ready for this one!) and I LOVE it! I don't know if I'll change those feelings after the plot picks up, but so far, I like it! It's ... quirky.

Happy to have read this. I posted a link to my review in the finished reading thread. One comment to start is that I felt the writing, at least at the beginning, to provide moods evocative of a silent movie. Better than the old silents, perhaps a more modern silent, if such a thing exists.

I won't say too much, considering there are people still reading, but what a dark yet wonderful depictation of early 1900s America. At times I almost felt like I was there.

I found Doctorow's use of character's names (or non-use of them to be more exact) very interesting too, it creates an interesting effect.

Being somewhat of a Doctorow fan, I read this one a number of years ago; but I saw the film version more recently. The book was, of course, much better; but the movie was fun too!

I love historical novels like this one. Not a list author, but I'd like to recommend Caleb Carr as another one who does a good job with this type of writing. I particularly like his "The Alienist".

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Happy to have read this. I posted a link to my review in the finished reading thread. One comment to start is that I felt the writing, at least at the beginning, to provide moods evocative of a sil..."

I like the analogy of the silent film, Elizabeth. He very loosely introduces characters without clearly making connections between them. Almost like a weaving of the story.

I loved the Alienist, havent thought of that book in a few years.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "perhaps a more modern silent, if such a thing exists. "

There was The Artist, which I really wanted to see, but never got round to.
Haven't read the book yet (waiting on it arriving from the library) but am looking forward to it from that description.

Amanda wrote: "I found Doctorow's use of character's names (or non-use of them to be more exact) very interesting too, it creates an interesting effect."

I was thinking about that this morning, as well. We have Houdini (a real-ish person [a real person, but didn't necessarily live these events, so not entirely real]) and Freud (ditto), but then we have Mother, Father, and Mother's Younger Brother. I especially love the name "Mother's Younger Brother."

I tried to decide what Doctorow was trying to do with that. At first, I thought maybe it was trying to make these characters Universal, whereas Houdini and Freud and the like are Special Cases That Won't Be Repeated (since they're real people), but the events that happen to the family (Mother, Father, etc.) don't really seem like events that would happen to The Everyman (I mean, how many of us are going to go on the expedition of the North Pole?). So... I don't know. But it's fun :)

Reading this book makes me think a lot of the writing of Dos Pasos in the USA trilogy, which takes place around the same period of time. Though they have very different writing styles. there are elements of how this book is presented that are reminiscent of Dos Posos I think.

In part is in the way in which Doctorow has several different little stories running parallel to each other that doe not appear to have an immediate connection but give the reader a wide view of what was happening in America at this period of time by showing the reader the experiences of various individuals from different backgrounds and walks of life.

Also the way in which Doctorow interweaves real historical figures such as Ford, Houdini, Morgan and so forth whom were influential at the time period is reflective of Dos Pasos's USA trilogy.

Back in high school I read Billy Bathgate which I loved, and had not got around to reading anything else of Doctrow's since, but I have been wanting to read Ragtime for a while. It is quite different from Billy Bathgate in how it is written. At first I did find it a bit difficult to adjust to the narrative voice in this book which lends the story I think an air of strangeness, at least at first, but I adapted to it and thus far I am really enjoying the book. I am more than half-way through and I find it quite interesting as well this is one of my favorite periods in American History.

Emma Goldman was a real person and the anarchist movement was worldwide. In fact, it was a member of this worldwide anarchist movement who shot Franz Joseph and started World War I.

This one is on my shelf and I will read it this year. I am not worried about spoilers though as I have seen the musical. If anyone is wondering, the musical is FANTASTIC. It it is my top ten musicals of all time.

I really enjoyed Ragtime. Since I find history interesting, but so many presentations of it BORING, historical fiction is a godsend to me. Definitely agree with Silver that "the narrative voice this book ... lends the story ... an air of strangeness."

The story of Coalhouse Walker was terrifically moving. And I really felt a lot for Mother throughout - I found her to be a very strong female character in her rather quiet way.

Tiffany wrote: but then we have Mother, Father, and Mother's Younger Brother...
I tried to decide what Doctorow was trying to do with that. At first, I thought maybe it was trying to make these characters Universal... but the events that happen to the family (Mother, Father, etc.) don't really seem like events that would happen to The Everyman (I mean, how many of us are going to go on the expedition of the North Pole?)"

I wonder if maybe the 'nameless' characters are those people who, although they are active participants in the world - to the point that they learn to and take over running a company, or take part in a North Pole expedition, or are key figures in a national-headlines-type hostage event - eventually just fade away from public memory.

After all, each of us, with our lives so full of our own personal connections, small and large, only seem to have so much space to be conscious of the wide sweep of history and all the people who lived and took part in it. Even though they all set the stage for the country we inhabit today, we just can't see them.

This is bringing to mind the Foundation trilogy, actually.... Hmmmm....

I really felt that Ragtime conveyed the feeling of this time in history better than a straightforward history book ever could. To use a totally cheesy phrase, it made the past come alive!

Stephanie "Jedigal" wrote: "I wonder if maybe the 'nameless' characters are those people who, although they are active participants in the world - to the point that they learn to and take over running a company, or take part in a North Pole expedition, or are key figures in a national-headlines-type hostage event - eventually just fade away from public memory.
"

I think that is an interesting thought. Everyone's lives are significant in their own way, and everyone within the world contributes in some way great or small to helping to influence or shape the events that will make history, or in some way we are connected to these events, there are people who may do extraordinary things, but they do not all make it in the history books, or in the headlines.

While a few individuals for whatever reasons might jump out and be immortalized for their deeds to become famous or infamous as it may be, there are many more whom may pass completely unknown or be left forgotten.

While Mother, Father, and Little Brother might not be generically universal, as they have very specific unique events occur, or that they take part in, I think they do represent the every day people who have not been remarked upon and written about or remembered.

Silver wrote: "While Mother, Father, and Little Brother might not be generically universal, as they have very specific unique events occur, or that they take part in, I think they do represent the every day people who have not been remarked upon and written about or remembered. "


This. As to events, no, they were not emblematic of the era, but as to characterization, yes they were. As was Tateh as an immigrant and his later success. Of course not everyone became a movie producer, but immigration provided opportunity for success.

Speaking of Tateh and his movies - does anyone remember the Our Gang comedies? I knew instantly what was suggested by Tateh seeing the children playing and it was his inspiration for them.

Stephanie "Jedigal" wrote: "I wonder if maybe the 'nameless' characters are those people who, although they are active participants in the world - ... - eventually just fade away from public memory. ..."

Ohhh... I LIKE that! Great thought!

I very much like Stephanie's and Silver's theories regarding the naming conventions, but I have another. Besides the 'famous' characters, such as Houdini, Goldman, Morgan and Ford, the named characters are Tateh, Sarah, William Conklin, Coalhouse Walker Jr. and eventually Coalhouse Walker III. The characters left unnamed are American-born, white christians, the named characters are from minority backgrounds. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but was Doctorow trying to emphasise these characters and their contribution to the story?

Tateh isn't a name, but the Yiddish word for father. It's like Mother and Father and Mother's Younger Brother.

I also think it's instructive to note that William Conklin was not highly thought of by many, that what he did was acknowledged to have been wrong. But, just as police who do wrong are often protected now, his action went unpunished.

I wonder if the purpose of the "naming and unnamed" characters relate to the blending of fiction and history. Most of the named characters were historical figures while the unnamed may represent fictional characters. The fictional characters can represent the individuals that lived in the era. For example, Tateh represents one view of the immigrant's experience. Mother, Father, Younger brother and son represent middle class family. While Coalhouse is not an historical figure, his story and experiences provide a perspective on the common experience of blacks during that time. The interactions between the "may be real" and fictional characters provide a perspective on each other that blend history with fiction.

The title, "Ragtime", also nicely ties in with the way the story is told. Definition of ragtime is a genre of music with a syncopated or 'ragged" timing. the author moves from one character to the next without clearly connecting them but in the background are common elements (chords or beats) that connect the story as a whole.

I really enjoyed the scene at the baseball game, and as baseball is considered to be the iconic American sport, I wondered if the baseball game was not meant to be a metaphor for American society itself.

The discovery that most the baseball team was made up of immigrants, the chaos, and fighting with each other, the treatment of the less fortunate (such as the midget and the fool) used only for their own amusement not treated or looked upon as really human and discarded when no longer of use.

Also the comments of Father and his son, the father's nostalgia for the past, and the son's comments that he liked the game because they just did the same thing over and over.

I just read the chapter about the baseball game this morning and was going to mention it, but Silver's beat me to it.

I thought the Father's (internal) comment that the baseball players must have been immigrants, based on their names, was interesting since we, the readers, never learn the Family's names. Before, I merely wondered what their names might be; after that, though, I started to think what would be a non-immigrant name. Smith? Johnson? (And then we can go back to the idea that everyone, except the Native Americans, are immigrants, so even Smith and Johnson are immigrant names.)

Silver, I really like your ideas about the baseball game! I didn't even realize, until I read your comment, that maybe the chaos and fighting in the baseball game is also related to the players all presumably being foreigners. Is this a comment on the incivility of the "newcomers"? Plus with the further description of the players as "clearly from the mills and farms, rude-featured...sun-burned and ham-handed..." Is Doctorow/Father making more comments about immigrants/manual laborers being crude and hot-tempered, whereas the Family is above that (since this passage could be read as looking down on the immigrants)?

Tiffany wrote: "Is Doctorow/Father making more comments about immigrants/manual laborers being crude and hot-tempered, whereas the Family is above that (since this passage could be read as looking down on the immigrants)? "

More comments? Rich people tended to be happy where they were. It was the working class and 2nd sons (non-landed) who were the immigrants. Sports is one of the many ways offered in this country in which such people can improve themselves. I don't see Doctorow being negative as giving us a reflection of the country as it was.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I don't see Doctorow being negative as giving us a reflection of the country as it was. "

Ooh, no, I didn't meant that *Doctorow*, himself, thought that way. I was more wondering if I was interpreting Father's thoughts (from the omniscient narrator) correctly. Were Doctorow's events laid out in such a way that Father was making connections between immigrants, brashness (not just the fighting and chaos, but also the swearing), and hard labor? Or was *I* the one making those connections, even if not warranted?

I once had an English teacher who, on the first or second day of class, said something to the effect of he didn't want us to write papers about symbolism, because oftentimes people tried too hard to *find* symbols that weren't really there. So was I doing the same thing, trying too hard to make connections that weren't really there? Was I trying too hard to connect unrelated thoughts, or was I on the right track? Were those connections Doctorow's intentions?

Ah, I see. Yes, I misinterpreted your remarks.

I wish I were more familiar with Doctorow - and intend to be eventually. I think in the reflection of who America was at the time, that, yes, classes of people tended to draw conclusions about other classes of people. Father was appalled by the lack of decorum, perhaps even felt threatened by it.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Father was appalled by the lack of decorum, perhaps even felt threatened by it."

Yes, "appalled" is perfect! I realized as I was typing up my last comment, and like Silver alluded to with the comment about Father's nostalgia, that the teams of immigrants and their coarseness was contrasted in Father's mind with the "Back in my day" memories of polite baseball at Harvard (you know, with the wealthy Caucasian kids). So yes, I agree with your comment that he was appalled by it.

I did not expect to enjoy this very much, due to my not being much of a fan of the setting or time frame, but I'm about 40 pages into the story now, and I'm bowled over by the author's unusual way with words. I haven't yet decided exactly how I'd define the certain "something" he has, but I'm really appreciating it. I'm chagrined I didn't give this book a try sooner!

I liked it, but my enthrallment lessened as the book went on. For me it seemed like Doctorow was more interested in writing about these larger than life characters rather than a particular story. It's kind of like flipping through an album. However, for a historical fiction book it really captured my interest.

I thought Doctorow's writing style was fast-paced and it did make me associate it with the lifestyle of the time, where everything was rapidly changing, people were becoming more mobile, geographically and socially.

I went in with semi-low expectations, as I'm generally not much of a fan of historical fiction, primarily because so much of it is complete tosh. However, Ragtime was a real pleasure; I quite enjoyed all the larger-than-life characters and absurdities that interweaved their lives.

I commented in my review that this read like an HBO series waiting to happen. While I know film and stage adaptations exist, I could just visualize an HBO production unfolding in my mind as I read. Bigger characters, elaborate settings, more scandal, more sex, more intrigue, more corruption, etc. -- because it's HBO and they can. Anyway, I'd tune in.

For whatever reason, I didn't like this book. Not like most people do anyway. I expected to like it quite a lot after the first chapter, where the whole world felt larger than life and a little bit magical. But after that, it took too long to gel back together into a story with the characters interacting with each other, rather than off doing their own things in their own plot lines.

I think it's just a case of expectations not matching what I got, and that's sort of unfortunate. I really wanted to like it, and I think in a few years I'm going to try reading it again, now that I know what I'm getting into. :)

I did find the namelessness of the characters fascinating, but I couldn't make anything out of it since it wasn't JUST the famous people that had names. It was the famous people and the fictional black people. And Willie Conklin. But honestly, I have no theories on what it means.

The other thing I thought really interesting was the formatting of the dialogue. More specifically, the lack of formatting. People talk to each other directly, but quotes are never, ever used. Not in my copy, anyway. It makes the world seem like a silent movie, sort of. Like people are saying things, but...they aren't.

I'm not sure I know how to explain it. It's like, because the dialogue didn't obey the rules of dialogue in writing, my brain never gave anyone an individual voice. It was all the "voice" of the narrator. And I didn't check every instance, of course, but most of the time, I think, the people directly talking are the nameless ones. The famous people have other ways of conveying that they want something in this book. Might be unsupportable, might not. I'd have to reread it with that idea in mind to be sure.

Kristen wrote: "It's like, because the dialogue didn't obey the rules of dialogue in writing, my brain never gave anyone an individual voice. It was all the "voice" of the narrator. And I didn't check every instance, of course, but most of the time, I think, the people directly talking are the nameless ones. The famous people have other ways of conveying that they want something in this book. Might be unsupportable, might not. I'd have to reread it with that idea in mind to be sure. "

Ooh, that's fascinating. I didn't pick up that the nameless characters are the ones who are quoted (can you quote when not using quotation marks?) and the named characters aren't. I don't have the book with me anymore, but if I did, I'd flip through it to find those instances. So how was it conveyed when the famous people spoke? Or did the narrator just paraphrase/summarize their conversations? Hmm...interesting!

I also liked your comment that the lack of dialogue meant you heard all of the conversations in the narrator's voice. I think I was about 25%-50% like that -- I heard the conversations as ... the narrator's impression of the speaker, I guess. Like in a TV show, when someone's telling a story, and trying to do it in someone else's voice -- you can tell it's the character speaking, yet it's still in the narrator's voice.

Tiffany wrote: "Kristen wrote: "It's like, because the dialogue didn't obey the rules of dialogue in writing, my brain never gave anyone an individual voice. It was all the "voice" of the narrator. And I didn't ch..."

There actually isn't any "real" dialogue in the entire book. Most of the time conversations are summarized and paraphrased, like this: The Archduke Franz Ferdinand didn't seem to know who Houdini was. He congratulated him on the invention of the aeroplane.

And actually looking back through the book for an example, I found long swaths of conversation from Emma Goldman near the beginning. They're all from her speech or from the scene in the hotel with her and Evelyn after, but it certainly weakens the idea of only nameless people talking. It's hard to tell though because without having anything marking the conversations I have nothing to help me look when I go back to the text to find evidence for or against what I'm saying.

Now I really want to reread the book and pay attention to who speaks and who doesn't, and do it with a copy that I can mark up. I knew this was a book better read in large group setting than out on my own. :) In my review of it I mentioned that I'd wished I had read it for a lit class just for the sake of having some guidance and plenty of other people that had to think about it too. It's my first read for this group, so I wasn't sure how good the conversations tended to be; a lot of book groups just skim the surfaces of books and never dig into the guts of what makes the book tick--exactly the stuff that made me an English major. :) I've been pleasantly surprised thus far.

I am really enjoying this book and the convention of not using the names is not bothering me at all. I like that even when he doesn't use a proper name, he still capitalizes the title that he has selected. It makes me think of how the producers of Friends and Seinfeld. Seriously, how different are names like Mother's-Younger-Brother all that different from Denim-Vest-Guy? Sometimes the description makes the character that much more memorable.

I have not gotten to the baseball scene yet and am excited to get to it.

I like the flow of the book. I am glad that I am not doing an in depth college course reading of this book because I am enjoying losing myself in the scenes. If I had to sit back and analyze it chunk by chunk, I am sure I would appreciate the history and understand the historical context of it much better. This is my first time reading it and I like not having to dwell on that. I guess I kind of see it like Animal Farm. You can read Animal Farm on a very straightforward and non historical context or you can learn about the Russian Revolution and see how Orwell approaches the RR through the use of personification. I'm enjoying it on the basic "four legs good, two legs bad" (ha ha! Oh those silly animals) level. I've never been one for American History anyway (now European History is another story).

I felt strongly for Evelyn and was hoping for a much happier outcome between her and Tateh. Boo.

I had a hard time getting into this book, but once I figured out the ties between everyone and could better track the myriad of characters, I did enjoy the appearances of various historical figures like Freud, Houdini, JP Morgan, and others as an interesting twist. I did not care for the ending, or I might have given it 5 stars. It just seemed abrupt and unsatisfying after following the lives of these characters with such intensity. However, the story was quite well done and I enjoyed it. Another one checked off from the 1001 books to read. I am glad that the group chose this one, as I don't know that I would have gravitated toward it on my own.

For the first half of the book, I was a bit annoyed. The book had so many seemingly unconnected stories and there seemed to be no real plot. During the second half of the book, I saw the different stories/threads come together. But, I still didn't feel completely satisfied by the time I had finished. I wasn't sure exactly what it was that I had just read or what it really all meant. So, I needed some time to reflect on it and read some reviews and history of the book.

I was a bit bothered that some of the characters (such as Evelyn Nesbitt) were dropped partway through the book. I understand it -- she was just a mechanism to show the development and moves of Tateh and his daughter. But, I think I was so bothered by it because Evelyn's section of the book was kind of told through her perspective rather than Tateh's. So, I unconsciously expected her character to continue or come back up again.

In trying to figure this book out, I did a little internet research and read some of the analysis provided by SparkNotes. It brought up an interesting perspective of the two 'unnamed families' - Father, Mother and Younger Brother compared to Tateh and his daughter. It suggested that the two families (who could really have been any well-off or immigrant family) parallel each other and provide different perspectives on the social and cultural changes that were taking place at the turn of the century.

After some reflection, I still can't say I loved the book. But, I think I appreciate it's perspective on an interesting time in American history.

I had a similar reaction in the first 20 chapters - thanks for sharing your feedback


LDB wrote: "For the first half of the book, I was a bit annoyed. The book had so many seemingly unconnected stories and there seemed to be no real plot. During the second half of the book, I saw the different ..."

All the characters in the book presumably have names, even if they are never mentioned. But we are told several times that Sarah's daughter is not even given a name. Not sure what to make of this, if anything.

I loved this one! After reading all of your comments I love it even more!

While reading I was wishing that my high school history textbooks had been written by E. L. It would have made those many classes more interesting and I might have retained more information.

I usually struggle through books that have a lack of dialogue so as I was reading and realizing that it was all narration I was surprised by how much I was enjoying it.

I also was trying to understand the use of names and then the lack of names for characters. About halfway through I thought it has to be because of who the narrator is and I started trying to figure that out but failed to until the last chapter when I just randomly thought it has to be her and was satisfied to find out in the end that was right.

I thought all of the intertwining story plots were cleverly done and I want to read this one again and fully appreciate everything in this book.

General question, to all in this thread:

Have you read others by E.L. Doctorow?

How do you think they compare to this one?

I've been listening to the Broadway musical of Ragtime, and I can't believe it is not better known. It is one of the best modern musicals I have come across.