Even after having finished Ragtime for a while now, Tateh is
the character who I am most intrigued by and still think about. Chapter 34
reveals the story of Tateh’s transformation from the solemn socialist to the “voluble
and energetic” filmmaker, Baron Ashkenazy. I never suspected Tateh as being capable
of such drastic change for most of the novel, but I think his change allows for
interesting connections to other parts of the novel.
Besides Tateh’s ultimate success, Doctorow’s placement of
Tateh’s joining of the “flow of American energy” next to his first discussion of
Ford makes me want to compare the two. Although they both have a “rags to
riches” background story, they are otherwise quite different. As discussed in
class, Doctorow depicts Ford with heavy irony to possibly poke fun at the
metanarrative of American success, but does not describe Tateh with any irony
(at least from what I understood), somewhat displaying another side of this
metanarrative. Tateh changes a lot, but I think that he is also in a broad
sense static because he remains artist throughout the novel—from a street
artist to a filmmaker, he is constantly and creatively replicating the world around
him. Ford, similarly static, however, is (as suggested in class discussion) an
industrialist, whose focus remains on mass replication of the same Model T
design and treating workers as a part of the machine. Because Doctorow is not
ironic with Tateh and Tateh is producing new art, unlike Ford who is
replicating the same design, I think that Doctorow appreciates Tateh’s
originality. In fact, Doctorow builds upon Tateh’s originality and
representation of the world around him by naming one of Tateh’s movies A Daughter’s Innocence, which hints at
being about Tateh’s own daughter.
I find that Tateh also has an interesting connection to the
Little Boy. In Chapter 15, we get to go inside the Little Boy’s head and learn
his idea of “self-duplication.” This section seems a little random by itself,
but looking at the following Chapter 16, which begins with Tateh, again, I feel
inclined to compare the idea of self-duplication with Tateh—I think that Tateh
is the example of self-duplication in
this novel. Although the final few chapters are focused on Tateh as Baron, the “old
Tateh” is recognized as still existing in Baron. Tateh’s construction of his
new self also goes along with the Little Boy’s view that “the world composed and
recomposed itself constantly in an endless process of dissatisfaction.” Tateh recomposed
himself because was dissatisfied with his life in the slum and he “felt he
deserved his happiness.”
I think that there are many other interesting aspects of
Tateh, but these are the ones I found most compelling. Do you have any
observations regarding Tateh or Baron or both?
I didn't notice that "self-duplication" thing but it makes a lot of sense. I don't see a ton of Tateh in the Baron, but as you point out, he probably doesn't want to associate with his old self, as he was struggling in the slums and in a constant state of instability. I'm wondering now if Doctorow consciously did this, it's really interesting, and it'd certainly be an unexpected way to link the two.
ReplyDeleteYou make some really interesting points here. Tateh was one of the most intriguing characters to me, since he has a completely different experience in the book than that of others, being an immigrant and very poor at first. I never really thought about the order of the chapters as having an affect on how we should compare characters, but now I can't believe I didn't. Tateh is definitely very different from Ford, and this is made clear mostly in how Doctorow manages to dehumanize Ford with his irony. Tateh, on the other hand, I have always admired because he is just trying to build a better life for himself and his daughter. I would also have to agree though, that I was struck by his sudden transformation and how he disassociates from his old life.
ReplyDeleteTateh also reflects the theme of self-duplication in his art. He uses his daughter (and Evelyn) as models early on, which means duplicating images of them, over and over. And then his flip-books themselves will be mass-produced/duplicated. And even his later idea for "The Little Rascals" entails taking the tableau of his three children sitting together and duplicating them into a series of short films based on characters they inspired.
ReplyDeleteI find your comment about Tateh being more static very interesting, as it is true, tateh has virtually no character development, much unlike other main characters (prime examples are Mother, Younger Brother, Harry Houdini, etc.) I envy the surprise many felt when opening Chapter 34 to find this mysterious Baron Ashkenazy was in fact our friend Tateh from the earlier realms of the story (I had prior knowledge of the plot before beginning the book). This is a cool compilation of reviews on Tateh, as he may be static but is nevertheless multifaceted, and this may be what makes him one of the most interesting characters in this book.
ReplyDelete