Mother’s Younger Brother’s transformation from a fictional to a historical-like character
Doctorow follows a rather simple
pattern of characterization by using names for actual historical figures (Emma
Goldman, Houdini, etc.) and explicitly not naming the fictional ones (e.g ‘The
Little Boy’). (This obviously comes with the exception of Coalhouse Walker.)
Mother’s Younger Brother falls into the latter category- he’s a somewhat odd
character introduced at the beginning of the novel. Besides the fact that he is
referred to as “Mother’s Younger Brother” (literally defined solely by his
relation to another character), he is depicted in a fictional-like light
throughout the beginning and middle of the novel.
Doctorow describes MYB’s actions in
great detail and states the events regarding him with certainty. For example,
when describing MYB’s frequent trips to New York for Broadway shows, Doctorow
states that “He would work at his drawing table past the dinner then catch the
evening train. He had made friends of some ordnance officers on duty at the
armory on Lexington Avenue and 34th Street. They complained about the
Springfield rifle. They showed him their small arms and their grenade bombs. He
knew immediately that he could design better weapons” (165). Everything about
Mother’s Younger Brother here is stated in a very matter-of-fact manner. ‘This
happened, and then that happened. He knew he could do better.’ We even get a
statement of his feelings. “He knew immediately that he could design
better weapons.” You get a sense of certainty about his actions and his thought
processes that is only possible with a character that is at least partially
fictionalized, fabricated.
To be fair, Doctorow does treat his
historical characters in a similar manner- he states their actions and feelings
very factually and confidently. However, their characters are built off of a
historical base- their position in society, the way they live and interact with
other people are all relatively realistic and convincing. Harry Houdini was
indeed an accomplished, borderline insane magician with a side hobby of
aviation, even if he did not in fact help Harry K. Thaw escape from prison. In
comparison, a character like Mother’s Younger Brother was less layered,
distanced and unimportant historically- he felt more like an empty shell of a
person- a puppet, if you will.
However,
as the story progresses and MYB’s actions become increasingly radical, we start
to see glimpses of uncertainty. A tool Doctorow often utilized to paint
Coalhouse Walker as a convincingly historical character was the injection of uncertainty
by inserting vague phrases such as ‘perhaps’ (which will be underlined in
the following quote). For example, when Coalhouse was first introduced,
Doctorow gave the readers a short paragraph of background information: “... it
is important to mention what little is known about Coalhouse Walker Jr.
Apparently he was a native of St. Louis, Missouri… There were never located any
of his school records in St. Louis and it is still not known how he acquired
his vocabulary and manner of speaking. Perhaps by an act of will” (183). The
information is spotty and uncertain. We can see something similar at the very
end of the book, when Doctorow talks about MYB’s death. “We are not sure of the
exact circumstances of his death, but it appears to have come in a skirmish with
government troops near the Chinameca plantation in the Morelos…” (305). MYB's
cause of death is not confirmed, giving the reader a faux sense that he was a
real, historical person, and Doctorow was not able to find the exact record of
his death. It is interesting- the more distance Doctorow puts between the
reader and the character, the more ‘real’ they seem to be.
I agree that mother's younger brother transforms throughout the book into a character the narrator respects, and I think you raise a good point that he seems to become "more historical". I wonder, if how the narrator describes the circumstances of his death, is MYB is own person, or are there still traces of "we are Coalhouse Walker" in him? Maybe it's some of both. Nice post.
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job here of showing how Doctorow's narrative style sort of comments on and affirms some of Hayden White's ideas about historical and fictional discourse: the sentences that confidently and authoritatively narrate "historical" and "fictional" material in this novel ALL LOOK ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. So on the surface there is nothing to distinguish the discourse of history from that of fiction: if you didn't already know, nothing in the structure of the text would suggest to you that J. P. Morgan is historical and Coalhouse Walker is fictional.
ReplyDeleteBut then when Doctorow starts playing games with making Coalhouse and MYB seem "historical," he's doing so in a more "postmodern" kind of historiographical way: as Maza suggests about historians writing after the postmodernist movement, there is a deliberate foregrounding of what is and isn't known, and when the historian is speculating or making analytical conclusions about what "must have" happened. So the narrator becomes essentially a *different kind* of historian as the novel unfolds.
I think that your observation is pretty accurate! It's kind of subtle while you're reading, but Doctorow switching between the way he refers to the characters and the amount of irony he gives them is definitely purposeful, like the fictional characters are growing out of their roles to become more historical.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Hannah! I really like your description of MYB being sort of like a puppet throughout the novel, he's a character that has never really fit perfectly in the narrative so he's just adjusted accordingly. His more radical ideas makes him the black sheep family, and I find it interesting how he's also had such direct interactions with the historical figures (I mean, he literally did date Evelyn Nesbit). Doctorow definitely uses an interesting tactic of making characters seem more fictional versus historical. You do a good job of noting that the omission of information and uncertainty in describing the characters makes them seem more realistic, and we see that with MYB. I really like your point about how it seems "Doctorow was not able to find the exact record of his death," making MYB seem like figure he had to have researched before writing this novel.
ReplyDeleteGreat observations! It's interesting to ponder why Doctrow would have chosen to progressively release his control over Mother's Younger Brother, a fictious character that he could have enacted complete control over to the end of the novel, if he chose to. During class we discussed how Doctrow merges history and fiction to convey big-picture messages about the historical period of the novel (further expanded by Nyla's post). To do so, Doctrow sets up fictious characters with specific details toward the beginning to set up a clear identity that he can work with, and later places them in more significant events and sets his distance from these characters to see them in action; how these characters respond to such situations and what happens to them, supposedly outside the author's own control (and hence with greater realness), may have been used by Doctrow to comment on historical trends/problems back then.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought about it like that! MYB is fictional, yet (as you said) he's regarded with a historical feeling. The actual historical characters all have some grounding to their fictions, yet MYB doesn't. He becomes more important as the book goes on, yet he's never a "real" person. He has an impact on the world around him that only historical characters were able to have by this point in the book (with the exception of Coalhouse Walker). Great post!
ReplyDelete