While reading Ragtime, I've noticed that Doctorow uses a combination of very short and very long sentences. While the prose seems choppy and disconnected at times, it reflects what's going on in the plot and conveys emotions.
For example, on page 51, there are two sentences that particularly stand out as being very short or very long. "It was an important event." Here Doctorow uses a punchy short sentence to deliver an important and powerful fact. The length reflects the fact making it seem more real and powerful. A sentence later, Doctorow uses a particularly long sentence. "Carefully Tateh explained that although he was unalterably opposed to Goldman, she being an anarchist and be a socialist, he had great respect for her personal courage and integrity; and that he had therefore agreed that some sort of temporary accord between the socialists and the anarchists was advisable, if only for the evening, because the funds raised for the occasion would go to support the shirtwaist makers, who were then on strike, and the steelworkers at McKeesport, Pennsylvania, who were on strike, and the anarchist Francisco Ferrer, who was going to be condemned and executed by the Spanish government for fomenting a general strike in Spain." This quote is unbearably long, to the point where I can't remember what the sentence even started with or what the main point is. In a way, I believe that Doctorow used the length of the sentence to make the reader forget what was going on. He provides the reader with information that in a way, is both irrelevant and relevant. While it adds depth to the story, the depth isn't necessary or even appreciated that much. By doing this, the reader is able to pay attention to the important tidbits of the book while also pick and choosing what details are worth reading for/remembering.
Looking through the rest of the book, Doctorow uses the same pattern. Using long sentences to say things not really needed while using short sentences to state facts vital to the plot. In a way, Doctorow makes it easy to follow the basic plot line of the story but really makes the reader pay attention and comb through the words for a deeper story. I think the mix of short and long sentences makes the book easier to read. If it was all short sentences, the book would sound choppy and would not be fun to read. All long sentences would be boring and overwork your brain causing you to put the book down and find something easier. Doctorow combines the best of both worlds in his book. Sly work, Doctorow.
Great post! I definitely agree. It seems like it's all part of Doctorow's technique regarding inserting historical information into the novel. He intersperses very blunt facts with longer, more drawn out reflections and information that furthers the meaning of the short pieces. All put together, it very effectively makes his satire and insight even more compelling.
ReplyDeleteIt's sort of paradoxical that the short sentences are more important than the long ones since the long ones can say more. Having short sentences carry most of the useful information makes the book easily accessible. I enjoyed reading it, unlike things like Shakespeare plays (which admittedly suffer from the language not being easily understood). At some level, Ragtime is a nice book to read. But when you read the long sentences too, there's more under the surface to look for.
ReplyDelete-Reed
Its interesting how the extremely long sentences just turn into white noise after a while. To me, the long sentences are what makes this story read more like history, because he states a lot of facts in a very nonchalant, straight-to-the-point way. I noticed his long sentences often relate to the experiences of characters (such as your example of Tateh’s ideas about socialism). So I think the different sentence lengths might almost be Doctorow’s way of distinguishing if something is “fact” or “fiction”.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that as I was reading Doctorow's long sentence in your blog post, I started skimming it rather than choosing to absorb all the information mentioned in it. That reflects how I got through some parts of the book that were weaving back and forth in the plot. I agree that it makes the book more interesting to read, because it makes the plot obvious enough to us readers while at the same time keeping us engaged by choosing the context we deem is important for us to understand the story. In a way, isn't that how we understand history? So many things happen in the world every year, and yet we choose to pinpoint only a few events that we suppose are important... Ditto about Doctorow's slyness.
ReplyDeleteI have also noticed this structure that Doctorow uses, and not just this but also his lack of quotations is really interesting. Now that we are reading Mumbo Jumbo, which is more extreme I would say compared to Ragtime in toying with various structures and elements to incorporate into the story, I think it goes along with the postmodernism rhetoric. These artists go beyond their work in not just with their writing but also the physical aspect of their writing.
ReplyDelete