Purpose of vague titles
Two reasons why we have titles such as "Father" and "Mameh" are obvious— a sort of plausible deniability for the events of the story and also the assurance of no misidentification. However, I think they're also supposed to represent a sort of universality, or at least a representation of the time. There are lines of societal development in all of the characters, and these applications are supposed to be generally extendable to all the fathers of the time, all the mothers, all the younger brothers. There was the reluctance to accept a more modern society from the patriarchal figure, the reserved dislike of the shifting culture of many fathers in America. There was the rise of first-wave feminism, the emergence from the cult of domesticity, the first disturbances of gender roles from many mothers in America. There was the rising revolutionary sentiment and mainstream radicalism—people such as Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman alongside enormous labor activity and socialist/anarchist activism—represented moving through society by people like Younger Brother. There was the prevalence of socialist and Marxist thought in the immigrant or second-generation population as represented by Tateh.
There is a second camp of real people—famous figures involved in the events of the story. Their stories are dramatized and altered, interactions created, but the essence is true. They may never have met, but Evelyn Nesbit did donate a large sum of money to Emma Goldman and professed similar ideals to what she said in the book. The details may have been fudged, but Houdini did indeed have a famous prison escape. Harry Thaw did kill Stanford White over Evelyn Nesbit.
And then there are exceptions—Coalhouse Walker Jr. and Sarah, for example. Sarah is a somewhat generic name, and not an identifiable one, so perhaps that was just a way to humanize her (arguably one of the most sympathetic characters in the novel.) But Coalhouse Walker Jr. Is a peculiar case. He has a full-length and unusual name alongside an extremely famous and noteworthy story. To me, this extracts credibility from the theory of plausible deniability—if these events really played out how they had in the story, there would be some sort of record, especially given that Doctorow mentions multiple times that this was a highly publicized event. I think here we are supposed to note the individuality of his actions. It was an extreme and desperate reaction to the abuse he experienced—abuse that is omnipresent in society. He makes sure not to characterize Coalhouse's actions, even if justified, as a sweeping generalization in the same way he does with the other characters. And it allows the reader to connect with him more personally and understand his story. We see his love for Sarah and the baby, we see their courtship, and then we see the violence they experience.
I definitely agree with your point that the ambiguous names, Mother, Father, Little Boy, etc. are used to describe a representation, but I only thought of it as a representation of a commonplace, nuclear family. Your point that Mother represents the first-wave of feminism and that Father represents the males less inclined to agree with their ideas is new to me.
ReplyDeleteIt was confusing to me why Doctorow uses Sarah and Coalhouse's name. I now understand the point of using Coalhouse as a way to refer back to the original story, but your explanation for both of the characters also makes a lot of sense to me.
Great post! I really like the idea of the unidentifiable names representing a larger portion of the population at the time. I hadn't thought about this idea before. Otherwise, your analysis in your post is well though-out and detailed.
ReplyDeleteI really like the topic you chose to write about, and it's been an interesting aspect of the book to me from when we first started reading it. While I had thought of the "title characters" as purposefully vague and general, I really like your point that they're general representations of specific groups of people emerging during that time. I hadn't really considered Mother's character arc in relation to first-wave feminism at the time, or how Father is kind of a representation of all the patriarchal, conservative fathers of families. I do think Younger Brother was an interesting choice to represent the people shifting to radicalism/socialism/anarchism, since his character arc doesn't actually seem that general or normal for the time. Or at least, with the amount of detail we see about him - stalking Evelyn, despairing after she gets tired of him, talking with Emma Goldman - it makes it a bit hard for me to see him specifically as general.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I think this is a great topic to write about because there is so much to unpack and its interesting to try to grasp why he made other fictional characters actually have names. I wonder if it also has to do with their impact on the story itself. For example walker has a much bigger influence on the story than say someone like father.
ReplyDeleteYour point about how the generic names reference different groups of people makes a lot of sense. One other interesting thing I'd like to point out is that "Tateh" is actually the Yiddish word for "father" -- your blog post gave me a hunch and I just searched this up, and I was right! This gives a new perspective on the ending. Mother marrying Tateh could be symbolizing that along with the change in era comes the mingling and greater acceptance of the immigrant population among the commonfolk. It could also be seen that Tateh is sort of "replacing" Father, in a weird sort of way.
ReplyDeleteInteresting ideas! I'd also add that it sort of makes sense that we only get Sarah's first name because of how mysterious she is and how little we know about her. She seems nice enough, but Doctorow really mainly uses her death to motivate Coalhouse's later actions. As you've described, even character names hint at the interplay between history and fiction that's crucial to understanding this novel.
ReplyDeleteThese are some interesting points. I think another possible reason for naming characters like Sarah and Coalhouse Walker is because they were not meant to represent a universal experience among a group of people, like Mother and Father were. But in some ways they were. Although not many people shared the traumatizing ends they both faced, I think their experiences as black Americans were proabably just as universal as the Mather/Father characters. So my explanation is that they toe the line between the generic and famous/real people: they aren't real per se, but their stories are more individualistic than the other generic characters.
ReplyDelete