Name
As we've observed and discussed, Doctorow goes out of his way to only use full names for characters who actually lived. Harry Houdini and Evelyn Nesbit are given full names, while Tateh and Sarah are only ever referred to with their first names. Father, Mother, and Mother's Younger Brother aren't even given names at all. However, there is one exception: Coalhouse Walker Jr.
In class today, we briefly touched on the origins of Coalhouse as a character. He is based on another character, Michael Kohlhaas, from a book of the same name by Heinrich von Kleist. Kohlhaas has his horses unfairly confiscated, and is unable to get them back. He then wages a mini-war, killing several, as revenge. However, Kohlhaas is also a fictional character. So why is Coalhouse given a name?
Perhaps Doctorow believes von Kleist's work to be historically significant enough to give a spin-off character a full name. I think this is unlikely, as Coalhouse is only an adaptation of Kohlhaas, not an exact copy. The more likely explanation is that, if Coalhouse's tale had taken place in real life, he would have been famous (or infamous). So far, the unnamed and half-named characters haven't done anything that would have generated national attention. The named characters, meanwhile, are famous: we've all heard of Houdini, J.P. Morgan, and the others. Coalhouse, had he existed in the real world, would also have become a somewhat famous person.
In class today, we briefly touched on the origins of Coalhouse as a character. He is based on another character, Michael Kohlhaas, from a book of the same name by Heinrich von Kleist. Kohlhaas has his horses unfairly confiscated, and is unable to get them back. He then wages a mini-war, killing several, as revenge. However, Kohlhaas is also a fictional character. So why is Coalhouse given a name?
Perhaps Doctorow believes von Kleist's work to be historically significant enough to give a spin-off character a full name. I think this is unlikely, as Coalhouse is only an adaptation of Kohlhaas, not an exact copy. The more likely explanation is that, if Coalhouse's tale had taken place in real life, he would have been famous (or infamous). So far, the unnamed and half-named characters haven't done anything that would have generated national attention. The named characters, meanwhile, are famous: we've all heard of Houdini, J.P. Morgan, and the others. Coalhouse, had he existed in the real world, would also have become a somewhat famous person.
That’s an interesting theory. I’ve also been confused by the naming patterns going on in Ragtime, but your argument does make sense – Coalhouse’s actions warrant the same ‘collective remembrance’ that names such as J.P Morgan and Henry Ford do. His message, his motives, would have trickled through into modern consciousness. Giving Coalhouse a name also coincides with what we’ve been talking about in class – how Coalhouse, more than any other character, is a blend of history and fiction. The way Doctorow describes his journey, taking a step back and showing him through the media/ other perspectives of the time, helps convey the sense that we are looking at a piece of history, not a work of fiction – making Coalhouse one of the historical characters, and hence one of the named ones (even though he isn’t a historical character in the slightest).
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I found interesting about Coalhouse’s name is that, in tonight’s reading, we see it become not a name but a movement. The gang that Coalhouse (the man) builds around himself begin to refer to themselves collectively as Coalhouse (the gang). If you work backwards from that point, you could argue that Coalhouse isn’t a named character – Doctorow is merely, in retrospect, applying the name of his gang to the man who created it – furthering the illusion that this story isn’t entirely Doctorow’s – it’s a retelling of ‘history’.
Michael Kohlhaas's character is based off of Hans Kohlhase who was a real person. So in a way, Coalhouse was based of off a real person so maybe that's why he was given a full name? I do think if Coalhouse had really existed, he would have been famous because the person he was based off of - Kohlhase - was famous. There are a lot of similarities between Coalhouse, Kohlhaas, & Kohlhase's stories, which is pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting perspective. I also think coalhouse had a name to ensure that we knew he was a reincarnation of michael. Coalhouse has a basis in history so he wasn't entirely made up like the family. I like your observation though, it makes sense in the context of the book.
ReplyDeleteI doubt anyone would have even seen the connection between Coalhouse's story and Kohlhaas's story if Doctorow hadn't threaded in a clue in the name (even then, I'm amazed that critics figured it out so quickly!). My favorite theory on this is that giving Coalhouse a full name renders him "historical" within the fictional frame of the novel--as when the author himself is apologizing disingenuously for the "limited information" he has to go on. And even this little metafictional trick has a basis in history: indeed, the biographies of many famous African American cultural figures from the early 20th century are shrouded in mystery, simply because official record-keeping in black neighborhoods and communities has been less consistent than in majority-white communities. The stuff about Coalhouse's incomplete school records, limited information about his parents, no photograph being found of him (so the newspaper uses one of Scott Joplin instead!) all checks out--exactly the kinds of gaps we'd expect to see in a biography of Louis Armstrong or Bessie Smith. So in a weird optical illusion, Doctorow furthers the illusion that Coalhouse is "real" by reminding us of all that he isn't able to tell us about him. These gaps make him "historical."
ReplyDelete