Before Evelyn
Nesbit’s encounter with the girl and Tateh, readers only know the basic facts.
She was involved in a scandal involving the shooting of Stanford White by Harry
K. Thaw. She gained most of her notoriety from modeling and, more importantly, being
romantically involved with rich, powerful men. She is incredibly bored
preparing to testify at the trial. The scandal only furthered her fame, evident
when Doctorow states “the press followed her every move” (22). Once she gets
away from the press and visits the Lower East Side, she encounters a young girl
who “gazed at Evelyn without curiosity. She was the most beautiful child Evelyn
had ever seen. A piece of clothesline was tied around her wrist. Evelyn stood
up, followed the clothesline, and found herself looking into the face of a mad
old man (…)” (Doctorow 42). Evelyn thus finds Tateh and the little girl.
After the
discovery of the little girl Evelyn proceeds to slowly, and inappropriately, force
herself into the family, primarily in a role she perceives as maternal to the
girl. Tateh is clearly uncomfortable with her visits. Nonetheless, she sees Tateh
and the girl often and helps care for her when she is sick. However, along the
way, Doctorow’s sentences and tone often make me question what Evelyn feels for
the girl. Is she drawn to the girl because she loves her, or sees a similarity
between herself and the girl, or another reason entirely?
Doctorow
undermines the validity of the emotional connection through wording and use of
irony. A prime example is this description of one of Evelyn’s visits: “She went
to Tateh’s corner, stood for her portrait and feasted her eyes on the little
girl at the end of the clothesline. She was infatuated.” (Doctorow 45).
“Feasted” and “infatuated” imply a fascination with the child as opposed to a
genuine love for her. The family appears to be Evelyn’s hobby. She pretends to
be poor without understanding that she is playing with real lives. Evelyn’s
obsessive behavior surrounding observing, visiting, and helping the family also
do not seem genuine because of the lack of emotion and motive.
Another potential
point where Doctorow has an opportunity to express what the girl meant to Evelyn
was after Tateh takes the girl and leaves Evelyn behind. Evelyn confides in
Emma Goldman about her life with the family. While Doctorow writes that Evelyn
“wept bitterly,” that emotional moment is directly undercut when Evelyn says,
“I have lost my urchin” in a possessive manner (58). Evelyn’s actions later in
the story, such as anonymously donating money to charity, show that she
cares/cared for the poor, through her experience with Tateh and the girl.
Portions where
Evelyn is shown as a character with a personality, motives, and emotions seem
to be downplayed by Doctorow. Is this deliberate in order to further exemplify
the irony in the situation? Or is it to give the tone of a historical account
by including less emotion and having readers fill in the emotion “gaps” with
how they think the character must have felt?
This is an interesting point! The words "feasted" and "infatuated" especially make me feel very uncomfortable about Evelyn's relationship. Evelyn's infatuation seems inappropriate, as we can see through Tateh's reaction. Even though her direct intentions for helping the family don't seem wrong, the way she adopts the "poverty face" is definitely inappropriate and it is hard to figure out the real reason for her helping the family. She wears tattered clothes and completely involves herself in their poverty-stricken life, which crosses a line.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think that Evelyn's relationship to the little girl is super icky. I'd point out about how Evelyn gets a name in the book, but the little girl does not. Evelyn has the privilege of appearing to be a real person, but the little girl exists only as her archetype, both to Evelyn and us.
ReplyDeleteEvelyn's obsession with Tateh and his daughter is definitely one of the things I find weirdest about Ragtime so far. Evelyn's presence is so strange and unsettling that Tateh, who normally will do anything to protect his daughter (even getting beaten up), doesn't stand up to Evelyn and lets her essentially stalk him and his daughter. I agree that Evelyn's attachment to the girl was mainly shallow and a "hobby" because she never really stops to think how her presence might be affecting the family.
ReplyDeleteI agree- the relationship between Evelyn and the little girl is pretty uncomfortable to read about. It's almost as if Evelyn feels the same things for the little girl that Stanford White and Harry K. Thaw feel about her: fascination, infatuation, and an sense of ownership. However, they don't love her or even really see her as human.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with everything you said. The whole situation with Evelyn and Tateh is really uncomfortable, and I really questione. her motives. Doctorow's use of language makes it clear that Evelyn does not feel much for the child except for pure infatuation, and her actions actually end up making Tateh feel uncomfortable rather than appreciated. The whole ordeal just seems like her weird quest for self fulfillment and it plays into a common theme of priviled people taking on poverty face which appears throughout the book.
ReplyDelete"Infatuation" and obsession can perhaps be the beginnings of some real and significant change. Evelyn's obsession with the little girl (and her world) also reflects a broadening of her horizons, an interest in real social problems and an effort to escape the bizarro tabloid trial she's caught up in (through no fault of her own). There's something simplistic about her fetishization of these struggling immigrant characters, but it leads ultimately to her anonymous donations and support of Goldman's publication later in life. Likewise, Younger Brother is obsessed first with Evelyn and then with Coalhouse, but the Coalhouse obsession evolves to become a core aspect of his character--a set of revolutionary principles and convictions that he's literally willing to die for. It goes from a superficial appropriation (rendered with irony by his blackface costume) to a deeper kind of commitment. When with the Zapatistas in Mexico, he dresses the part of the revolutionary, but it's presented more as the donning of a "uniform" than as a costume or appropriation.
ReplyDelete