The Clairvoyance of a Child

Throughout the book we’ve seen various moments where the little boy seems to be able to see the future or control the story. The first of such events being when he is thinking of Harry Houdini and then Houdini suddenly appears. But he also has moments where he “senses” something or can seemingly see into the future. The question is, why did Doctorow put this into the story? I know, its postmodernism so there doesn’t really have to be a reason for it to be there, but there’s still probably some meaning behind it. We’ve talked some in class about how Doctorow seems to like the children in the story more, or how the narrator seems more closely aligned with them. Maybe this is just another manifestation of that. Perhaps Doctorow likes the little boy more than the other characters, and because of that he gives him special powers or grants his imaginary wishes. It sounds kind of crazy but hear me out. If you look at the characters as having a mind of their own, which seems like a very postmodern thing to do, and look at the author as just someone who can manipulate the world around those characters instead of actually being able to control them, then this all makes a lot more sense. The narrator, who would almost be equivalent to a god, ends up having favorite characters in the story. Those characters would then be granted “godly powers” and have the world manipulated more to their liking. It’s like Doctorow is trying to please the little boy by making Houdini show up. But this makes me wonder, do all the characters figuratively have a mind of their own? Or is it just the fictional ones, with all the historically documented people being controlled by Doctorow. I don’t think that it’s just the little boy, as we also had that scene where Younger Brother had a vision of McKinley’s assassination, which could be taking as Doctorow warning little brother what could happen if he continued down his current path. The whole thing is extremely interesting, and I’m curious what the rest of you think. Do some of the characters have a mind of their own?

Comments

  1. ZonaJanuary 25, 2020 at 9:28 AM

    I agree this is super interesting - it's odd, because he warns people about small things like the assassination of Frank Ferdinand, which did set off WWI but was not an exclusive cause. So it's interesting how Doctorow is playing with this concept of a sort of individual ability to change history, and maybe the entire idea of free will. It makes the story more complex because historically we can look back and say "well of course this was going to happen this way", but Doctorow, with the little boy is asking, well what if it didn't? What if we do have free will/more power than we expected?

    ReplyDelete
  2. KeshavJanuary 27, 2020 at 6:24 PM

    This post really interests me, as I also wrote about the enigma that is the little boy. I tried to ground these characters' perspectives in factual history, so I liked your point about how this could all be a part of Doctorow using the little boy for his own storytelling purposes.

    I do also get the sense that Doctorow is using the little boy as some sort of vessel to speak through, as he does not really affect the plot that much. It begs the question of why he is even in the novel, unless he serves some sort of purpose. Is Doctorow pleasing the little boy through Houdini's appearance, or is he highlighting the coincidental nature of a moment in history?

    At this point in the novel, I also have questions about characters having minds of their own (especially regarding the little boy). I definitely think that it is confusing to unpack what Doctorow is doing with this character.

    ReplyDelete
  3. spolonus282February 5, 2020 at 7:52 PM

    For anyone who took the Hero's Journey class last year, you might remember the book As I Lay Dying. In it, Darl, one of the main characters, portrays very similar ideas, being almost in control of the flow and focus of the story (I have a theory that I wrote a blog post on that claims he was the only narrator in the multi-narrator story). This might just be a theme of Postmodernism, having a person "breaking the fourth wall," but also using said wall to their advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ZillesFebruary 9, 2020 at 5:36 PM

    I like the idea that characters are in some sort of sandbox, with Doctorow playing as god. In class we often discussed the idea that Doctorow didn't "feel" like he could influence or interact with certain characters such as Coalhouse. Is it possible that he felt like since the boy was young he could influence him more? That he could use the boy to give us a window into his perspective. The boy is most certainly not ordinary, and this is a feasible explanation for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MitchellFebruary 11, 2020 at 10:55 AM

      As a white male author, who was a little boy himself at one time (whether or not his parents ever dressed him in a "sailor suit"), Doctorow clearly feels more comfortable occupying the consciousness of the little boy, and playing with that consciousness in all kinds of audacious ways. His contrasting sense of discretion when it comes to Coalhouse seems to have to do with race: just as Younger Bro is self-aware enough to realize that the vicarious rage he accumulates on Coalhouse's behalf is likely only 1/100th of what Coalhouse must be feeling, the author himself doesn't presume to tell us how Coalhouse is feeling, or what it's like to undergo such an experience. He observes Coalhouse from a distance, offering suggestions about what he "probably" felt, or what he "may have" been thinking. The godlike powers of the author only extend so far, and for whatever reason, this author didn't feel comfortable playing God in this particular way. (Unlike our boy Carl Van Vechten, who had no qualms at all about speaking for the Harlem Renaissance!)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bledsoe's Elaborate Scam

Looking back on the college in Invisible Man, more and more oddities seem to stand out. From the weird religious feeling surrounding the Founder to the complete disregard for education, the entire institution seems completely backwards. For example, when one usually thinks of a college, one will think of an institution focused on learning and based around the needs of the students. While in Bledsoe’s college, the focus is instead on the white patrons that come and visit, as well as Bledsoe himself. When one really thinks about it, the college itself is just a con used to boost the status and wealth of first the Founder, and now Bledsoe.  Think about it, whenever the Founder is mentioned it is with a religious reverence. Even the old white men were seen crying about his death. It was also mentioned that everyone knew who he was, and he traveled around the country in a private train car surrounded by rich people. Whenever he would show up for one of his rallies, it would be comp...
Read more

Wright's Communist Bias

How did Richard Wright's affiliation with the communist party affect his depiction of the communists in Native Son  especially Jan and Max. Wright spend nearly eight years writing for the communists in Chicago, whether it was for one of their many magazines, or for a novel promoting communism. He formed close relationships with many of their members, and only left the party after having a falling out with a select few of the leaders. This could have influenced his depiction of the communist party in Native Son . On one hand he probably still was very fond of the communists, and would have written them in a better light, or on the other hand he could have sent a draft of the book to some of his former colleagues who could have then pressured him into making his depiction more favorable. I don't personally know very much about what the communist party was actually like in 1940s Chicago, but the books depiction of them is very favorable, which combined with Wright's connect...
Read more

The Harlem Conversation

            One of the really interesting things about the last three books that we’ve read is how closely together chronologically they were written. All of the different authors knew each other at least by name, and even wrote commentary on each other’s work. We’ve seen this especially with Wright’s review of  Their Eyes Were Watching God . Looking at this, we can then start to see these books as reactions to each other, or even as the authors themselves having a conversation or argument through their literature. All of these books were written during the Harlem Renaissance, and were very different expressions of black culture at the time, expressing different opinions of what exactly it meant to be writing black literature. The first of these books to come out was Hurston’s  Their Eyes Were Watching God , which was published in 1937 and focused mainly on expressing a very specific form of black culture in the south, almost completely disr...
Read more