Life in the Iron Mills

Life in the Iron Mills, the title in itself is more of an oxymoron than an introduction to the story. The soot covered, bleak setting presents no signs of life at all. The stifling, constricting atmosphere entraps all of its occupants. “Here inside, is the little broken figure of an angle pointing upward from the mantle-shelf; but even its wings are covered with smoke, clotted and black.” (page 12). Not even an angle, a symbol of hope, can escape and is instead trapped by the debilitating smoke surrounding the iron mills.
Hugh demonstrates his view of what life is through his sculpture of the woman who is “hungry.” When questioned as to what the woman is hungry for, Hugh replies, “Summat to make her live, I think,-like you.” (page 33). He believes that the wealth of men like Kirby defines life. However, it is ironic that stealing the money, which in his eyes leads to life, causes his ultimate demise in jail. Even Kirby and the rich lack the compassion of life. Therefore, where is the life in the iron mills? It is not in poverty nor is it in prosperity. It is not at the height of status nor is it at the depths. Life simply does not exist in the iron mills. Death and hopelessness coat every aspect of the mills just like its stifling, black smoke.

Time Travel

Time travel and time paradoxes are themes often used in action movies. These movies are challenging for both the makers of the movie and for the audience. The writers and producers must create a film that stretches the imagination without being completely ridiculous and the audience must be able to suspend their disbelief in order to view the film without pointing out every detail that does not add up. Terminator 2 is a prime example of a film which tests the audience’s ability to buy into an outrageous plot which concerns numerous time paradoxes.
Sarah Conner and two robots are sent back in time to rescue John Conner, a future military leader. However the actions done during the film do not seem to change the future. Why don’t both of the terminators and John disappear instantly when Miles, the creator of the technology used to build the robots, and his inventions are destroyed? Does that then suggest that other inventors go on to create new technology to build the robots, and, if so, why doesn’t Sarah know about these inventors? This unchanging outcome suggests that the message Sarah wrote on the picnic table, “No fate” is, in fact, false and no matter what she or John do in the time period of this film, nothing will alter the events that are to come in the future. Upon learning this they should have both sat back and relaxed for the time being because the future is apparently inevitable. The only thing they can worry about right now is killing the evil robot that is indestructible, except for when it comes to extremely hot temperatures.

Missing Identity

In Ragtime, historical characters with preexisting personas are among the few that are referred to by name. Most of the other characters go by their position in the family, such as Mother, Father, Mother’s Younger Brother, etc. How is the character supposed to be viewed by the audience when they are so lacking in identity? How is the reader supposed to match a face to a character that is missing such vital information? Withholding such information is a strategy used by E.L. Doctorow to outline the focus on the celebrity and to make statements about the families during the era of Ragtime.
Evelyn Nesbit has a definite identity. She has the distinct and unmistakable face of Evelyn Nesbit. She has her own specific characteristics which everyone, even the reader, knows about. Why? Because she is the one and only Evelyn Nesbit and everyone is focused on her every move. The rest of the population, on the other hand, has no specific identity and just fits into their respective category. The Mother and Father have no one single face. There are millions of Mothers and Fathers and nobody cares about their identity or characteristics. The reader sees the face of every mother and father on Mother and Father. In this way Doctorow is able to generalize the personalities of an entire era through the actions of his characters. Every mother in the early nineteen hundreds was caring and dreamed of the possibilities of the future. Every father was dull and resistant to change. Every mother’s younger brother was fascinated by celebrities and a little creepy. Therefore by leaving out information, Doctorow is really providing more insight on a much broader scale.

Who Was That Guy?

Through the first eight chapters of E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime several characters have been introduced, some of which are fictional and some of which are true historical figures. The novel has multiple intertwining plots developing which becomes very difficult for the reader to follow at times. It has been challenging to distinguish which characters to focus on and which plots to follow the closest. Doctorow further confuses the reader by continually using pronouns or incredibly general names such as “mother” to refer to characters. Page number nine is a prime example of Doctorow using unspecific language as he refers to Houdini by beginning the following eight sentences with “He was…” or “His…” A plethora of characters are introduced in a miniscule amount of time, there are multiple plot shifts, and characters are seldom referred to specifically. I wonder if all of these factors are strategies Doctorow is using to confuse the reader. Forcing the reader to focus more intensely on following characters and plots could be an attempt to divert attention away from underlying plots. This leads me to believe that Doctorow may be planning a surprise ending.
Overall, I have really enjoyed the novel. I love Doctorow’s writing style and his descriptions. Although the novel has been a bit challenging to follow, the plots are very exciting and interesting to read.