Life in the Iron Mills

The aspect of this story that most interested me was the transition that Hugh had when Deborah gave him the money. At first he absolutely refuses to use it and he has every intention of taking it back to Mitchell. But as he thinks about it more he becomes more and more convinced that not only should he use the money, but that it is his right to do so. So the question is how much of that decision was influenced by him actually having the money in front of him. If he had not had the money and he started to think about the rights people had to money would he have come to the same conclusion or did the fact that he had that much money give him a desire to rationalize why he should keep it? I think that at least part of it was rationalization on his part. For someone so poor that much money would have been too huge a temptation to resist. But how much of it wasn’t rationalization? I would assume that at least part of it was his own natural feelings because he was already longing for something more. To have ways to express himself, which were only partial satisfied by his carvings in the Kohl. I think that some of it was also a desire to protect Deborah. He must have realized that if he turned the money in he would have to say how he had got it and that would implicate Deborah unless he lied. So at least on a subconscious level he was probably protecting her, although the lure of having that much money was probably a much bigger factor in his decision than that. Of course even if he had tried to use the money it was in the form of a check and so it was probably already made out to someone else. So it was very unlikely that he would have been able to use the money from the start. Is that a more subtle commentary by the author? Even if the main context is something else is she also implying that not only are the workers poor and mistreated, but they’re too ignorant to even differentiate between a something which will truly lift them out of poverty and what is only a false hope at best. Besides that one of the themes of the book is that the only way for a revolution to happen either to individuals or on a larger scale is if it comes from the people who need it, which means basically that they have to lift themselves up. So even by stealing from a rich person they are in a way getting help from the upper class, and so the endeavor is doomed to failure from the start whether or not they can get away with stealing, because the check is useless to them because they can’t cash it even if they don’t realizes that.

Bartelby the Scrivener

Herman Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener" was to me a rather disquieting text. It illuminates the effect that a simple refusal can have. Simply by refusing to do anything Bartleby was able to just stay in the office without doing any work or paying anything. Still this brings up the question of how far can a refusal go. How far can simply refusing to go along with society take a person. The answer is it can take you as far as society will let you before violence becomes an option. In a violent society if a person refuses to do something then the person asking will just hit them and that will be the end of it. On the other hand in a society where violence is frowned upon by simply refusing to do what is required of them a person can essentially stop their interactions with society. In the example of "Bartleby the Scrivener" the narrator eventually moved his entire office to a new location in order to be rid of Bartleby rather than attempt to force him out. Eventually of course the landlord called the police and they took Bartleby away, but the amount of time it took for them to finally decide on this course of action is rather surprising. So could this then be used as a test of the level of violence inherent in society. Have a person refuse to abide by the rules of society and see what happens. No violence just a simple refusal. And then judge the level of violence by how long it took for society to resort to physical means of removing the offender. Of course this isn't a very valid test. There a types of societies where the offender could be removed without violence. For instance if the rest of society simply ignored the offender completely, then eventually the offender would starve because they would be unable to eat. Still any option capable of removing the offender would count towards the test, and the very option taken could be used as an indicator of society type. Also in "Bartleby the Scrivener" the narrator and the other scriveners eventually start to use the word prefer in place of more emphatic choices. This has two implications. First the effect of one person simply using the same phrase over and over can be profound. Second the effects of prefer in place of stronger words is by itself interesting. It implies that although the person who is using it would rather not do the stated task they will if they have to and that they are open to persuasion. This sets up the asker towards trying to persuade the user into doing it. However by using it in this context the user actually means that they will not do the task. So the asker will waste their efforts trying to persuade the user when in fact the user cannot be persuaded. This is opposed to simply stating outright that the user will not do the task. In which case the asker would immediately abandon the user in order to find a more willing person or simply order the user to do it whether they want to or not. In this case the eventual result is the same. The narrator eventually orders Bartleby to do the tasks and Bartleby refuses anyway. However the key is that by using the word prefer instead of stronger words the user is able to redirect to asker into futile lines for at least a little while. This may or may not be helpful in the situation the asker finds them self, but it is useful to know. At worst the asker has to reorient themselves for a few seconds in order to switch to ordering that the task be done instead of asking. At best it could throw the asker completely off track.

Change and Technology

In Doctorow's "Ragtime" the advance of technology plays a major role in the development of the characters, and of society as a whole. The two characters most affected by the advancing technology are Tateh and Mother's Younger Brother. Tateh goes from being a poor immigrant to being a rich successful movie producer. He is able to do this because of the newness of the technology, and the flexibility which any new technology brings to the market. On a side note I think that Doctorow was also trying to explore the effects that technology has on economics here. When a new technology emerges there is an immediate surge in market forces as people strive to figure out how this new technology will eventually fit into society as a whole. Some people's ideas on how the technology fail and their businesses crumble, while others' ideas succeed and allow them to make fortunes. Tateh is one of the latter. He sees what the new technology of filming can do and he exploits that to make movies people want to watch. If the technology to make movies had not existed he would probably have remained a poor immigrant worker for the rest of his life, or possibly he would have been able to succeed by making more flip books and establishing that as his profession. But that would in itself be a new technology. According to the book Tateh essentially invents the idea of flip books along with a projector that would be able to show small movies using a variant of the flip books. So either way without new advances in technology Tateh would have been stuck in the same situation as the other immigrant workers, but with it he was able to advance himself and essentially live the American dream. On the other hand Mother's Younger Brother was not as fortunate in the changes that technology made in him. In his case the technology that most affected him was the advance being made in explosives. Because of his knowledge of explosives and how to make them he eventually ended up dead in Mexico. Admittedly the major changes were caused by his emotional problems in his relationships, but without technology he would not have had the opportunities that he did. Without his specialized knowledge in the art of demolitions he would have been of little use to Coalhouse Walker Jr. and as such would probably not have become as involved to the extent that he was. And without the incentive to leave the city that being a fugitive provided he probably would not have left the city and joined the revolutionaries in Mexico.

Technology also had a major impact on society at this time. Henry Ford’s assembly lines revolutionized manufacturing, and turned what was once a status symbol of the rich into something that was affordable by the middle class. At the same time that the movie industry was providing Tateh the means to become successful, it was also giving the major media businesses the tools they needed to turn people into celebrities who would capture the public’s attention. While the media did this in order to cause people to spend money on their products the impact on society was more profound. It caused the public to treat what were essentially ordinary people, who had had the good fortune to be chosen by the media to be built into stars, in the same way that their ancestors had treated royalty and the nobility.

So there is no question that technology is a source of change. The question then is whether that change is bad or good. I think that in this novel Doctorow was presenting cases which would support both arguments. So if technology can cause both good and bad changes, what then is the factor that decides between the two? Is it the speed at which technology advances or the intent with which it used? I think both of those aspects play a role in how technology changes society. In “A Connecticut Yankee” technology is introduced at an accelerated pace, and as a result the people aren’t ready for it. This eventually leads to the destruction of the new technology and the society which had been built around it. On the other hand in “Ragtime” while the technology was still advancing it wasn’t as rapid as it was in “A Connecticut Yankee” so the changes weren’t as dramatic. Instead the focus of the change seems to be focused on the underlying character of the person who uses technology. Tateh believed in the American dream and that anyone who managed to find a niche could become successful. And so the technology was for him a good thing. While Mother’s Younger Brother believed in the revolutionary movement and so technology enabled him to be a revolutionary. So I think that technology is an enabler. The effect that technology has whether good or bad will be a reflection of the person who uses it. The actual magnitude of the fact however is based on the speed in which technology is introduced. The more quickly that technology advances, the more likely that the changes it causes will be major society shaping influences.

Contradictions in Ragtime

In Doctorow's "Ragtime" there were several things that stood out to me, but the most prominent was the contradictions depicted in America's society throughout the first few chapters. On one hand the top levels of society lived in lavish homes, some were even palaces. “He had designed her home in the style of a doge palace.” (p. 32). On the other hand the immigrants lived in tenements that were poorly designed and were so tightly packed that they quickly became centers of disease whenever some new disease broke out. When the father left on Perry’s expedition to the North Pole, the expedition left with much fanfare and expectations were high for them. However when a ship of immigrants came in to port no one even noticed besides the officials on Ellis Island, even though the immigrants would probably have a greater impact on America than whether or not Perry’s expedition managed to make it to the Pole. The poor lived harsh lives full of suffering and hardship, while the rich had their every whim catered to. Yet they lived in a constant state of flux, both classes lived side by side. Doctorow illustrates this through his continued switching of the viewpoint of the novel. First one character is described and the plot flows around them, and then a character they interact with or think about is used. Then the next character is referenced and the viewpoint switches to them. And through the continued use of this style Doctorow manages to illustrate how interconnected all the levels of society were. So the question is what kind of influence did this constant intermixing and flux have on the characters? Also how much of it is real, and how much of it was invented by Doctorow in order to have the novel flow properly. Assumedly there was a fairly large amount of interconnectedness among the people of that time frame. The ranks of the rich and the poor were constantly changing as some poor families realized the American dream and made their fortunes, while some members of the rich lost their fortunes through bad luck or bad decisions. The constant stream of new immigrants also contributed since as the older generations of immigrants settled into the culture of America and became integrated, they also rose in the ranks of society. At which point a new wave of immigrants would fill the lowest slots.