Shock Value

As I was reading through Davis' Life in the Iron Mills, I remember seeing her points about the oppression of the industrial workers, and the apathy of the bourgeois middle class, but I never recall at one point being enthused to take any kind of action (if I had been living during that period). There was never any outrage, never any disgust--her passion never shone through the narrative. Perhaps this is part of the realist creed, to just tell the story and let the facts speak for themselves., but the sickness incurred by say The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. There is no shock value.

While Deborah commits a crime and is thrown in jail, and yes she is treated poorly, it just is not the same as seeing human body parts get mixed into deli meat, or having your blushing, new wife forcibly raped by your manager. These instances just seem incomparable in their tragedy. I think that perhaps Davis relies too much on the more subtle queues of her deformation or the stifling of Wolfe's art. I can see that Wolfe's creativity and intelligence are meant to be representative of the industrial working class as a whole. In the Jungle it was easy to see the traits of the oppressed within each of the characters. In Life in the Iron Mills, these traits are sort spread thin to begin with, and even then they are not centered on one or two core characters.

Violence and Terminator

While Terminator 2 does make some attempts at philosophical justification for the actions of its characters, most of these are superseded and watered by the Hollywood requirement for glitzy, "rock-em sock-em" action.

John Connor's "coaching" of Schwarzenegger's character supposedly is representing the good side of humanity and that we are not just a self-destructive species. However, in the world of John Connor violence against and perhaps the maiming of a person seem to be mere vices compared to the sin of actually killing somebody. Even obviously, unnecessary violence is hardly even blinked at. Take, when John and the Terminator are breaking into Pescadero in order to free Sarah. The Terminator shoots the gate watchmen in the legs when he could have just as easily knocked him out or otherwise restrained him. The argument of Utilitarian violence isn't even applicable in this situation.

Perhaps it is just "modern sensibilities" that seem to be uncomfortable with the violence. However, I do not think it is just me. In the new Terminator television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, there is almost no death or killing, and when there is it is completely obvious how it really was not preventable. The characters, even the hot-headed Sarah Connor, seem much less inclined to do harm unto people than there movie predecessors. That is the show's main criticism of the current re-programed terminator under there command. She is too quick on the trigger, too quick to use killing as a means to an end.

On the argument that Terminator 2 makes violence almost fashionable or cool. I would say that this movie definitely plays on that theme or motif. In Hollywood violence, and explosions, etc. are cool.

Reality v. Extreme

Throughout Ragtime I found that Doctorow seems to imply that despite the somewhat graphic and extreme actions and behaviors of the characters that these are the ways that in fact "real" act. And perahaps this is true to an extent, however that at many points he in fact crosses the line. I know that this book is supposed to be somewhat of commentary on certain social issues and whatnot, but there is a big difference in shock value and what could be considered accounts of near psychotic people. Take Coalhouse for example. He seems to be a normal person, with a strong streak of pride. At first. Then he somehow metamorphosizes into a deranged killers, who just goes around shooting people up. while yes this does make apparent the effect that racism is having on the black community, its seems to be somewhat over the top, pretty much to the point of being unbelievable.
Emma Goldman is another example of an extreme character, however her actions seem more suiting and fitting to how she may have been (or other feminists may have been) in real life. The way she discusses woman-kind with some kind of mysticism is in fact effective in speaking out against the oppression that. The reason Doctorow's treatment of her is more effective than that of Coalhouse's is that he does not bend the rules of normality of attempt to rationalize her actions. They speak for themselves, and exist within the limits of normalcy. Doctorow attempts to set Coalhouse's actions to some sort relativist standard, but it just does not fit. His suffering was great this is true, but there is no justification for his actions whether in fiction or not.

Rich and Poor

In these early pages of Doctorow's Ragtime, I was most stricken with the dichotomous attitudes of the poor and the rich on things such as culture, art, and entertainment. Perhaps this first scene this truly come up is when Houdini is escaping from the cell across from Thaw. After he has escaped and is dressing, he is mirrored but in the inverse by Thaw as his strips himself an a article of clothing at a time. He then begins to thrust his hips and contort his face in an extremely vulgar and primitive manner, perhaps to show his...disgust with Houdini and his so-called "art?" I am not sure, as it has not been clearly explained at this point. However, there is more to this scene as Houdini further shows his feelings on the matter by comparing this situation to one he has experienced previously in the presence of the upper class. First they had debased by appealing to his greed, and then sealed the deal by showing there true feelings of him by placing him with the circus and the freaks. However, I still do not see where this schism comes from. Certainly these feelings don't exist today, or maybe they do and I simply don't now about it. I am really confused about this point and this moment of the book.

The next instance occurs during Freud's visit to the States. While that whole chapter is laden with imagery of arrogance and disappointment, the thing that really got me was when he mentioned how American's were gobbling up all the European art and architecture with no discrimination and somehow this reflected on their cultural development as a whole. So in this scenario the whole of America is shown to be of the lower class, while Europeans are not. Hopefully Freud returns in this novel, because as of now he and his motivations have not been explained to really any effect at all. Docotorow is really keeping the deeper meanings of this novel tight to his chest, because everything is really confused and unexplained at this point.