The Aten-Aton Connection

I had no idea that the group called the Atonists, to which Hinckle and Hierophant 1 belong, comes from the group of Egyptians who worshiped Aton in the 1300s BC. This was because I've usually seen the name spelled Aten--had the group been called the Atenists, I think it would have been much more obvious.

I think that the most interesting part about this is the reversal of the accepted religions over time. During the time when Ahkenaten was forcing his people to worship Aton as the only God, religions with many gods were more common, and the pantheons of popular gods and goddesses often changed. There were some twenty-nine gods and goddesses in ancient Egypt, and they became more or less popular depending on what the people needed spiritual protection from. When forced to worship Aton, the people rebelled and eventually overthrew Ahkenaten's rule. Later, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism became the most prominent religions, all worshiping essentially the same God, although they called him by different names: God, El, and Allah. Of the 86% of people who consider themselves to be religious, 54% of those define themselves as monotheists, and the some most powerful nations in the world, though often theoretically secular, are built on Christianity and Islam.

As Jes Grew emerges, people are beginning to fight back against the Atonists and their strict rules, just like the Egyptians fougt for their right to worship their many gods. The religion of the Atonists does not, according to Reed, allow them to be close to nature or to sing the right songs or to know the true words. They cannot dance right, just like Set, while the people who are surrendering to Jes Grew are returning to the old ways, to the gods of Egypt and Africa. They are connected to nature and the cycles of the world. This does have basis in the religions; monotheistic gods are usually considered to be watching us from afar, creating everything but not getting involved in it anymore or having feelings, whereas gods from polytheistic religions are more fallible, emotional, and involved in the lives of their believers.

I can definitely see  the connections between the Atonists of Ancient Egypt and the Atonists of the modern world, and it is interesting to see how it could have been carried on through the ages. However, the book does seem to take a very negative view towards the Atonists. This was clear from the beginning, but this connection makes them seem even darker and more misguided. Ahkenaten's rule was a time of great conflict in ancient Egypt, and although monotheistic religions today have caused many problems and wars, they do have more merit that Reed is giving them credit for.

From Rags to Riches in Just a Few Pages

Tateh's life changes so suddenly that it is almost unbelievable. Before he sells his little flip books to the Franklin Novelty Shop in (page 133), he is struggling to support himself and his daughter by working on the street or in the mills for very little pay. Then we hear nothing about him until page 254, when we meet the Baron Ashkenazy and find out that he "had produced dozens of movie books for the Franklin Novelty Comapny. Then he had designed a magic lantern apparatus on which strips of paper printed with silhouettes turned on a wheel...the owners of the Franklin Novelty offered to make Tateh a partner...he sold his interests and went into the movie business...he invented a baronry for himself...his child was dressed as beautifully as a princess. He wanted to drive from her memory every tenement stench and filthy immigrant street. he would buy her light and sun and clean wind of the ocean for the rest of her life" (258-259). That was a long quote, but overall the time spent discussing Tateh's success was just a few pages. This makes it seem like it all happened very fast, although we do not actually know how much time passed between the two parts of his story.

In any case, Doctorow is clearly saying something about the immigrant experience. He even comments directly on it several times, making somewhat ironic-sounding generalizations about success in America as an immigrant. For example, he says "thus did the artist point his life along the lines of flow of American energy. Workers would strike and die but in the streets of cities an entrepreneur could cook sweet potatoes in a bucket of hot coals and sell them for a penny or two" (134). The narrator seems disappointed in Tateh in some ways. Instead of fighting for his rights, he made a living however he could, and succeeded at doing so. he escaped bad conditions, but he didn't work for the greater good. It is easy to imagine a mill worker feeling resentful towards Tateh; Tateh got out and made it big, while the mill worker has protested and been part of the I.W.W. and won against the mill owners, and has only gained "a few more pennies in wage" (130).

Doctorow also seems to be making fun of the idea that you could easily be successful in America by making it seem so easy. I'm not exactly sure why, but it seems pretty clear that Doctorow is not saying "Look, it really is that easy for immigrants to start their own businesses and become really rich". The speed with which Doctorow relates his rise makes it seem unreal, like a dream. Probably it was a dream for most of the immigrants who came to America, and remained one for their entire lives. Doctorow is saying that it was not a reality for most people by illustrating one of the people for which it was a reality.

However, it does seem like the narrator feels some admiration towards Tateh. He is not portrayed as a weak and sort of silly character, like Younger Brother is at the beginning of the book. He seems serious but intelligent before his transformation, and ebullient and jovial afterwards. He had "constructed [his happiness] without help", which is something he can be proud of. he is also clearly an innovative and enterprising man. Thus, although he is in the novelty and entertainment business, his success is respected and Tateh himself is respected.

Overall, Doctorow's depiction of Tateh's rise has mixed meanings. In may ways, the narrator seems to have the perspective of a person who had been born and raised in the U.S. but who worked in a mill or other factory and could not figure out a way to increase his wealth, status, or living conditions. He is jealous and annoyed that Tateh has managed to get out of the system rather than trying to improve it, admiring of his "pluck and luck" that enabled him to succeed, and, in the back of his mind, cognizant that such a rise does not happen to many people.

History = Fiction

It's odd that there is so much controversy concerning the distinguishing features of history and fiction when the two genres have only been separate for a thousand or so years. The Tale of Genji, a massive Japanese book by noblewoman in the Heian period (11th century), lays a claim on the title of "first novel ever written", and so does La Morte d'Arthur, which was written in the western world in the 1460s. Of course, 600-1000 years is a considerable amount of time, but if you consider that humans have been around for about 200,000 years, and that we have been writing for about 5500 years, that doesn't really seem too long ago.

History, for a long time, has been transmitted orally in the form of stories that were probably slightly altered with each retelling. Facts were virtually nonexistent, because dates and even reliable record of events were not completely set in stone (although you could argue that most "facts" about events in history are not really facts because all recollections of occurrences are subjective). Many historical stories were told with elements of fiction; many Greek epic poems could be considered fictional, although they were not novels. Many stories also had morals, and fables have been popular for a long time. So people didn't really distinguish between history and fiction as much as they do now.

Now, we have very clear distinctions between fiction and history that we impose on books. Facts are very important--with such huge databases of historical information, there is not much room for blurring the lines of history in novels, and fictional tidbits cannot be added into historical books (God forbid!). Writers of historical fiction usually have to carefully fact-check, write Historical Notes at the end of the book that talk about all the things they decided to change, and only change things where facts are unclear or absent from the historical record. That is why Ragtime is so confusing. It blends historical figures with fictional facts and events, and maybe fictional characters with real events. It is not history, it is not fiction, it is hardly even "respectable" historical fiction. In a world of about thirty different sections in the bookstore covering all the different types of books, Ragtime is not really anything in particular, which makes us puzzled and mildly uncomfortable. But the question is, why does it make us uncomfortable? Doesn't all fiction borrow liberally from history, and the same for history from fiction? Maybe they are really just the same thing, written in different styles and tones.