Heterocosms and also Lizards

“The problem is not “forms such as never were in nature,” which the theory of heterocosm handles quite easily. Rather, it is the appearance in fictional worlds of individuals who have existed in the real world … These are not reflected in fiction so much as incorporated; they constitute enclaves of ontological difference within the otherwise homogenous fictional heterocosm.”

Brian McHale, Some Ontologies of Fiction

Doctorow uses this idea of different levels of fiction (enclave = distinct group contained within a larger whole) all throughout Ragtime. The fictional “heterocosm” is the total world of Ragtime, the fictionalized world of the early 1900s. But there are “enclaves” within Doctorow’s world. Like McHale says, a fictional heterocosm can easily accommodate people who never existed. This is the enclave of Mother & Father, Tateh and the girl in the pinafore, and the Younger Brother. There is a separate enclave of characters meant to reflect – or even, to be – people from history, such as Houdini, Evelyn Nesbitt, J.P. Morgan, and Henry Ford (I’m not including Coalhouse, b/c he makes it – if you can believe it – more complicated).

However, it’s weirder than that. These are not merely two separate groups of characters within a single homogenous fiction. These characters are not divided on lines of race, or class, or gender – lines that can be drawn across a single “plane”. They are divided, as McHale says, along lines of ontology. In simpler terms, that means one group of characters in this story is perceived as more real than the other – literally on a higher plane of existence.

Doctorow’s historical characters are seen as more real than his fictional characters – they have an innate ontological difference from the “fictional” additions in that they already existed, in the “real” world, the world the reader inhabits. The J.P. Morgan we read about in Ragtime is assumed to be the J.P. Morgan of our reality – pulling this character away from the territory of fiction and into the territory of reality.

Doctorow strengthens this divide by not naming his “fictional” characters. Names like Mother, Father, Little Boy – they draw up images of fairy tales, the most quintessential non-reality. He makes it very clear – some of his characters are meant to resemble history, some to resemble fairy tales. Some are more real than others.

But, it gets weirder still. Doctorow is clearly using the characters of Ragtime to create two different levels of fiction – a double decker fictional heterocosm, to use McHale’s phrasing. But this is an illusion – a 2-dimensional illusion of 3-dimensionality. Because no fictional character has more consciousness, more realness, than another! They are all words on paper.

There’s a painting by M.C. Escher, showing 3 dimensional lizards crawling out of a painting of 2 dimensional lizards – a painting within a painting. This is the same illusion – because all of the lizards are 2-dimensional. They are all merely paint on paper. The only difference is in the mind of the viewer. Likewise, the only real difference between the “historical” and the “fictional” characters is the way the reader perceives them – we perceive them on different ontological levels, and so we raise them to a different plane. The characters themselves have no innate difference.

It seems like Doctorow is delving just as deep into the concept of “fiction” as he is the concept of “history.” Even as he manipulates the historical record, building fictional worlds (heterocosms) within pockets of unrecorded history to build a new story; he is also creating a web of multilayered fictions – by creating the illusion of “real” fiction and “fictional” fiction. Even though every word in Ragtime was written by Doctorow, came out of Doctorow’s head, is used to tell Doctorow’s story – he uses the ontological differences between “historical” figures and “fictional” additions to create the effect of different levels of his fictional world within the mind of the reader. It’s so confusing.