For today’s class you read two very different arguments about Horatio Alger, his work, and the myth it helped form. I’d like you to pick one of the following statements and use textual evidence from Ragged Dick to dispute the author’s claim or show how you think it is an accurate assessment of Alger’s philosophy. Write a paragraph that presents your response in a thoughtful and persuasive manner.
Position #1: Harlon Dalton obviously critiques the myth the Alger’s writing helped create. He writes, “In a nutshell, my objection to the Alger myth is that it serves to maintain the racial pecking order. It does so by mentally bypassing the role of race in American society” (132). What does Dalton mean here? What passages from Ragged Dick confirms this reading of the text? What parts of the novel challenge it?
Position #2: Michael Zuckerman seems much more interested in showing how Alger’s novels are at odds with the myth that grew out of them. He does not view Alger as a writer who endorsed a mercenary form of free-market capitalism, solely concerned with individual ability and responsibility. Rather, he writes that Alger’s tales “seem overdependent on luck, patronage and the deus ex machina” (192-193), and his characters “all place their bellies before their bank accounts and otherwise set gratification above accumulation” (194). What do you think? Does your reading of Ragged Dick support or challenge this interpretation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Position #2. I think that Zuckerman is right with his logic. Dick makes little to no attempt at accumulation. Dick works hard, which is contrary to Zuckerman's belief, but Dick is focused on enjoying himself. Dick goes to shows and spends money frivolously, but he is also willing to give it to others when they are in need. It is clear that there is an over dependence on luck to get out of his impoverished state. Also, there is a great deal of patronage both from Dick and from others to Dick. Henry is the same way. Gratification is greater than accumulation and there is an over dependence on luck and patronage.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Zuckerman's opinions, I first felt that he was being a bit harsh on Alger. I felt that Alger was simply writing an optimistic children's piece that could serve as inspiration to many young children (and adults alike) and encourage them to - for want of a better phrase - not become discouraged. I considered the matter a second time, though, and found that I do agree with him. It is one thing to encourage someone - it is another to give them hope without injecting a sense of reality. Every homeless child out there cannot depend on luck and the circumstances Dick enjoyed to make it out of poverty, and to instill this belief in someone is not very fair. It's just not how the world works, and though reality may be an ugly truth, its just that... the truth. I found Ragged Dick to be a charming story, and Dick as a character is quite the little hero - but it's just not realitic.
ReplyDeleteIf there was one point I would argue with Zuckerman on, it would be the comment about the children's use of their money. Zuckerman comments on Dick's (and that of the other boys in the other stories) irresponsible spending when he gets a hold of any money. I think Zuckerman is forgetting here that Dick is still a child, and if you're young and homeless, of course you're going to "place your belly" before your bank accounts. I understand that Zuckerman may be making a reference here to other material things besides food, but I think he is holding standards that are far too high for someone (especially a child) who is homeless and hungry. When I read that line (about the bellies and bank accounts) I sat back and frowned again, because while Zuckerman had focused on reality throughout the rest of the piece, I felt he was not being realistic when he made that comment. Yes, Dick could (and probably should) save the money he spends on his friends or at the theater - but he's still a kid.
In response to Michael Zuckerman's piece I'd have to say that I agree. Horatio Alger has produced a classic rags to riches story, but I do believe that this story is simply unrealistic. Dick's success and ambition isn't really ignited until someone of a higher class tells him he should strive for better things. Dick spent most of his time gambling his money, going to theatre, or eating, it never occurred to him that he should be saving his money or investing in a place to sleep. His own gratification was the most important part of his life until by utter luck he meets someone who is "better" than him, and Dick wants to reach that status.
ReplyDeleteOnce Dick’s ambition is sparked he goes forth into the world to make himself. Although he works for his money and now saves it, most of his earnings or his progression upward is because of the interest of other men. Dick does have good moral character but that isn't what moves him upward, it's his luck. This is even a reoccurring pattern in the novel when Franks uncle reveals that his fortune was because someone took an interest in him as well. Dick’s instinct to save the drowning child was his good moral character coming forth, but the fact that this child's fathers just so happened to be rich and could offer him a job was luck. The odds of this happening are astronomical in the real world, but in world Alger has created this is the only way to move up in the world, and unfortunately it's an illusion of the American Dream.
While I see the points of Michael Zuckerman’s critiques, I think that he is missing the idea of the story completely. First and foremost, Ragged Dick is a “children’s novel” and therefore events that take place are almost inherently going to come with luck and randomness. Compared to other children’s novels, Ragged Dick is rather tame in the amount of “external forces” that lead to success. Zuckerman proceeds to point out that the children are more concerned about their “bellies than their bank accounts” and he says that this goes against the myth that Alger created. However, what child would not be more concerned about their hunger when they are homeless and living in the streets? Food more than anything else is the most important part to daily survival and having the energy to be able to work and earn more money. Though Alger’s story presents a rather romanticized version of homelessness, I don’t think that he is trying to wipe away all the realities of it. The character of Dick is concerned with his bank account but at the same time he still worries about what he is going to eat every day and he spends money on others so that they are able to eat as well. Furthermore, Zuckerman focuses on how the myth is that the boys only come into success through good fortune and luck, but this is not completely true. He leaves out a good chunk of the story that is focused on when Dick learns to read and write. Yes, Dick gets lucky but he also deserves his good fortune and is able to receive the luck that he gets because he has learned to read and write. If Dick had not done this then the reward at the end of the story would have been much less valuable. Alger is presenting a story, a narrative, and a moral to his readers, and Zuckerman is critiquing him as if he is trying to present a real-world interpretation of what homelessness is like. I do not think that this is the point Alger is trying to make, rather I think he is trying to present of story where the ending has value to it’s readers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Micheal Zuckerman on the basis that Alger's tale does not endorse the theories of free-market capitalism, those theories are ones that state that every man is for himself and that the markets have no morals, thus meaning whatever manner each actor chooses to conduct themselves in is perfectly acceptable. Alger does seem very dependent on luck and coincidence in this tale and as we see in the plot the very things that guide Dicks rise to the middle class is the random interactions he has with people, such as the wealthy industrialist who gives him a job. In reality such things are just so rare to happen and even in the midst of such instances occurring peoples reaction and response is so hesitant and skeptical because we live in a world where such events just don't occur. My reading of Ragged Dick truly supports this challenge and it is clear that this idea of luck and good fortune are not ones that we value in our contemporary society.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the Alger myth that Dalton references, I would agree that it fails to take into consideration the realities that people of race encounter in their lives. The way in which Dick continues on his upward climb towards the middle class illustrates this unrealistic and most often unattainable pathway. Without having to deal with racial discrimination or even other obstacles that the homeless population faces, Dick finds a tutor, rents a room, saves a boy, and recieves generous opportunities in return.
ReplyDeleteAs Dalton communicates in his article, by ignoring the role race plays in shaping the circumstances of people, the Alger myth perpetuates racism and contributes to falsely-based judgements which leave communities at odds with each other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harlon Dalton’s perspective because I think there are many lessons that Alger is conveying, the “pull yourself up from your bootstraps” notion as an example, that do not take certain obstacles that come with living in a certain environment. One of the main obstacles Dalton is pointing out, especially in his quote above, is the obstacle of overcoming race discrimination. In Horatio’s novels, Dalton claims, he is teaching the lesson that “each of us has the power to create our own opportunities.” I agree with Dalton on the invalidity of this lesson because of environment. I don’t think that every person is homeless because they are in some way not trying hard enough to get themselves out of homelessness. I think there are many aspects of an environment, such as race and socioeconomic class, that prevent the vast majority from escaping poverty. Dalton explains, “there is a large category of Americans—some have called it the underclass—for whom upward mobility is practically impossible without massive changes in the structure of the economy and in the allocation of public resources.” I don’t think the Alger takes these environmental factors into enough consideration. For example, in Alger’s novel, “Ragged Dick,” Dick is given a new suit as a gift, and the impression others have of him drastically changes from this. It is almost a turning point for Dick. I think in today’s society, Dalton would argue that even a black boy dressed in a suit would still face challenges that a white boy would not, especially taking into consideration his homelessness. This is what I think Dalton means when he says there is a “racial pecking order” in society that Alger is ignoring. I am in agreement that some of the lessons taught are in fact false, but I’m not sure if some hope developed from false beliefs is a good thing or a bad thing?
ReplyDeletePosition 2:
ReplyDeleteMichael Zuckerman makes a valid argument that Alger’s tales, such as Ragged Dick, rely on good fortune and Alger’s characters focus on consumption and personal satisfaction rather than capital gain. Ragged Dick begins as a homeless boy focused more on daily needs and satisfaction rather than future aspirations. Rather than saving his money each day, he indulges in theater shows, big meals and gambling. Still he finds more satisfaction in helping his friends instead of saving his own money for his future. In addition to his indulgence in shows and meals, much of his later success relies on the three factors Zuckerman mentions: “luck, patronage and the dues ex machine” (192-193). Although he is a very virtuous character and in Alger’s mind becomes successful due to merit, he is dependent on the opportunistic events which arise. If he had not been given the task of showing Frank around the city, then he never would have met Mr. Whitney and been given a new suit. This suit is exactly what gives Ragged Dick the opportunity to move up in society because it adjusts his image. Other people then see him as a more respectable person in society because he is dressed more respectably. The factors of fortune and lack of monetary focus do contradict Alger’s ideas of merit changing one’s status in society.
I agree with the position that Michael Zuckerman makes. The myth that most people associate with Alger's works is something along the lines of "rags to respectability" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Both Zuckerman and myself would agree that the characters that Alger creates do undergo a transformation and positive change in status. Yet these characters seem to go through that transformation not by the traditional means or by the ideas that many people associate with Alger's works. If one were to go about changing one's status in order to be more prosperous, it is generally believed that hard work and determination, keeping the goal in sight, would be the keys to achieving the change. Alger seems to take a different approach. Ragged Dick did go rags-to-riches, but I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call him a self-made man. Yes, Dick is a hard worker and a seemingly determined individual, after all he is one of the most prolific bootblacks we meet in "Ragged Dick". Yet much of his success does not come from this particular aspect of his life. It seems to be unexpected events, dues ex machine as Zuckerman said, often led to the character prosperity. As Zuckerman pointed out, the act that finally gave him his big break cam about because he takes "'half holidays' to go on 'excursions'" (195). It would seem that Dick only got the opportunity to save Rockwell's son because he wasn't working hard and it was pure luck that the boy Dick saved happened to be a very wealthy man's son. It would seem to me that this incident was the biggest opportunity that Dick received to jump into respectability. Not many people think of Alger's books and associate them with the idea that luck is the way to change your circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHarlan Dalton is correct when he accuses Horatio Alger of omitting several factors that affect “success in life,” but he is incorrect in claiming that Alger is maintaining the “social pecking order” by not mentioning race as one of the factors that allows or hinders success. Dalton focuses on the fact that race, like many other factors is not under the control of the individual, but he then goes on a tangent about discrimination towards “black people.” He states that Alger’s novel conveys three unrealistic messages about success and judgment, and then rants about the disadvantages of blacks in society.
ReplyDeleteDalton is right when he says that success in American society is inhibited by many factors beyond one’s control, and race is one of these factors. However, Dalton only speaks of one race (blacks), and he makes another claim: “White folk need to take joint ownership of the nation’s race problem.” Perhaps this should be his thesis, because the evidence that he gives in his article gives stronger support to it. He gives countless examples of blacks being judged and provided opportunities on a different scale than “whites.”
If Dalton wants to isolate the issue of race as a barrier to success because of the effects of social positioning, then he needs to focus on all races that have been discriminated against in American history. What about Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and Hispanics? Also, Dalton does not define white people as a race. What ethnicities are included in this group? Alger does not mention Dick’s ethnic background. He could be from any background, so just because Alger doesn’t mention race does not mean that he is keeping blacks in their “place” in society, which is what he implies through the body of his article. He should mention other races, or choose another thesis that focuses on the differences of the opportunities for blacks and whites.
Dolton pointed out the myths of Alger’s novel. Alger believes that when a person works hard h/she will be able to have social mobility. Dolton understand that social mobility is not just based on individuals, whether he/she works hard to achieve their goals. He pointed out the systematic oppression Alger hasn’t mentioned. He pointed out the existence of racial caste system. The system of inequality created segregation in society. Realities for people of color are completely different from white society. This social barrier is not reflected in Ragged Dick. If Ragged Dick were a person of color would he be able to receive assistant from Frank and his uncle?
ReplyDeleteSupport for Dalton’s claim that Alger ignores the race factor is when Dick and Fosdick go to church with Mr. Greyson and his family. “The boys followed Mr. Greyson into the handsome church, and were assigned seats in his own pew” (80). The diction of “were assigned seats” would have mattered greatly here of Dick’s race were to have been different then the Greyson family. Placing these character in their “own pew” along side the Greyson assumes that society accepts homeless children near to them. However, most respectable families would feel uncomfortable even if the children are the same race or not. This is why Dick is presented as a Euro-American character and allowed to sit with the Greyson family. This is where Dick is sat next a lovely little girl that shares a hymn book with him. If race was included in this story it would matter greatly if that little girl was Euro-American and Dick African-American. This would have developed a question of multiracial couples and friendships—but this is never developed or recognized because Alger simply ignores the potentials of Dick to mean more than a mere “rags to riches” theme. What Alger failures to develop fully is Dick’s potential to challenge and still rise above not just being homeless but the race factor.
ReplyDeleteHere's Briana' comment:
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Horatio Alger mentally bypasses the role of race in Ragged Dick. My interpretation is that because it was before the Emancipation Proclamation, the African-American culture had not even begun to integrate into society. Because there was such a lack of racial interchange, Alger would not have had the understanding of the interpretations, or the culture conflicts that would have arisen in day-to-day life. As such, he could not be mentally bypassing the role of raise in American society during the 1860’s, because they were not considered an equal part of any society, except to clean up after it’s parties. I also think that it was possible that Alger chose not to discuss the race issue in Ragged Dick and its subsequent installations because of the Civil War and the fierce debate involving the freeing of slaves. By keeping the issue of race out of the book, Alger makes the novel available to encourage the hopes and dreams of any who read it, whether they be black or white, Union or Confederate. Alger’s avoidance of the race issue may have been a savvy business decision, however, I believe that it was simply a way of keeping era appropriate morals involved without involving disrupting controversy. Either way, I believe that the book is just as strong for not having involved potentially offensive and superfluous controversy.