Essay Questions

What point is the book trying to make about the distinction between “the past” and “history” through its notorious commingling of actual historical fact and completely made up fiction?

“The past” is a term that refers not just a period of time existing previously, but also to the events which occurred. “History” is the name given to the understanding of those events. History is an account of the past that may be based upon documentary evidence, or may be based upon informed conjecture or even, in far too many cases, may simply be made up for any number of reasons. When one stops to really consider it, what any individual human actually knows about the past for sure is precious little and that even goes for their own past which has been informed to a great extent by a dependence upon the memories of others. History is often viewed as a discipline that is steeped in irrefutable scientific fact like biology when in fact even at its best and most seriously undertaken the writing of the historical record is still dependent to an uncomfortable degree upon trusting those who lived through the past to be equally serious. By tossing a history salad of multiple references to documentary evidence of the past with fictional creations without making any attempt to delineate the difference, the author is asking the reader to consider the historical record in a brand new light and to recognize that “history” and “the past” are not necessary identical.

The most notorious anti-communist figure in America at the time of the Rosenberg trial and execution was Sen. Joseph McCarthy and as such he seems a more ideal choice as historical narrator than Richard Nixon. Why might Coover have made the choice he did?

McCarthy was as the peak of his considerably terrifying power at the time of the execution of the Rosenbergs. In a way, McCarthy and the Rosenbergs can be said to have been the central representatives of the two sides of the so-called Red Menace: the communists allegedly infiltrating every corner of America to spread their ideology determined to bring down democracy and the alleged patriots who were the only thing standing in the way of their victory. Dramatically speaking, there would be no better more ideal choice to juxtapose with the Rosenbergs being sent to death than the man whose name has since become synonymous with metaphorical witch hunts. Instead, Coover chose to use a man who at the time was the sitting President of the United States, but who had been arguably the second most famous anti-communist holding elective office in the country. There is one big difference between McCarthy and Nixon, however. Though both men did their parts to destroy the reputations and lives of those they accuse of being communists on shaky evidence at the very best, McCarthy’s tactics eventually caught up with him and he was shamed and humiliated out of the Senate and into the history books. Nixon, as previously mentioned, went on to become President and thus still had much more to answer for than the admittedly more reviled McCarthy.

Were the Rosenbergs actually guilty of betraying the United States and committing treason by selling secrets to the Soviets?

Coover is far from the only author to fictionalize the story of the Rosenberg trial and execution. Before he wrote the Ragtime, E.L. Doctorow published a highly fictionalized but obviously deeply inspired novel about the pair titled Daniel. Writers around during the mid-century mark—especially those with a leftist political sensibility—were drawn to the potential for genuine tragedy lying at the heart of the story. What happened in the past remains as yet to be fully defined as history, but for many at the time and for most objective viewers afterward, the evidence presented against the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was almost ridiculously thin. It was certainly unconvincing enough to raise the very real possibility that it would eventually be determined that two innocent people had been sentenced to death. Although the past still remains murky, history sharpened into view somewhat following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of secret records by the former Russian spy agency, the KGB. The general consensus that is called history as of today is that Julius Rosenberg was almost certainly guilty of at least some of the charges against him. His wife Ethel’s complicity remains dubious, however, and for many she remains an object lesson in the single most powerful argument against the existence of a death penalty: it leaves no room for undoing mistakes.