But you are forgetting that it was a small town. I grew up in a small, Midwestern town in the same time period and that innocence certainly did still exist, as did reverence for the town's wealthy benefactor. I think part of the point was that even though the narrator was an innocent, his father certainly wasn't but he kept his mouth shut so that his son would reap the benefits. I found the whole exploration of the class structure in America fascinating and nuanced. I enjoyed the book a great deal, but I don't particularly think it is great literature.

I did not find the narrative voice believable therefore the narrator did not seem credible. The naivete of the narrator was simply not credible; this was the early 1970s, after a decade of violent anti-Vietnam War protests, Woodstock, rock-n-roll, sexual revolution, and assassinations. This made the expressed innocence of that central character seem silly. Canin has no sense of the time and I found the the lightness of the narrative voice irritating. All his fiction "sounds" the same and the promise his early stories show has not been fulfilled. I also question the title, which was of course also the title of Elia Kazan's early 60s film about his Greek immigrant grandparents. Kazan made the film after half a decade being criticized for being an informer for the House Un-American Activities Comm. and McCarthy. So I take it the title alludes to Kazan's immigrant-like innocent's love of America and patriotism shown through the desperate innocence of his grandfather's immigrant experience. The tone of the movie is the tone of Canin's narrator's innocence about politics. Bullshit. How many critics did Canin have to blow to get the reviews this desperately mediocre novel received. My dick's available.