American Pastoral
discussion
Constant Reader
I was 18-19 in 1968,
Har! Well, I am within two weeks of the same age as Philip Roth.
Are we then just two generations staring at each other uncomprehendingly across a generational divide?
Har! Well, I am within two weeks of the same age as Philip Roth.
Are we then just two generations staring at each other uncomprehendingly across a generational divide?
It seems to me that, if we're to discuss Merry and her actions, we'll have to accept that Zuckerman created a "realistic" version of what happened.Given that, I see Merry telling her father that she bombed the general store in Old Rimrock and then bombed again out on the west coast, killing three more people. I see no textual evidence for remorse within Merry. Apparently, Merry has decided that killing others isn't effective enough and now she will slowly but surely kill herself. So...has she now turned her anger and violence inward? That isn't the same as showing/having remorse. And there's a certain logical fallacy in her version of Jainism: the practitioner vows to do no harm to any living thing...except the practioner her/himself. This seem to be a dichotomy and to exhibit a good degree of self-loathing, which I don't think is a result of the bombings. It's as though Merry has plenty of hatred to go around for everyone.
Therefore I feel that his portrayal of Merry, the Kiss, Rita, the whole deal was just Zuckerman's over-the-top musings on the fall of his hero.
Umm. I'm not sure Swede fell. In fact, that is a question I have with respect to his portrayal by Zuckerman.
At the end of the novel, yes, his world is caving in on him, with his loss of both daughter and wife. But, at his reappearance in reality over dinner 20 or so years later, he is the happy guy again with proud pictures of his three sons. So it seems he wrote it all off, survived and went on to a happy new life with new wife and three sons. (Except for still being able to break down in tears over yearning for his lost daughter).
I don't understand that disjucntion in Zuckerman's realistic chronicle. But cynical me, I can provide one nevertheless. Perhaps, in Vincent's he has indeed suffered and fallen and is just a burned out shell of his former self, his innards consumed by loss of Merry and just going through the motions with a new life. Perhaps he is akin to over-the-hill comedians, or superseded talk-show hosts, who appear from time to time on TV after their time is past, trying to beguile the audience once again with old material after it has all been seen and new material is needed. Perhaps that opening scene is Swede taking one last victory lap with the old persona, after his race with life is over. And perhaps Zuckerman was correct the first time, that the Swede had become "an empty platitude."
Umm. I'm not sure Swede fell. In fact, that is a question I have with respect to his portrayal by Zuckerman.
At the end of the novel, yes, his world is caving in on him, with his loss of both daughter and wife. But, at his reappearance in reality over dinner 20 or so years later, he is the happy guy again with proud pictures of his three sons. So it seems he wrote it all off, survived and went on to a happy new life with new wife and three sons. (Except for still being able to break down in tears over yearning for his lost daughter).
I don't understand that disjucntion in Zuckerman's realistic chronicle. But cynical me, I can provide one nevertheless. Perhaps, in Vincent's he has indeed suffered and fallen and is just a burned out shell of his former self, his innards consumed by loss of Merry and just going through the motions with a new life. Perhaps he is akin to over-the-hill comedians, or superseded talk-show hosts, who appear from time to time on TV after their time is past, trying to beguile the audience once again with old material after it has all been seen and new material is needed. Perhaps that opening scene is Swede taking one last victory lap with the old persona, after his race with life is over. And perhaps Zuckerman was correct the first time, that the Swede had become "an empty platitude."
Apparently, Merry has decided that killing others isn't effective enough and now she will slowly but surely kill herself. So...has she now turned her anger and violence inward? That isn't the same as showing/having remorse.
Gail, I can't agree that she has turned violence on herself, if that were the case wouldn't she do actual violence? Shooting herself or some more direct means of killing herself? The bombs were certainly direct enough.
Someone above mentioned passive/aggressive, and boy, that fits the bill, which in turn leads me to believe that Merry is not capable of overt violence any longer. She is allowing herself to die, courting it even, but not directly committing the act itself.
I truly felt she showed remorse in the not killing of anything anymore, not even bugs or bacteria. Extreme to the nth degree, but not violent.
Gail, I can't agree that she has turned violence on herself, if that were the case wouldn't she do actual violence? Shooting herself or some more direct means of killing herself? The bombs were certainly direct enough.
Someone above mentioned passive/aggressive, and boy, that fits the bill, which in turn leads me to believe that Merry is not capable of overt violence any longer. She is allowing herself to die, courting it even, but not directly committing the act itself.
I truly felt she showed remorse in the not killing of anything anymore, not even bugs or bacteria. Extreme to the nth degree, but not violent.
I truly felt she showed remorse in the not killing of anything anymore, not even bugs or bacteria. Extreme to the nth degree, but not violent.
That is the protrayal I have seen of Jains in other works.
That is the protrayal I have seen of Jains in other works.
Mina,I was also 18 in 1968.
Not all of us became community organizers or Republicans or anything else. A decent number didn't survive at all. And that's what a number of folks here have predicted for Merry, i.e. that she would have died in jail or died of starvation in her Jain state.
Young and old alike - all humans - make choices every day. Some of those decisions are incredibly stupid, and have horrendous ramifications. I guess I'm not sure of what you mean by Merry not being a fully formed antagonist. I'm thinking that she is formed exactly the way Roth intended, like a teen who could not be controlled by her parents (nothing new here) with disasterous consequences.
There but for the grace of God, go I.
I know that she feels genuine to you and to most others, MAP - she just didn't feel real to me. We all bring something different to books and take away something different, which is why I love these discussions!
Wilhelmina,
I have been wondering whether the departures from realistic portrayal that can be found in both of the Rita and Merry characters might be described as deliberate examples of artistic licence taken by Roth for heightened effect. They would seem to require the willing suspension of disbelief in order not to be jarring to knowledgeable readers such as yourself, and I would imagine it fair to say that, to the extent that readers object, then Roth has failed in his intended effect. At the back of my mind, however, is the thought picked up somewhere, that the effect of "realism," especially heightened realism, can be achieved not only through photographic verisimilitude but also through deliberate artistic editing, emphasis and distortion of aspects of the character or scene being portrayed. So, I suppose in the end the question would come down to whether it "works" for the reader, not whether Roth knew what he was writing about or had it photographically correct. I am willing to exclude ineptness on his part and to acknowledge considerable susceptibility to suggestion on my part. So those characters "work" for me.
I have been wondering whether the departures from realistic portrayal that can be found in both of the Rita and Merry characters might be described as deliberate examples of artistic licence taken by Roth for heightened effect. They would seem to require the willing suspension of disbelief in order not to be jarring to knowledgeable readers such as yourself, and I would imagine it fair to say that, to the extent that readers object, then Roth has failed in his intended effect. At the back of my mind, however, is the thought picked up somewhere, that the effect of "realism," especially heightened realism, can be achieved not only through photographic verisimilitude but also through deliberate artistic editing, emphasis and distortion of aspects of the character or scene being portrayed. So, I suppose in the end the question would come down to whether it "works" for the reader, not whether Roth knew what he was writing about or had it photographically correct. I am willing to exclude ineptness on his part and to acknowledge considerable susceptibility to suggestion on my part. So those characters "work" for me.
I was 33 in 1968, more occupied with chasing after small children and yanking a recalcitrant power lawnmower to life than I was with the events swirling around in the outer world.It could be that's why Merry remained a mysterious figure for me. We hear the results of her actions second-hand and from far away. It's like we're peering at her through gauze.
It's hard for me to see her as a fully developed antagonist for Swede to bounce off of. The balance swings too heavily to Swede. We know his feelings and reactions (some might say ad nauseum), yet we know little of Merry's.
Perhaps Swede's antagonist is middle-class life itself.
Pontalba, you may have hit the mark with "passive-aggressive". She (Merry) seems to me to be empty, unsatisfied, directionless. But perhaps that's because although I would be her age contmporary, her actions are as mysterious to me as they are to Ruth. Even back in the 60's I could not reconcile killing someone to protest the killing of others. As Ruth says, it's as though we are seeing her through gauze. To be fair, though, in 1968 I was chasing a baby around as well, which kind of puts a bit of a damper on political activity.One thing that struck me while reading was that I had forgotten how much LBJ was hated/reviled/protested against...and the same for Nixon. Kind of an eerie shadow of some of today's politics. Did anyone else notice that?
Gail, Yes I did notice the hatred, and also in the Bush elections.
I myself think that hatred politics serves no one very well, but politics is a topic I stay away from in discussions.
I myself think that hatred politics serves no one very well, but politics is a topic I stay away from in discussions.
Gail, I agree Merry is empty, but I don't know about unsatisfied or directionless at the end, she knows exactly what she wants to do, and that is die with as little fuss as possible. Oddly, no make that bizarrely enough she seems satisfied with her fate as though she is balancing the scales in her own mind for the killings she committed. Just because she didn't sob and moan to Swede about the killings doesn't mean she was unfeeling about them. Russ brought out about the 5 stages of grief...and I agree Merry had already [unseen by the reader:] gone through all the raging against fate she was going to do and had decided on exactly what she was going to do as retribution. Considering everything the passive-aggressive way was the only way for her to go at that point in time.
I see Merry as a fully formed character now, particularly after rereading sections that I undoubtedly skimmed in my wanting to know just what the heck happened. There isn't anything I have in common with her aside from gender, I suppose I led a rather sheltered or even insular life as a teenager and frankly didn't go through the angst that seems to be so prevalent. I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing, but it's my life, so that's that. :)
I do see her as the antagonist to Swede's protagonist, it was a struggle between the two of them for most of the book as far as I could tell.
Ruth, I'd be interested in reading how you see the "middle-class life" as antagonist. It's a fascinating idea.
I see Merry as a fully formed character now, particularly after rereading sections that I undoubtedly skimmed in my wanting to know just what the heck happened. There isn't anything I have in common with her aside from gender, I suppose I led a rather sheltered or even insular life as a teenager and frankly didn't go through the angst that seems to be so prevalent. I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing, but it's my life, so that's that. :)
I do see her as the antagonist to Swede's protagonist, it was a struggle between the two of them for most of the book as far as I could tell.
Ruth, I'd be interested in reading how you see the "middle-class life" as antagonist. It's a fascinating idea.
It's been interesting reading everyone's comments. I'm not really sure where to jump in. Guess I'll start with Merry since she's a recent topic.I saw Merry as a real character who, by the end, was insane. It's not clear to me when exactly that happened--if it was prior to the bombing or after. Mistakenly killing an innocent person seems reason enough to cause a psychotic break in even a balanced person. And Merry wasn't exactly even keeled prior to that.
I was a first grader in '68, so it was mostly training wheels and POW bracelets for me, but I think I saw that documentary you mentioned, Wilhelmina, and I was thinking how different the real players in the Weather Underground seemed compared to Merry. It didn't make her less real as a character for me, it just meant I didn't see her as representative of all other radicals.
In some ways I wonder if the question of the reality of the characters isn't beside the point. I ran into this quote today and wondered if it might apply to Roth."The point of theater, to Brecht, wasn't for the spectators to lose themselves in the play, but to consider the issues it raised, reflect on the interactions of the characters, think about different possibilities and outcomes."
Perhaps the question is less whether Merry is real than what a Weatherman or Weatherwoman would be like. The people I remember from the 60s (one of my wedding invitations went to a woman serving time in the county jail for occupying a college administration building) were not angry at their parents. They were just awfully sympathetic to the plight of the poor people caught up in the war.
Maybe the book reflects the anger of the parents.
Jim, I'm from the wrong edge of the age divide here, so I've been letting the conversation run, but since people are sharing their recollections of what 'real' Weatherman were like, I suppose I might as well add the two cents I've been holding back. I never knew any Weathermen or others, except through media images. Such as Patty Hearst, gun in hand, holding up a bank. And two NY State Troopers lying sprawled dead on the Thruway pavement about 10 miles from where I am right now, shot down by Weathermen (or other 'rebels') on the run. Actions like that have actually tended to give the Weathermen a really bad name and can't be blinked away.
From Wikipedia:
The Brinks robbery of 1981 (October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), and several former members of the Weather Underground, now belonging to the May 19 Communist Organization (David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices.[1:] They stole $1.6 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
-- Wikipedia "Brinks robbery (1981)"
The article there contains a detailed description.
The Brinks robbery of 1981 (October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), and several former members of the Weather Underground, now belonging to the May 19 Communist Organization (David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices.[1:] They stole $1.6 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
-- Wikipedia "Brinks robbery (1981)"
The article there contains a detailed description.
That would have been the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). I have no idea what their 'ideals' were. Wikipedia says they considered themselves a revolutionary vanguard army, but it doesn't say what they were supposed to be the vanguard of. They are guilty of hideous crimes: kidnapping, assault, robbery, and murder. Those shouldn't be blinked away. I don't think all groups born of the same time are the same, though.I guess I made the jump to the Weathermen parallel due to the death of the people making the bombs.
In a different direction, I get the impression that nobody here is that fond of the Swede. That suprised me a bit. What's not to like about the guy? He loved his family, he was good to his parents, he was passionate about his work, and he seemed like an all around decent guy to me. When he was remembering different scenes of his daughter and his wife, I found it heartbreaking and beautiful.
And hats off to Roth on the last dinner party scene. Macabre. Well done.
I was at Columbia in 67-68 and while I never knew any Weather humans (at least as far as I know), I was acquainted with some of their immediate predecessors in SDS some of whom went into the Weather Underground. On that basis, I can say they were, in the main, dull.
Wow...what an incredible disussion...I tried to take some notes but may have had some troubles...so if I've got one poster confused with another, please forgive me. First, this is my second reading...the first time I was so fascinated by the history and version of these times. These times are monolithic and iconic...it felt exhilarating and horrible to read them acted out in this novel. Now...I am seeing how wordy it is and can understand how some readers found it tiresome...but I do believe, personally it is a masterpiece.
I think, Dick?, or Russ is right on about what this novel is...
It's the novel of the parents agony.
Many other works have been mentioned including Moby Dick ...but this novel is Roth's tragedy and his riff on the most popular and most produced play of the last century by Shakespeare...King Lear.
In tragedy one of the devices the Greeks used...and Russ...you were tapping into this with protagonists...is the "false protagonist" which reminds us that we are in a tragedy. I think Roth was experimenting with the device of false protagonist...is it Swede, is it Zuckerman?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_pr...
Roth is considering lives lived largely through pretense. In the case of Zuckerman his vocation (almost in the religious sense) is pretense exercised through the novelist's art. He has embraced a career of pretense in lieu of family and children and now, at the end of his life, neutered by cancer, a monkish devotion to pretense is about all he has left. ...said Dick?
Yes...yes, I think this is very true. I think the tragic flaw in Swede is this pretense for the good life?
With pretense...comes denial.
I was very sad to read so many posts about Merry being insane or nuts or whatever...not that she might not be insane or not...but that this is the story of the failure of this family to be culpable supported by their own denial and dictatorships. Merry is only as insane as the family's denial/unknowing. Love is not something to be legislated.
Who else is responsible if it weren't the parents...oh I know, no one wants to believe that a parent is so responsible..but who else is ? And Roth is writing the saddest tale of parental agony and denial.
(I think "the kiss" is paramount to the fall....I feel perhaps it is being a little downplayed...? Easy to downplay it perhaps because of the way it is written? )
That is the point, it is what the novel is about. Parental agony.. because of failure/denial/unknowing.
All of us who are parents...deeply know how very responsible we are...and to read this novel...or to read/see KIng Lear and not accept the responsibility of the parent is to totally waste ones time reading either this novel or Shakespeares play. What exactly was Shakspeare up to? It's what Roth is up to.
That Merry was "loneliness and vocally excellent" as a child...plays so tenderly to what Cordelia doesn't say to her father. Swede wants Merry to voice her love... her accountability of her actions just like Lear did to his girls and Cordelia teaches us that love isn't something we can dictate or demand. Merry is the 20th Century Cordelia...ouch!
How ironic that King Lear is the most popular play to the generation of the characters in this novel...but they still never learned. The parental agony is that of denial and never understanding the culpability or the way to love or be love...(it might be that preoccupation with living a life of pretense as Dick suggested...I think that is a major point)
I'd like to think Zuckerman might be savvy?
How again...can these profound images of familial love and tragedy go unlearned again...we are a strange animal in that we try not to believe we could create a person like Merry. We will use every excuse and theory to distance our selves as parents for creating such a person. Shakespeare and Roth have written the most cutting portrayals of "denial" in parenting. Ouch again.
Some things never do change...and Roth has tried to write a story relevant to contemporary audiences who might have missed the lessons in an archaic King Lear no?
We will use every excuse and theory to distance our selves as parents for creating such a person. Shakespeare and Roth have written the most cutting portrayals of "denial" in parenting. Ouch again.
I'll drink to that! It is what I think I have noticed here too.
However, I still think responsibility for the act of murder rests with the murderer not their parents.
I'll drink to that! It is what I think I have noticed here too.
However, I still think responsibility for the act of murder rests with the murderer not their parents.
Russ, hey I'm not giving Merry a walk...no way. She is respopnsible for her actions...although...I wonder if Dick, his lawyerly side showing, isn't on to something by wondering if she really did kill anyone?And...here is the bad news...
....the real parental agonies don't start until one leaves denial!
You'll know you're out of denial when you weep like a baby at the end of King Lear for Cordelia and Lear...there might be hope for your recovery.
Same goes if you weep for Merry.
Yep...being a parent ain't for wimps...no wonder denial is an option...
I was at Columbia in 67-68 and while I never knew any Weather humans (at least as far as I know), I was acquainted with some of their immediate predecessors in SDS some of whom went into the Weather Underground. On that basis, I can say they were, in the main, dull.
Dick, Weren't those the years of the sit-ins, the occupation of the President's office, the daily news and TV coverage, the University shut down, with Mark Rudd's name coming to my mind after so many years. Dull?
Or were those some other years?
Fortunately nobody murdered. I guess that's dull.
Dick, Weren't those the years of the sit-ins, the occupation of the President's office, the daily news and TV coverage, the University shut down, with Mark Rudd's name coming to my mind after so many years. Dull?
Or were those some other years?
Fortunately nobody murdered. I guess that's dull.
That would have been the Symbionese Liberation Army.
Yeeees, but repeating the post
From Wikipedia:
The Brinks robbery of 1981 (October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), and several former members of the Weather Underground, now belonging to the May 19 Communist Organization (David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices.[1:] They stole $1.6 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
-- Wikipedia "Brinks robbery (1981)"
Maybe not all the same, but these look like birds of a feather.
Yeeees, but repeating the post
From Wikipedia:
The Brinks robbery of 1981 (October 20, 1981) was an armed robbery carried out by Black Liberation Army members Jeral Wayne Williams (aka Mutulu Shakur), Donald Weems (aka Kuwasi Balagoon), Samuel Smith, Nathaniel Burns (aka Sekou Odinga), Cecilio "Chui" Ferguson, Samuel Brown (aka Solomon Bouines), and several former members of the Weather Underground, now belonging to the May 19 Communist Organization (David Gilbert, Samuel Brown, Judith Alice Clark, Kathy Boudin, and Marilyn Buck), and an unknown number of accomplices.[1:] They stole $1.6 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, in Nanuet, New York, killing two police officers, Edward O'Grady and Waverly Brown, and a Brinks guard, Peter Paige.
-- Wikipedia "Brinks robbery (1981)"
Maybe not all the same, but these look like birds of a feather.
Sorry. I actually missed this post the first time. Must have been taking me along time to write my other comment. Point taken. Maybe the Weather Underground was like a gateway drug.
Russ -- regarding 1968 and the radicals of Columbia, the people were dull. The times had their moments.
Banality of evil?
Dull people doing awful things?
Dull people doing awful things?
Politburo meetings are dull, without or without the genocide.
Yes, maybe -- most of them anyway. Which was why I thought Hannah Arendt's phrase might echo your point. I was agreeing, not disagreeing, I thought.
You'll know you're out of denial when you weep like a baby at the end of King Lear for Cordelia and Lear...there might be hope for your recovery.
Same goes if you weep for Merry.
Candy, I love your thought-provoking take on the matter. I've been thinking about it, and it finally clarifies a reaction of mine in another context.
I remember my reaction when I saw the very first pictures of Timothy McVeigh, the American "Oklahoma Terrorist," being led from jail to the police car in handcuffs and orange prison jumpsuit. I was shocked to experience overwhelming empathy and infinite sadness. . . because I have a son who looks exactly like him. And I thought "What a shame!" It took a long time for my sympathy for his predicament to fade, even though I was fully aware of the crime(s) he had committed. And I knocked on wood because there, but for the grace of God, might be my son. My well-behaved son I should add. But still.
So, yes, our deepest parental feelings may be there, deep within our thickest outer shells, if I am taking your point correctly.
Same goes if you weep for Merry.
Candy, I love your thought-provoking take on the matter. I've been thinking about it, and it finally clarifies a reaction of mine in another context.
I remember my reaction when I saw the very first pictures of Timothy McVeigh, the American "Oklahoma Terrorist," being led from jail to the police car in handcuffs and orange prison jumpsuit. I was shocked to experience overwhelming empathy and infinite sadness. . . because I have a son who looks exactly like him. And I thought "What a shame!" It took a long time for my sympathy for his predicament to fade, even though I was fully aware of the crime(s) he had committed. And I knocked on wood because there, but for the grace of God, might be my son. My well-behaved son I should add. But still.
So, yes, our deepest parental feelings may be there, deep within our thickest outer shells, if I am taking your point correctly.
As with all good things, there is Oregon poetry to address the situation. Consider The Best American Poetry 1996, a book Harold Bloom called one of "badness not to be believed" and a "monumental representation of the enemies of the aesthetic". In its pages, you will find "Sestina for Jaime" by Katherine Alice Power who was serving time in prison having recently given herself up as a participant in a 1970s bank robbery by an anti-war group. The poem is a reflection from prison on the life and son she left in Oregon:
"She dreams she has become the flow of the river;
And basking in the sun, that she has always been a rock
That she once tried to keep house,
Baking cookies for a human boy. He dreams it is summer;
That he still has a mother holding back from the cold,
And watching, watching him."
Even though Merry headed off to Oregon to learn more about bombing, she doesn't seem to have become one with the flow of the river. Maybe if she had stayed longer.
You know Russ, when I read your post regarding the empathy you momentarily felt for McVeigh of all things Humbert Humbert popped into my head. The villain we hate to...not love, but at least sympathize and empathize with. Perhaps Roth is a better writer than I gave mental credit to him for, after all here is a young woman, not particularly likable, raises all sorts of sand with parents, falls in with the Weathermen, bombs a post office and inadvertently kills a beloved member of the community. And here I am feeling sorrow at her plight.
Nice twist.
I actually feel more sorrow for Merry than Swede, after all he did get to live a life, a real life, not one on the run with all the terrible things that befell Merry. She didn't get away with anything by running, in fact she paid a higher price by running than if she'd stayed and faced charges.
Nice twist.
I actually feel more sorrow for Merry than Swede, after all he did get to live a life, a real life, not one on the run with all the terrible things that befell Merry. She didn't get away with anything by running, in fact she paid a higher price by running than if she'd stayed and faced charges.
Dick's experiences at Columbia brought up the name of Dick's classmate Mark Rudd in my memory bank. To spare Dick the necessity of updating everyone on his doings, Mark has his own website [http://www.markrudd.com/]It turns out that Mark was a neighbor of Merry's, growing up in Maplewood, N.J. Joining the Weather Underground when he left Columbia, he palled around with Bill Ayers and became an ESL teacher In Albequerque where he currently leads demonstrations against various government policies. An extensive personal history can be found at his web site along with pictures of his mother.
Who else is responsible if it weren't the parents...oh I know, no one wants to believe that a parent is so responsible..but who else is ? And Roth is writing the saddest tale of parental agony and denial.
Absolutely Candy, I have to fully agree. Granted parents are given the basics to work with, but certainly a child is malleable material and it's the parent's job to bend the child in a productive and creative manner.
Absolutely Candy, I have to fully agree. Granted parents are given the basics to work with, but certainly a child is malleable material and it's the parent's job to bend the child in a productive and creative manner.
Pontalba, the idea of middle-class life being the antagonist was something I just threw out as the idea hit me. It seems that Swede's entire life has been dedicated to coming out of his working class Jewish background and reaching the goyisch middle class dream--basketball, big house, big car, beautiful wife---all by doing what he considers "the right thing." It works, to a certain extent. But it doesn't save him.
He's constantly struggling with this, ergo that's why I had the antagonist thought.
Jim, Thanks for that link to Mark Rudd. Being an old Columbia grad myself I of course know the name very well. I am also eye-witness to the pre-1960 organizing efforts at Columbia which don't seem to find their way into the official S.D.S story. Nevertheless, I especially appreciated being able to read the selection "Who is Mark Rudd" in its entirety. It confirmed for me, in detail and as nothing else has, that I am not Mark Rudd, neither emotionally, intellectually nor politically. A bracing feeling, so now I'll go back and sit on my side of the generational gorge here, dangle my legs over the edge, and continue to try to relate to folks on the other rim across the way as well as I can from time to time. Or else just watch in between times.
Perhaps Roth is a better writer than I gave mental credit to him for, after all here is a young woman, not particularly likable, raises all sorts of sand with parents, falls in with the Weathermen, bombs a post office and inadvertently kills a beloved member of the community. And here I am feeling sorrow at her plight.
Pontalba, an interesting observation. I wonder if that marks a particular skill among writers -- the ability to evoke positive reactions for a character with superficially negative attractiveness.
Pontalba, an interesting observation. I wonder if that marks a particular skill among writers -- the ability to evoke positive reactions for a character with superficially negative attractiveness.
Pontalba,I also thought of Vladamir Nabokov’s Humbert Humbert as a parallel to Merry. I feel sorry for both of them despite their heinous activies. But what came to my mind was the way Rita Cohen was Merry’s evil doppleganger like Clare Quilty (that creep who stole Lolita) was Humbert’s evil double.
Robt
But what came to my mind was the way Rita Cohen was Merry’s evil doppleganger like Clare Quilty (that creep who stole Lolita) was Humbert’s evil double.Good point, Robt.
....what came to my mind was the way Rita Cohen was Merry’s evil doppleganger like Clare Quilty (that creep who stole Lolita) was Humbert’s evil double.
Robert,
Oh, I like that! :) In many ways, the theft of affections [loosely speaking:], they both used sex to get money, Quilty through porn and Rita through blackmail/lying, and the way she dropped in and out of the story, hovering, evidently following both Merry and Swede. Both just plain creepy.
Russ,
It's certainly a realistic view of even a negative character, no human is all bad, and if we look closely at even the worst criminal objectively we'd be able to see something positive about them. It probably won't outweigh the bad, but it's there all the same.
Robert,
Oh, I like that! :) In many ways, the theft of affections [loosely speaking:], they both used sex to get money, Quilty through porn and Rita through blackmail/lying, and the way she dropped in and out of the story, hovering, evidently following both Merry and Swede. Both just plain creepy.
Russ,
It's certainly a realistic view of even a negative character, no human is all bad, and if we look closely at even the worst criminal objectively we'd be able to see something positive about them. It probably won't outweigh the bad, but it's there all the same.
It's certainly a realistic view of even a negative character, no human is all bad, and if we look closely at even the worst criminal objectively we'd be able to see something positive about them. It probably won't outweigh the bad, but it's there all the same.
Pontalba, I agree with that, and we see it frequently on TV in interviews with criminals on death row who have have reformed their ways and are shown in sympathetic new light. At the same time, I think of Dick's comments that the radicals at Columbia were dull, for all the trouble they caused. So, returning to topic, if this book were about Mark Rudd, say, rather than Merry Levov, I doubt I'd be interested. His description of his life leaves me uninterested in learning more about him or his activities. So, the other side of the coin is that Roth had the talent you mention to make Merry's story interesting despite its unappealing aspects, it seems to me.
Pontalba, I agree with that, and we see it frequently on TV in interviews with criminals on death row who have have reformed their ways and are shown in sympathetic new light. At the same time, I think of Dick's comments that the radicals at Columbia were dull, for all the trouble they caused. So, returning to topic, if this book were about Mark Rudd, say, rather than Merry Levov, I doubt I'd be interested. His description of his life leaves me uninterested in learning more about him or his activities. So, the other side of the coin is that Roth had the talent you mention to make Merry's story interesting despite its unappealing aspects, it seems to me.
This has been a great discussion about what made Merry the way she was. I immediately thought of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold when I read about Merry. I taught in Jefferson County Public Schools where Columbine is located, and I had several friends and acquaintances who worked there. When Eric and Dylan killed all of those students, I felt sorry for the parents of the two boys. Some people tried to excuse the behavior of those two boys by saying that they were bullied and were not part of the school. In fact, they were both on the yearbook staff and one of them was on the soccer team until his senior year. One of them was also the student assistant for one of the security guards at Columbine. She later transferred to my school and told me that he was very helpful to her, because he knew so much about computers. Do you think those upper middle class parents knew that they were raising monsters? I think not. They must have felt what the Swede and Dawn felt: Where did we go so wrong? I have often wondered what happened to those parents. By the way, I liked the Swede. He was a pleaser and wanted to be successful in life. I am sure that I would have liked him, had he been a real person.
Jane
If I gave the impression I didn't care for Swede I certainly didn't mean to, I thought him a sweetie. I don't think he handled some things right, or I'll be honest, the way I would have handled them, but so what, he did the best he was capable of doing, and he did well within his personality parameters.
It was a terrible situation and he tried to do his best with it, even to visiting the family of the doctor that was killed by the bomb, and the store owners. That took real courage and I admire his character for that honesty.
It was a terrible situation and he tried to do his best with it, even to visiting the family of the doctor that was killed by the bomb, and the store owners. That took real courage and I admire his character for that honesty.
I think the knowledge of "monster" comes after the fact, when we are all wise. But I think they must have known they were raising a politically engaged girl. And I suspect they regarded that as a good thing. Or perhaps a passing thing. Just guessing, from their relaxed attitude about it. After all, even in my schooling we were taught to write letters to our Congressmen and to take an interest in current events.
I know there was a lot of dithering about the veracity of Zuckerman's account of Swede's life, but really between what he already knew of Swede and Jerry's rather forceful account of things at the reunion, plus Zuckerman's remark about dreaming a realistic chronicle, I think it's safe to say it's pretty close.
Could Roth have been using a device such as omniscient narrator? Slipping in and out?
Just wondering.
Could Roth have been using a device such as omniscient narrator? Slipping in and out?
Just wondering.
Russ, I don't have the page to hand, but it was remarked that Merry went from thing to the next and I recall Swede telling Dawn at one point something to the effect of this stage will pass, she'll go on to college and all this will be forgotten.
If only. :(
If only. :(
It seems that Swede's entire life has been dedicated to coming out of his working class Jewish background and reaching the goyisch middle class dream--basketball, big house, big car, beautiful wife---all by doing what he considers "the right thing."
Do you think that Swede deliberately tried to put aside his Jewishness? I didn't get that impression for the most part. It sort of seemed to come to him partially in the beginning because of his Nordic looks. True he wasn't much interested in any religious aspects, any religion at all as far as I could tell.
In Jerry's version of Swede's life as told to Zuckerman he mentioned the offers Swede had turned down to follow his father's wishes to stay close to the family and the way he learned the business was certainly family oriented.
The courting of Dawn was the first thing I really thought of as 'going outside' so to speak.
Do you think that Swede deliberately tried to put aside his Jewishness? I didn't get that impression for the most part. It sort of seemed to come to him partially in the beginning because of his Nordic looks. True he wasn't much interested in any religious aspects, any religion at all as far as I could tell.
In Jerry's version of Swede's life as told to Zuckerman he mentioned the offers Swede had turned down to follow his father's wishes to stay close to the family and the way he learned the business was certainly family oriented.
The courting of Dawn was the first thing I really thought of as 'going outside' so to speak.
I don't think he cared about the religion either, but being a Jew is more than just religion. You can give up the religion, but you'll still be a Jew. I think he connected Jewishness with the life of his childhood--work, work, work, with little respect paid. It seemed to me that through the whole book this constant comparison was being made, Swede the Present, with Swede the Past. The father against the wife. The factory's location against the location of Swede's home.
Yes Ruth,
I have been looking desperately for a paragraph I remember reading where Jerry characterizes Swede as wanting to succeed, but not in his father's way or the way of his forebears, and I wish I had the paragraph so I could use its exact words. But, roughly speaking, and I hope I do not offend anyone here, I recall that Jerry said Swede wanted to succeed in the "way" of the Orcutt's not in the "way" of his father. It is not a description I would have dared make, because of its invidious ethnic/cultural comparison, but Roth seems comfortable creating characters who think and express themselves that way. When I find it, or its closest equivalent, I'll post it up.
I have been looking desperately for a paragraph I remember reading where Jerry characterizes Swede as wanting to succeed, but not in his father's way or the way of his forebears, and I wish I had the paragraph so I could use its exact words. But, roughly speaking, and I hope I do not offend anyone here, I recall that Jerry said Swede wanted to succeed in the "way" of the Orcutt's not in the "way" of his father. It is not a description I would have dared make, because of its invidious ethnic/cultural comparison, but Roth seems comfortable creating characters who think and express themselves that way. When I find it, or its closest equivalent, I'll post it up.
...but being a Jew is more than just religion. You can give up the religion, but you'll still be a Jew.
I am aware of all the ramifications of being a Jew, I only mentioned the religious aspect because he did not show any interest in any other type of religion, so it certainly was not on religious grounds he wandered.
I didn't see any particular rebellion against his past, but so much detail was left to the reader's imagination it's hard to say.
However the very act of marrying a woman that was not a Jew was an act of rebellion in this case.
It appears Merry inherited her [eventual:] passive-aggressive behavior from Swede.
I am aware of all the ramifications of being a Jew, I only mentioned the religious aspect because he did not show any interest in any other type of religion, so it certainly was not on religious grounds he wandered.
I didn't see any particular rebellion against his past, but so much detail was left to the reader's imagination it's hard to say.
However the very act of marrying a woman that was not a Jew was an act of rebellion in this case.
It appears Merry inherited her [eventual:] passive-aggressive behavior from Swede.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Control Freak (other topics)
Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (other topics)
Beloved (other topics)
Gilead (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Blast from the Past (other topics)Control Freak (other topics)
Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (other topics)
Beloved (other topics)
Gilead (other topics)
More...
Heh. Her parents seem to be more clueless than even we are here. At least some of us can guess connections, even if we don't all agree. On p102, in the anguished conversation between Dawn and Swede, he can only come up with (not that he is necessarily wrong) But I definitely agree that such a prominent scene has to serve some purpose in the overall context of the novel, even if not the Freudian one.