American Pastoral
discussion
Constant Reader
date
newest »
newest »
Sara: Not that crazy about Roth, either, and I did realize in the a.m. that the idea was nonsensical...as I said, reading Vidal has a strange effect on me.Robert, I'll venture out again: do you have an opinion on whether Roth is more easily appreciated by men than by women? I'm just asking.
Although A.P. predates 9/11...I think it is an excellent opportunity to muse about what makes a terrorist. We've had extremeists and terrorists forever. Literature has explored and been able to trap into what "makes an extremist" quite aptly.I did mention this a few posts ago, so sorry if I am repeating myself...but I think American Pastoral is a brilliant portrait of how to make a terrorist. In literature we find that it is nihilism. Remember the movie Syriana? We see that the young men have lost thier jobs and hopes for a life or respect. They drive their boat into a ship near the end of the movie. In The Secret Agent it utter nihilism that motivates the terrorists.
found nothing to approve of in the established social order
Merry has not been able to find anything to approve of in the established social order...I think the novel is obvious in it's observation of this root of terrorism...and it is beyond me why many other readers...and some lit crits and reviewers don't see this!!?
What made Merry the way she is? The established social order...but it is a metaphor within her family.
(The Swede's attitude to African American labourers, to families who worked for him, his family's goal for profiting-the connection to no jobs and crime...is a kind of metaphor for not seeing the whole picture...in fact...the only "real" thing we know about the Swede is his own words between pages 1 and 79?)
Roth's brilliance is the framing devices he uses.
These framing devoces...of Zuckermans fantasy of Swede's imaginary life allows the reader an involvemnt in caring about the main character at the same time as delivering a painful message.
Yes, I agree with Robert and Barb that this s a cautionary tale. A tale so painful and...they might even walk away feeling like they don't know what made Merry do it!
It is a kind of cushioning effect...this framing device.
Gail is also correct with her intuition that the novel is a metaphor for 9/11. It is a metaphor for what makes a person hate. So Gail, you're right when we understand what a terrorist is...a nihilist. After 9/11 we had a lot of armchair experts telling us the terrorists were about religion or faith-gone-wild.
BS. Terrorism is nihilisim acted out to the extreme. Roth and readers have described Merry as "hate" and that is correct.
American Pastoral is much more accurately a metaphor of Oklahoma.
I feel differently about the parents responsibility in this novel. I think the last dozen posts here about faith, the families religions, the grandparents and the parents not stepping in between some of the behaviour of the grandparents is very important.
This ties into the nickname SWEDE.
Swede and Dawn are inside the matrix of the established social order. Their culpability is for not seeing it's weakness the way Merry did...nd being able to teach her. They are blind..so in that way...I can give them some tolerance. Swede was blind because he couldn't see outside the established social order. We are given an example of his blindness (ignorance/denial if you prefer) from his own words pages 22-39.
King Lear was blind too.
So the parents can be forgiven.
The responsibility for understanding and comprehension and culpability has been left with the reader. I think the "crime" or "fault" of the Swede was that he didn't see the whole picture...he couldn't or wouldn't see how all that he believed in might be dangerous. The established social order does't have a place for everyone...therefore the ones left out have the potential to become nihilistic. (disenfranchised/alienated if you prefer)
How can one read King Lear and American Pastoral and not learn cautionary lessons?
Now..the reader has no excuse for ignorance...these stories have in common valuable lessons for parenting....and for seeing through the weaknesses in the established social order...?
We can give the Swede a pass. We can feel empathy and sorrow for King Lear...but now the reader is more wise than the Swede or Lear...?
Or are we?
:)
Addendum: I believe the novel is a masterpiece because Roth is showcasing the flaws in the established social order but he is doing it through art and imagination...not by blowing up the opera house.
Gail, I think that it might be easier for men to appreciate some aspects of Roth’s writing. I read Portnoy’s Complaint when I was in high school and I strongly related to a subject in the novel that was a male activity and I can understand why guys might find this early novel more relevant or interesting. But I also think that Roth is very accessible to women. In this discussion the women have made every bit as insightful commentary as the men. So, who knows. Robt
My goodness, Candy, I don't agree with your conclusions. I don't think we have evidence within the story for them. And I don't see the comparison with Lear at all. Didn't he blind himself when he saw the mistakes he had made? That is, didn't he punish himself in an extreme sort of way for his spiritual lack of sight? So how does Swede, who goes on to a whole new life, fit in with that idea?Thanks for your quick reply, Robert. Some other Roth works that I've read have been hard for me too appreciate. I don't just mean Portnoy or The Breast. His work is difficult for me to like, but then it's difficult for me to like Norman Mailer as well. I do see A.P. as a multi-level work with many nuances; indeed I think there'e some excellent writing in it.
For some of us hearing that a book is just like Moby Dick doesn’t necessarily make us rush to the bookstore. Oh Jim, that made me laugh.
I have long come to understand that we don't all like the same stories or frmats...and nor do we have to...and I forget often...that not everyone loves Moby Dick ha ha!
I think Wilhelmina...too that the only "real" part of the novel is the first 78-80 pages is a frustrating aspect for many readers...we want to engage in ur characters...it is uncomfortable to give in if we feel it's "fake" or we're being played with by an author...sometimes...
Wilhelmina, I think that is on purpose the laienated feeling of not connecting to the characters in the way Roth has constructed the book. The stories within stories and tangents...I believe are there to interest us and alienate us and serve as a protection. The book is suggesting somethign very painful It suggests...that we may be wrong. Zuckerman points this out twice in the first 40 pages by using himself.
The novel suggests that the established social order is wrong...dangerous...a potential alineating force...and for those peple who are emotionally, financially and politically enmeshed in supporting the belif system behind the established social order...this could be a painful book.
I think it's interesting that the framing devices are alienating in a story about the dangers of alienation.
Hey everybody...I don't expect others to agree that this book is a masterpiece...but I thought I would make an attempt to give you some reasons why I think it is...and the style, the framing and the criticism of the established social order, the potential connection to terrorism are some of the major reasons.
I keep thinking about this theme of an approach/avoidance attitude towards Jewish community that Roth writes so much about. It seems to me that the reason for the seemingly two sections of the book (reunion and Swede) might be that Zuckerman is returning to the Jewish culture and feeling surprising peace. Swede left and felt none. What do you all think about that? Also, I wanted to highlight one of my favorite sections, when Roth introduces Lou Levov:
Mr. Levov was one of those slum-reared Jewish fathers whose rough-hewn, undereducated perspective goaded a whole generation of striving, college-educationed Jewish sons: a father for whom everything is an unshakable duty, for whom there is a right way and a wrong way and nothing in between, a father whose compound of ambitions, biases, and beliefs is so unruffled by careful thinking that he isn't as easy to escape from as he seems. Limited men with limitless energy; men quick to be friendly and quick to be fed up; men for whom the most serious thing in life is to keep going despite everything. And we were their sons. It was our job to love them.
That whole paragraph is a wonderful example of why I've become such a big Philip Roth. I don't think it can be said any better and "limited men with limitless energy" particularly speaks to me.
Oh my gosh, Steve, that's one of the nicest things I've ever had said about me. I'm going to save it. I remember really liking that passage when I read it. It's my "ideal self" as a mother and, maybe, as a person.
Barb and Steve,I liked the sections that you posted about the Swede's parents. It made me think of what has bothered me most about this whole discussion of Swede as a parent. The Swede did the best that he could, and he followed the lead of his own father. I know that I got the same message as a child that Merry got. My job was to work hard and live a better life than my parents did. My parents weren't perfect, but they did what they thought was right. Merry chose to rebel against her background. I chose to be a good kid and follow the rules. There was a "boy" (five years older than I am) from my hometown who went to college, became a Rhodes Scholar, went to graduate school in NYC, rebelled and became president of the SDS. Last I heard he is on a commune up in Washington State.
Jane
The Swede did the best that he could, and he followed the lead of his own father.
Jane, I agree Swede probably did the best he was able, but his vacillation and indecision was nothing like his father. Lou, even when wrong, plowed right over everyone and everything in his path, almost a force of nature. Swede followed his father too much as far as I am concerned, he seemed to lack a spine as far as I could see.
Maybe that is the legacy of some strong minded [I understate in Lou's case:] parents, they don't allow or encourage their children to make decisions on their own and go toward their own leanings. Granted a great deal of direction needs to be given a child, but they must be allowed within parameters to do what they are not only best at, but are inclined to do.
Swede acquiesced on every level....only standing ground when it came to marrying Dawn, and that ridiculous interrogation that Lou put her through was galling to say the least, but Swede allowed it. I still can't get over that.
Jane, I agree Swede probably did the best he was able, but his vacillation and indecision was nothing like his father. Lou, even when wrong, plowed right over everyone and everything in his path, almost a force of nature. Swede followed his father too much as far as I am concerned, he seemed to lack a spine as far as I could see.
Maybe that is the legacy of some strong minded [I understate in Lou's case:] parents, they don't allow or encourage their children to make decisions on their own and go toward their own leanings. Granted a great deal of direction needs to be given a child, but they must be allowed within parameters to do what they are not only best at, but are inclined to do.
Swede acquiesced on every level....only standing ground when it came to marrying Dawn, and that ridiculous interrogation that Lou put her through was galling to say the least, but Swede allowed it. I still can't get over that.
Pontalba,You have a point about the Swede, and I agree that the interrogation was awful, but I can see how such a thing could seem acceptable in the late 40's. I remember in the 50's when I was a small child hearing my sweet-tempered father saying, "My wife is never going to go to work. I don't want people thinking that I can't support my family!" Those were the days when the man of the household was all powerful. Later my mother did work, but by then no one cared.
It is interesting that you mention how the Swede vacillated. I have a passage marked in my book about this very subject. The Swede is talking to Jerry on the phone after the Swede has seen Merry:
"Dad? He f***ing let you slide through - don't you know that? If Dad said, 'Look, you'll never get my approval for this, never, I am not having grandchildren half this and half that,' then you would have had to make a choice. But you NEVER had to make a choice. NEVER. Because he let you slide through. Everybody has always let you slide through. And that is why, to this day, nobody knows who you are. You are unrevealed - that is the story, Seymour, UNREVEALED. That is why your own daughter decided to blow you away. You are never straight about anything and she hated you for it. You keep yourself a secret. You don't choose EVER."
But still I have a soft spot for the Swede. I loved the parts when he was reminiscing about Merry's childhood, and he thought of the wonderful things she had done as a child. One of those is when she helped her mother bring in the cows at the end of the day.
Jane
Jane, I'm glad you posted what Jerry said in that phone conversation. I'd forgotten about it. Don't you think that Roth is giving us another thought here about the assimilation process? He could be anybody, therefore he's nobody. He is essentially unrevealed. Now, I'm trying to decide if Roth meant that Swede did this purposely or if it was an outgrowth of who he was physically.
Barb,I think others view him as unrevealed, but he reveals so much of himself to us in the book. I think I mentioned once that I thought of the Swede as a "pleaser". He has spent his whole life trying to please others that no one is sure who he is, I guess.
Jane
I guess in a way I see Swede as rather passive-aggressive in behavior. Yes his father let him slide as Jerry says in your excerpt Ruth, and now I begin to wonder if it's possible that Jerry has the most realistic take on Swede. Unvarnished to say the least, but true? It seems to me being a pleaser could be a symptom of passive-aggressive behavior, or even the assimilation process. He felt he couldn't rightly belong in either camp.
Zuckerman talked about Swede being empty or a non-entity in the beginning and in a way I can see that he was, or at least he burned himself out with trying to please everyone. Merry was only the outward part of that, the outward expression of his failure in a sense.
It isn't that I dislike Swede, but I find it difficult to respect anyone that is unable to take a stand on things so important.
Zuckerman talked about Swede being empty or a non-entity in the beginning and in a way I can see that he was, or at least he burned himself out with trying to please everyone. Merry was only the outward part of that, the outward expression of his failure in a sense.
It isn't that I dislike Swede, but I find it difficult to respect anyone that is unable to take a stand on things so important.
Although the interrogation of Dawn was horrible, I liked Dawn for being able to stand toe-to-toe with Lou and not be crushed. And actually, I thought that it showed respect for Dawn when Swede didn't try to save her from it but let her handle it herself. Saving the maiden in distress gets old very quickly.I agree, Jane, that those kinds of interviews happened much more frequently in the past. I had a very good friend who, when she was planning to marry the son of a socially prominent Black Atlanta family, was taken for an interview with "Daddy" King (Martin's father) to see if she was "the right kind" for the young man to marry. And this was in the '70s!
I see your point Mina, but somehow I doubt that Swede's non-intervention stemmed from respect for Dawn as a person or her right to defend herself.
I had a creepy-crawly feeling at the time and truly thought Swede should first of all not put her in that position and if he did he should have stepped in and informed his father in the most respectful manner that they would raise their child as they saw fit. As Lou and his wife raised Swede and Jerry in the manner they wished to do.
It is a man's duty in my old fashioned opinion to defend the his chosen mate, even against his own father. There has to be a line that can't be crossed and Lou not only crossed it, he in his usual bulldozer manner crashed and destroyed it.
An interview with a child's prospective mate is one thing and perfectly understandable and even commendable, but Lou's method...no.
I had a creepy-crawly feeling at the time and truly thought Swede should first of all not put her in that position and if he did he should have stepped in and informed his father in the most respectful manner that they would raise their child as they saw fit. As Lou and his wife raised Swede and Jerry in the manner they wished to do.
It is a man's duty in my old fashioned opinion to defend the his chosen mate, even against his own father. There has to be a line that can't be crossed and Lou not only crossed it, he in his usual bulldozer manner crashed and destroyed it.
An interview with a child's prospective mate is one thing and perfectly understandable and even commendable, but Lou's method...no.
But, it perfectly fit with Lou's character. It is the response of the "limited man with limitless energy" that Roth described at the beginning of the book. And, Swede's response fits with the man who is trying to be all things to all people.
Yes, it does fit. What a non-productive combination.
Hmm, that interogation was a nightmare. I can't understand who would do it, who would let their fiance go through it...Pontalbaq, I see your point. I think there are stories in families...even in older times than the 40's or 50's where lovers stood up for each other. I don't buy this "it was the 50's excuse". People do know better...but are bullied. And the Levov's are a family of bullies.As much as I liked the descriptive memories of the laughing of the mother of Swede...those parents were even worse than the Swede, in my opinion.
I just don't know how to capsulize the Swede...for me he was a robot. For others, he was the product of a father like Lou (yikes!)...
You know...just the section where Swede is the ultimate nag...I mean just that might be enough to drive a child away (maybe not to terrorism...but away)
Swede was the worldclass nag: regarding Merry hanging out downtown NY. Nothing in the entire novel redeemed him...or the family for me.
I feel Barbara has touched on something for me...Barb has been touching on the idea of the Jewish background of the family and it perhaps...being left behind. There is soemthing to this for me in this novel...but also for the Christian family when the grandmother keeps giving the Merry religious items. Again Swede nags his daughter or bullies her to hide them or not live with them (with guilt)
I find all of these people spiritually bankrupt, not anything likeable about any of them. But most of all...I don't think Roth liked any of them either...
Swede was the worldclass nag: regarding Merry hanging out downtown NY.
Ahh, now there he had a right to nag as far as I am concerned, although it seems to me he left "nagging" too little too late. Discipline evidently was not imposed on Merry as a youngster and by the teen years it was too late to demand obedience. That has to be ingrained from the earliest possible moment, gently but definite. There is no way I'd allow a child of mine to go off to the City and spend days with unknown persons. No Way Dick Tracy.
I can't see Swede as a robotic like figure. He was in far too much pain for that, but I do think he was torn all of his life and perhaps that is partially why he became a people pleaser.
I feel the religious opposites in the novel are the crux of the problem. Both Swede and Merry seem to have been put out in the cold by them, by the tearing of the grandparents on them. Merry didn't have parents that stood up to the grandparents, and evidently had no real discipline imposed, so therefore had no base to hold onto when she in turn was torn at by the political events of the time. She was an impressionable and passionate child that wasn't shown how to channel that passion in a productive manner.
Ahh, now there he had a right to nag as far as I am concerned, although it seems to me he left "nagging" too little too late. Discipline evidently was not imposed on Merry as a youngster and by the teen years it was too late to demand obedience. That has to be ingrained from the earliest possible moment, gently but definite. There is no way I'd allow a child of mine to go off to the City and spend days with unknown persons. No Way Dick Tracy.
I can't see Swede as a robotic like figure. He was in far too much pain for that, but I do think he was torn all of his life and perhaps that is partially why he became a people pleaser.
I feel the religious opposites in the novel are the crux of the problem. Both Swede and Merry seem to have been put out in the cold by them, by the tearing of the grandparents on them. Merry didn't have parents that stood up to the grandparents, and evidently had no real discipline imposed, so therefore had no base to hold onto when she in turn was torn at by the political events of the time. She was an impressionable and passionate child that wasn't shown how to channel that passion in a productive manner.
I don't think Roth liked any of them either...
Candy,
I am frankly puzzled, and partly put off, by the fact that Roth pushes the supposed Jewishness of his Jewish characters so much to the fore. Sure, it is an immigrant family living in New Jersey. Sure, it is a family successful in business. Sure, they got the Bamberger account by being 'pushy' and admiring that pushiness. Sure, they have problems fitting into a WASP environment, though he doesn't use the word. Sure, they are anti-Catholic. Sure, they have a son who has made it as a millionaire surgeon. And, sure, I suppose he writes what he knows, and does it well.
But I have the feeling that he loves and admires and reveres these genial old memories of a supposedly endearing cranky old argumentative family. Can I say archetype? Or, maybe more likely stereotype? To me, it is like the wonderful romanticized glowing shtetl aura of Fiddler on the Roof brought down to gritty Earth in dreary industrial New Jersey. But others here seem to think Lou Levov is a wonderful guy, or a wonderful character. And I sort of think Roth thinks he's a wonderful guy too. Beats me; he's too much for me to take.
However, it is a core element of the story, so I suppose Roth feels it has significance for the story. Perhaps he has a moral for something I don't know anything about. And perhaps he is writing for a different audience that doesn't include me. As I said, I'm puzzled, and a little put off. That's my crankiness for the day. :)
Candy,
I am frankly puzzled, and partly put off, by the fact that Roth pushes the supposed Jewishness of his Jewish characters so much to the fore. Sure, it is an immigrant family living in New Jersey. Sure, it is a family successful in business. Sure, they got the Bamberger account by being 'pushy' and admiring that pushiness. Sure, they have problems fitting into a WASP environment, though he doesn't use the word. Sure, they are anti-Catholic. Sure, they have a son who has made it as a millionaire surgeon. And, sure, I suppose he writes what he knows, and does it well.
But I have the feeling that he loves and admires and reveres these genial old memories of a supposedly endearing cranky old argumentative family. Can I say archetype? Or, maybe more likely stereotype? To me, it is like the wonderful romanticized glowing shtetl aura of Fiddler on the Roof brought down to gritty Earth in dreary industrial New Jersey. But others here seem to think Lou Levov is a wonderful guy, or a wonderful character. And I sort of think Roth thinks he's a wonderful guy too. Beats me; he's too much for me to take.
However, it is a core element of the story, so I suppose Roth feels it has significance for the story. Perhaps he has a moral for something I don't know anything about. And perhaps he is writing for a different audience that doesn't include me. As I said, I'm puzzled, and a little put off. That's my crankiness for the day. :)
But others here seem to think Lou Levov is a wonderful guy, or a wonderful character. And I sort of think Roth thinks he's a wonderful guy too. Beats me; he's too much for me to take.
You and me both Russ, any guy it takes a fork in the face to stop is just a teensy bit too much for my taste.
At first I thought how thoughtful and kind it was of him to keep trying to feed drunken whatshername, but 'pon ruminating, it was only his own stubbornness and "you will do what I say" attitude that was at work there.
You and me both Russ, any guy it takes a fork in the face to stop is just a teensy bit too much for my taste.
At first I thought how thoughtful and kind it was of him to keep trying to feed drunken whatshername, but 'pon ruminating, it was only his own stubbornness and "you will do what I say" attitude that was at work there.
Pontalba, oh I agree with you about any kid going downtown with people no one in the family knew. I am not saying that Swede's issues with Merry going to downtown New York were wrong. I don't thik nagging is any kind of a productive parental tool. It usually works the opposite...and as this novel shows it was immediately after his nagging chapter ("converation #39, conversation #61" etc) that Merry blows up the post office!I think the secret to Zuckerman's "knowledge" and "research" of the Levov family...is not because he relates to them. He does not admire "jewishness" or Lou Levov.
Zuckerman understands completely how Merry could grow up angry.
He knows what would have made himself an angry teen. He knows because these are mistakes many parents make with children.
Nagging a 16 year old is a sign that the family unit broke down years earlier. A child that takes off like that despite knowing her parents concerns has already lost faith in the social order of the family.
So, Pontalba, I agree I wouldn't have let kid run downtown with strangers either. But nagging isn't a sign of good parenting. It's a sign of parental breakdown.
But others here seem to think Lou Levov is a wonderful guy, or a wonderful character. And I sort of think Roth thinks he's a wonderful guy too. Beats me; he's too much for me to take.
Russ, I am in full agreement here. The thing is...I guess there could be a stereotype of "supposed Jewishness" in what you say. I don't see it. What might be confused by some people as "jewishness" is actually found in all kinds of families. It's not Jewishness. It's a sense of entitlement. And people from all religions can have that delusion.
The "Jewishness" is a metaphor for justifying dictatorship of the social order. All kinds of families do this. In the 60's it wasn't just the religion of Jewish families where kids were sick of their history...kids were sick of lies and deception and profit hungry values. Kids rebelled in all kinds of religious families.
I like your Fiddler on the Roof reference Russ.
In a million years a father like Tevye would never be so remiss.
It's as if the Levov family had never even heard of Fiddler on the Roof. Again...it's as if th Levov family had never read King Lear.
The word archetype is perfect Russ...and after all Fiddler on the Roof is a riff on the archetype of King Lear.
The Jewishness or archetypes in the Levov family isn't the issue. The religion or so-called "traditions" are their xcuse for practicing dictatorships...in their family...in their rejection of community (the resentment of union wages,African Americans...or "race"..remember Lou Levov's litany? "taxes, corruption and race".
Lou Levov is a ________. Plain and simple.
Zuckerman meets Swede...describes him thusly:
something was on top of him that had called a halt to him. Something had turned him into a human platitide. Something had warned him: you must not run counter to anything.
I even wondered if it might not be his recent experience of the surgery and its aftereffects that was feeding my sense of someone who was not mentally sound.
I kept waiting for him to lay bare something more pointed unobjectionableness, but all that surfaced was more surface.
What he has instead of a being, I thought, is blandness-the guy's radiant with it.
And then...twice Zuckerman says "I was wrong".
I thought since Zuckerman said he was wrong...the rest of the novel would show us this man Swede was some kind of opposite or hero or a man of depth and passionate ethics.
What did the idea mean "I was wrong"?
Wrong about Swede being all of these things...a "surface covered with more surface"? Wrong about Swede being bland? Wrong about the Swede being unlikable?
I think this voicing of "being wrong" by Zuckerman psychs out the reader to a degree. It suggests to the reader that Zuckerman is going to find Swede likeable and a great person of depth.
Instead...page after page shows Swede to not be shallow, ut to be a man who had he chance not to be pliable or bland...but he never took it. Zuckerman thought Swede was perfect and bland because he had been spoiled and priviledged.
Zuckerman proceeds to show us that Swede had the options to not be so bland.
For me, the dinner meeting where Swede is all "here are my kids, my life is great" etc...is a good case of we're only as sick as our secrets.
What exactly did Zuckerman mean when he said "I was wrong"?
He was wrong about thinking the Swede was unaware or helpless of his blandness, mental unsoundness and surface persona.
Zuckerman spends the rest of the novel showing us all the choices the Swede had...he wasn't ever "an innocent" ...the Swede was a conscious person.
And even after the Swede suffers loss and sees the horror...he is still a phony upholding the social establishment showing Zuckerman
"his perfect life" in family photos. Swede never tells Zuckerman about his daughter...
the Swede is only as sick as his secrets...
Nagging a 16 year old is a sign that the family unit broke down years earlier. A child that takes off like that despite knowing her parents concerns has already lost faith in the social order of the family.
Candy,
I agree, and I incorrectly used the word nagging in place of discipline. If discipline had been imposed from birth they most likely would not have had the problem.
And even after the Swede suffers loss and sees the horror...he is still a phony upholding the social establishment showing Zuckerman
"his perfect life" in family photos. Swede never tells Zuckerman about his daughter...
Whilst at the reunion during Zuckerman and Jerry's conversation when Zuckerman bemoaned the fact he wasn't told about Merry by Swede during the famous dinner Jerry responded [roughly:] with well no, of course not, Swede thought everyone knew about what had happened, it was the elephant in the living room so to speak. Not only was it so paramount in Swede's life, he assumed that everyone knew about the bombing of the post office.
I think Swede was truly proud of his new family, I see nothing phony in that, he should have been proud of his second family, his sons were successful and handsome and most of all not bombers. He did it right that time...somehow. I wish a little bit had been said, even a thumbnail sketch of the second wife. Of course Merry was still an open wound to him and that is natural, but I have to admire the way he seems to have finally risen above his confusion and grief to manage a successful second family. I have to give it to him in the end he had the strength to go on. Many would not.
Candy,
I agree, and I incorrectly used the word nagging in place of discipline. If discipline had been imposed from birth they most likely would not have had the problem.
And even after the Swede suffers loss and sees the horror...he is still a phony upholding the social establishment showing Zuckerman
"his perfect life" in family photos. Swede never tells Zuckerman about his daughter...
Whilst at the reunion during Zuckerman and Jerry's conversation when Zuckerman bemoaned the fact he wasn't told about Merry by Swede during the famous dinner Jerry responded [roughly:] with well no, of course not, Swede thought everyone knew about what had happened, it was the elephant in the living room so to speak. Not only was it so paramount in Swede's life, he assumed that everyone knew about the bombing of the post office.
I think Swede was truly proud of his new family, I see nothing phony in that, he should have been proud of his second family, his sons were successful and handsome and most of all not bombers. He did it right that time...somehow. I wish a little bit had been said, even a thumbnail sketch of the second wife. Of course Merry was still an open wound to him and that is natural, but I have to admire the way he seems to have finally risen above his confusion and grief to manage a successful second family. I have to give it to him in the end he had the strength to go on. Many would not.
Hope no one is forgetting that AP was first published in 1997. Haven't read the thread but in scanning that thought popped into my head. I gave up on reading this for this discussion but may well read the posts later even if I've not read the book by then. I know, I know. I'm not stretching myself at the moment. Can't be helped -- sigh.
Dottie, this is early in the morning and I may not be coherent yet, but I am intrigued by your gentle reminder of the book's much more recent publication date. Thus prompted, one indeed can wonder the extent to which the book is accurate portrayal of the period, even though fictional, or instead also includes (perhaps unavoidably) re-appraisal and judgement of that era through modern eyes looking back.
To me the book blazes with a vivid sense of an I-was-there reality, and Roth was certainly there, as I was, along with many here. I've often wondered how to describe a cultural era, other than through having direct memory of it, or else taking (or writing) pictures of it. And maybe Roth would argue, as he did in the book, that his picture is as good as any other picture of it. Still, yours would be a good perspective for any of us to try to keep in mind in any reread of the story.
Alternatively, it may also be something we should keep in mind in discussing the story, since it is out of our discussion that your thought sprang, I think.
But I am still intrigued by how one captures a description of a culture. Margaret Mead comes to mind, but anthropology (if that is the field) is so far from any knowledge or background I have that I have to stick to examples nearer to home.
In which case, I would offer A Tree Grows in Brooklyn as a marker of its time, and an accurate marker at that. I lived then, in Brooklyn, and read it then, and the Nolan(?) family seemed like Brooklyn to me. So I can certainly say there are visible worlds and aeons of difference between Tree and Pastorale. Further, how do we distinguish them confidently from Fiddler in terms of verisimilitude? Was there ever a golden past?
Enough!
Dottie, I do hope you get to read the book someday and come back to us with your thoughts. Although starting now to share your thoughts hasn't been a bad idea either. :) So I would like to hear them.
Sincerely
Russ
To me the book blazes with a vivid sense of an I-was-there reality, and Roth was certainly there, as I was, along with many here. I've often wondered how to describe a cultural era, other than through having direct memory of it, or else taking (or writing) pictures of it. And maybe Roth would argue, as he did in the book, that his picture is as good as any other picture of it. Still, yours would be a good perspective for any of us to try to keep in mind in any reread of the story.
Alternatively, it may also be something we should keep in mind in discussing the story, since it is out of our discussion that your thought sprang, I think.
But I am still intrigued by how one captures a description of a culture. Margaret Mead comes to mind, but anthropology (if that is the field) is so far from any knowledge or background I have that I have to stick to examples nearer to home.
In which case, I would offer A Tree Grows in Brooklyn as a marker of its time, and an accurate marker at that. I lived then, in Brooklyn, and read it then, and the Nolan(?) family seemed like Brooklyn to me. So I can certainly say there are visible worlds and aeons of difference between Tree and Pastorale. Further, how do we distinguish them confidently from Fiddler in terms of verisimilitude? Was there ever a golden past?
Enough!
Dottie, I do hope you get to read the book someday and come back to us with your thoughts. Although starting now to share your thoughts hasn't been a bad idea either. :) So I would like to hear them.
Sincerely
Russ
one indeed can wonder the extent to which the book is accurate portrayal of the period, even though fictional, or instead also includes (perhaps unavoidably) re-appraisal and judgement of that era through modern eyes looking back.Participating in this discussion, I have concluded that, although many of us lived through the period, every one of us has their own version of the '60s, probably all equally valid and limited. For me, Roth's view is way off, particularly in terms of Merry vs. real extremists. And no, no, no, there was no golden past.
Participating in this discussion, I have concluded that, although many of us lived through the period, every one of us has their own version of the '60s, probably all equally valid and limited.
Wilhelmina, Yes I think you are absolutely correct now that you point it out. And it is not only that we now look back with different eyes from different attitudes and experience levels. In fact, you point to the certainty that, even when the 60's were right there before our eyes and we were living them, we each saw them then with different eyes and attitudes and experiences. I was 35 then, and we know what being "over 30" meant then. So I know I saw things differently from the under 30's. And no doubt still do.
Many thanks
Russ
Wilhelmina, Yes I think you are absolutely correct now that you point it out. And it is not only that we now look back with different eyes from different attitudes and experience levels. In fact, you point to the certainty that, even when the 60's were right there before our eyes and we were living them, we each saw them then with different eyes and attitudes and experiences. I was 35 then, and we know what being "over 30" meant then. So I know I saw things differently from the under 30's. And no doubt still do.
Many thanks
Russ
Yes, Pontalba, discipline is a good example and we agree on some of the things missing in the Levov family.I think this is a story that is slightly bigger than the 60's although it is very well focused on that time. I think we can see alternative changes, ideals and practices in the whole century....culminating most radically in the 60's.
Russ...here is part of my take "anthropoology-wise: I think that the stifling nature of the established order was leading people...quite often young people, to a disappontment in their society...and a sekeking for alternative ways to make a living, to live and think.
We can see with the beginning of the "health food movement" in the 1930's...the popularity of Adele Davis in the 50's and 60's. We can see that Montessori movement was an attempt to reconcile powermad pedological teaching styles in schools with a more stuent friendly environment.
We can see the popularity of a writer like Herman Hesse and the introduction and interest in Eastern belief systems because people felt that Judeo-Christian religions might have been "in cahoots" with the estalished social order of Europe and U.S. (and in Canada we had some political rebellion too...but not as wild and radical or prevalent...we more or less learned form our big sisters Europe and U.S. and changed accordingly, quietly)
We still see many reactionary movements rejecting a sense of "something wrong with how we live" in North America. The home schooling revolution, the Quaker lifestyle, the Mennonites, Mormons, &th Day Adventists, vegetarianism, new age beliefs, goranic farming...
All of these are signs we can observe in a view from anthropology as grassroots movements due to the feeling many different people have that something isn't engouh in the way we live.
The character Merry is a construction of the most exptreme and actually Rita Cohen is an insightful character...sas she really represents how frustrated many young people were at the thimes when they were old enoguh to look at how the world worked.
Rita Cohen could have been anystudent...and lets set aside the violence...many people shared those perspectives...who never ever got violent but did do radical changes to their life. Stephen Gaskin (the Farm) , Grateful Dead fans... and the Rainbow Family are another example of people saying..."something is wrong, lets live differently"..(I bet Robert knows those three factions of counter culture...no?)
Russ...here is an interesting article written by the brilliant Marvin Harris about some uprising at his school in the 60's. He is the anthropologist I mentioned earlier. I'm trying to find you some stuff online...or that I might be able to email you or snail mail to you...
http://www.publicanthropology.org/Tim...
Amusing -- my reminder that this was a book written in 1997 arose from a mention of the events of 9/11/2001. I was concerned to turn thoughts back to the era it was written to address -- the '60's. But interesting, yes, that this is written several decades "after the fact" for Roth's memory or for the memories of those of us who did live in that time and were of an age that we either were/were not participants in the events of the times. I was a college student in the mid-sixties (and at that point Kent State hadn't yet become "known" for "the shootings at...") but this shy to the point of painfulness girl from small-town mid-America was not out joining any demonstrations etc -- and with naturally curly hair which did best kept quite short, I was an unlikely candidate for hippiedom (not to mention many other reasons that didn't "fit"). I am hoping to get the book as I said and will read further in this discussion but refrain from further comment most likely.
Candy, Dottie,
A very interesting blast from the past, that Harris article. I was at Columbia in those days and saw it all first-hand and, being over 35, was therefore already part of the "stifling nature of the established order," as you put it Candy. :)
I suppose the relevance of the Harris article for this AP discussion is that the grievances of the Columbia students might be taken as emblematic of the counter-cultural ferment that might have influenced Merry to blow up the Post Office. And an even tighter connection might also be imagined, since her trips into the City were of course into the very New York City in which Columbia University is located. And even tighter yet, possibly to visit and stay with New York intellectuals who might have been at the University. So that article provides a valuable background reminiscence of what was going on at the time and anchors one kind of influence that one might imaginatively suppose Merry was exposed to. In addition, of course, to nightly TV coverage of Viet-Nam War horrors and Lou Levov's incessant declamations and letter writing.
A very interesting blast from the past, that Harris article. I was at Columbia in those days and saw it all first-hand and, being over 35, was therefore already part of the "stifling nature of the established order," as you put it Candy. :)
I suppose the relevance of the Harris article for this AP discussion is that the grievances of the Columbia students might be taken as emblematic of the counter-cultural ferment that might have influenced Merry to blow up the Post Office. And an even tighter connection might also be imagined, since her trips into the City were of course into the very New York City in which Columbia University is located. And even tighter yet, possibly to visit and stay with New York intellectuals who might have been at the University. So that article provides a valuable background reminiscence of what was going on at the time and anchors one kind of influence that one might imaginatively suppose Merry was exposed to. In addition, of course, to nightly TV coverage of Viet-Nam War horrors and Lou Levov's incessant declamations and letter writing.
I am Merry’s contemporary—I was sixteen in 1968—and I identify with many of the alternative movements that came out of that period, but I don’t feel so harsh about the Swede and his lifestyle. I understand about my generation’s discontent with the status quo, about our need to redefine cultural values and boundaries. However, as I get older I have also become aware that it was through the responsibility and hard work from my parents’ generation that I was afforded the opportunity to focus on important issues beyond survival concerns. My reading is that Swede and Dawn are lovingly presented, as is Lou Levov. Yes, Lou is over-the-top and can be exasperating, but he is essentially a fine man, well-intentioned, decent, hard-working, direct, capable and loving to his family. I like Lou and the Swede while recognizing they have limitations.
I feel about Merry like I feel about the Weathermen: they took a wrong turn and lost my support due to their violent resistance. I support the Gandhi, Rosa Parks approach to social transformation. I am engaged in the peaceful evolution of gay rights. The pen is mightier than the sword, natch.
Candy, I have three friends involved in the alternative efforts you mentioned: a die-hard Deadhead, a Rainbow Family Gathering attendee and a woman who gave natural childbirth to her son at The Farm in Tennessee. Are you familiar with the slacker-glorifying, Bob worshiping Church of the Sub-Genius?
Robt
I agree with you both, Robt and Steve. The thing I liked about Roth's character development in this book was that they were all people just trying to do their best in the environments and life experiences that he gave them. It's not terribly important to me whether I "like" them or not, as I would neighbors or co-workers. I'm more interested in what Roth was trying to do with them as a writer.
I think for me, I just can't imagine knowing these people...they are just very different than any sensibility I know or would hang out with...they seem really from such another time.I think also Roth has written them fairly dry and sensationally...and the gap between the family and the new generation is muc bigger gap than we see now a days. I think that is what is fascinating...and what makes it such a unigue time...a difficult time for families.
I mean, I grew up in a very different time and family...I went to these incredibly almost comical liberal schools on the west coast. My parents thought of them selves as "cool or hip"...they weren't but heh heh...for their time I guess they were about a hip as parents could be. They were really into the changes that had happened in the world. They listened to rock music like The Doors, The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin was my dads favourite band.
So...in many ways, as Barb sasy, it's isn't about me liking the family and characters so much as what Roth is doing with them, why he writes the way he does...so cold and mechanical...?why so extreme? Why no "real" what happened.
I mean, privately, between us here...I don't like any of them...but that isn't what I take from the story...it's more than not liking them I am opposite of Steve and Robert...as I believe these are hideous people...and unlikable on any level...but why does he write like this? I still am not sure why the style is so distant and the framing device so alienating?
On a slightly different note...but not much...
I was trying to watchan unscripted tv series called Whale Wars. I thought it sounded like an adventurous and ethical idea for a program ...I watched 6 episodes. It is a boat of international crew going to follow Japanese whaling ships. They get close and throw little packages of sulphuric stuff...it doesn't hurt anyone...but the chemical mixute is so pungent...it taints any meat and makes eye water. They also drop ropes in front of the ships in hopes of clogging the whaling ships propellers.
Right away...I was nervous. The captain of the ship is Paul Watson, who started Greenpeace...but was voted off because he was too violent in his approach.
The crew thinks of themselves as hooligans, pirates and celebrate their bravado.
I had to stop watching it...because as much as I despise whaling of any kind...I didn't like the dynamic on the ship of "eco-terrorists"...
I feel for the cause...but this guy Paul Watson (who doesn't know someone who said they started Greenpeace? I know half a dozen people who say they started Greenpeace...but they don't actually know each other ha ha...I did know one fellow who knew this Paul Watson, and voted him out of the Greenpeace...and he passed away last yeaar...here is what I wrote about him:)
http://gnosticminx.blogspot.com/2008/...
Aywas...the dynamic on this ecoterroist ship is that you've got a bunch of very young adults...who may be disenfranchized, they have counterculture hair and wardrobes and a sense of wanting to change the world...they have unresolved anger issues...being led by a man with unresolved anger issues...who I believe the young people look up to him...and he uses them because he knows they have all these unresolved issues with ther families or society.
I just couldn't watch it anymore! It was so frustrating and so dangerous...they took so many bad decisions and safety mistakes...ugh!
Yes, Robert I DO know of Bob and the church of Subgenius...Twin Peaks riffed on it too with the bad guy "Bob" (best of beasts)
Interesting, Candy. I'm going to need to think about this for a while. The main question that I think you are posing is whether he was successful in drawing the characters. I tend to think that he was because they provoked such a strong response here. But, I suppose that he could have been too interested in making symbols of them to keep them real. What do the rest of you think?
I thought the characters were realistic and symbolic, I wouldn't want to bring any of them home to dinner but I can't say I disliked any of them. There are things about each of them that I dislike.
Lou and his ranting unstoppable letter writing and control issues, Swede and his inability to commit to any sort of action. Come to think of it I have to say that the reason Swede has such an inability to commit stems from Lou's total control of everything. Lou was a force of nature and Swede always took the path of least resistance, I suppose he learned as a child there was no use in attempting to confront or go against his father, so gave up on it, and that lackadaisical attitude spread to all of his relationships. He's actually the polar opposite of his father in every way.
Think about it...physically he is the opposite, Swede can't control anything, Lou controls or at least attempts to control everything in his vicinity. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Hah, I have to wonder how Lou would have dealt with Rita. I shudder to think! :)
Yes in a way the characters were caricatures, but not so far off from realistic in my opinion. There are stereotypes for a reason.....they exist all around us, some more pronounced than others true, but there all the same.
Lou and his ranting unstoppable letter writing and control issues, Swede and his inability to commit to any sort of action. Come to think of it I have to say that the reason Swede has such an inability to commit stems from Lou's total control of everything. Lou was a force of nature and Swede always took the path of least resistance, I suppose he learned as a child there was no use in attempting to confront or go against his father, so gave up on it, and that lackadaisical attitude spread to all of his relationships. He's actually the polar opposite of his father in every way.
Think about it...physically he is the opposite, Swede can't control anything, Lou controls or at least attempts to control everything in his vicinity. I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Hah, I have to wonder how Lou would have dealt with Rita. I shudder to think! :)
Yes in a way the characters were caricatures, but not so far off from realistic in my opinion. There are stereotypes for a reason.....they exist all around us, some more pronounced than others true, but there all the same.
Before considering the characterizations and their purpose, I would start at the more general level of the book itself and ask what its overall purpose was. There the answer seems to me to be simpler. The book is written as an ironic counterpoint against the calm view implied by its title, it seems to me. It has already been observed here that the title is heavily ironic when compared to the story of the book. That applies in the reverse direction also. The book is mordantly ironic with respect to the title, so just what does the title imply? It seems to me, with one eye on the actual story, that the title suggests the placid view of the American Dream, namely that immigrant families can come to America where they will find freedom and be able to become wealthy and live in comfortable surroundings while becoming assimilated to an American culture where all people are respected and treated equally and fairly. In the novel, Roth shows us an immigrant family whose realization of the American Dream is shattered in two important ways, by the entrenched anti-Semitism of the snobocracy at Old Rimrock when they finally arrive at their goal, and by the loss of their daughter to the anti-war and counter-cultural movements of the time. So, for the Levovs the Dream ended up as a nightmare. Within that framework the family might have been of any disdained cultural or ethnic background and have served the story purpose as well. Roth chose Jewish for the family to carry his story and Protestant for his antagonists and set the story in the vicinity of the mixed cultural demographics of New York City. He then filled in the characters with appropriately authentic markers of their cultural backgrounds -- a family that speaks of shiksas, for example, and another family with a cemetery-full of ancestors.
I phrase it that way, even though it might seem obvious, to indicate what I think are the priorities for viewing the themes of the story. Specifically, I would say this is not a story of a Jewish family. It is a story of the American Experience. Going further, this is not specifically a story of anti-Semitism, although it is there; it is a story of both shortcomings in American society and of the tumultuous disorderly way the American experience evolves.
With respect to more detailed sub-themes, I personally am more cautious. Is this an anti-Vietnam war novel? Maybe. Is this an anti-antisemitism novel? Maybe. Is this an anti-countercultural novel? Maybe. But I'm not really convinced that those are the best ways to describe it. I suppose I see it more as a vividly painted microcosm of the intellectual, cultural and generational conflicts of the times. And the characters are painted, and their mouths filled with words, to serve these conflicts.
I phrase it that way, even though it might seem obvious, to indicate what I think are the priorities for viewing the themes of the story. Specifically, I would say this is not a story of a Jewish family. It is a story of the American Experience. Going further, this is not specifically a story of anti-Semitism, although it is there; it is a story of both shortcomings in American society and of the tumultuous disorderly way the American experience evolves.
With respect to more detailed sub-themes, I personally am more cautious. Is this an anti-Vietnam war novel? Maybe. Is this an anti-antisemitism novel? Maybe. Is this an anti-countercultural novel? Maybe. But I'm not really convinced that those are the best ways to describe it. I suppose I see it more as a vividly painted microcosm of the intellectual, cultural and generational conflicts of the times. And the characters are painted, and their mouths filled with words, to serve these conflicts.
Following up the thought of the previous post, and carrying it further, I would suggest that, if Roth's goal is to write about a set of issues, then his general strategy for doing so is to include all sides of all issues, and then to give them all a strenuous airing. Toward that end he needs characters to both represent and present the various viewpoints. And what more dramatic way to present opposing viewpoints than to have the characters in direct first-person confrontation and conflict over their personal differences?
While calm intellectual discussion of viewpoints might be possible, conflict is at the heart of this novel, as it is in many another novel that we read (and also in I Married a Communist, the only other Roth I have read). The calm conversation over dinner at Vincent's, for example, leaves Zuckerman (and probably the reader) feeling totally flat and perplexed. But Jerry's assessment of the Swede at the reunion is bristling with feeling and some considerable animosity. So I would argue that the running series of confrontations throughout the novel are what gives it the feeling of a general "loudness," at least to me.
In addition, the direct argument between two characters almost inevitably draws the reader in, by their having feelings for which viewpoint they believe, exactly as we have been discussing and preferring different viewpoints here overtly in the discussion of the book.
Finally, if one is going to present polarized viewpoints in confrontation, what more dramatic approach than to have each viewpoint presented in its most extreme form (and elevated volume), rather than carefully nuanced at the risk of diluting its impact?
Collecting all these thoughts, of vigorously confronted opposing arguments pointing in every which direction, it is little wonder to me that at times the novel reads like general pandemonium. And that's exactly the way Roth wants it -- loud and raucous.
While calm intellectual discussion of viewpoints might be possible, conflict is at the heart of this novel, as it is in many another novel that we read (and also in I Married a Communist, the only other Roth I have read). The calm conversation over dinner at Vincent's, for example, leaves Zuckerman (and probably the reader) feeling totally flat and perplexed. But Jerry's assessment of the Swede at the reunion is bristling with feeling and some considerable animosity. So I would argue that the running series of confrontations throughout the novel are what gives it the feeling of a general "loudness," at least to me.
In addition, the direct argument between two characters almost inevitably draws the reader in, by their having feelings for which viewpoint they believe, exactly as we have been discussing and preferring different viewpoints here overtly in the discussion of the book.
Finally, if one is going to present polarized viewpoints in confrontation, what more dramatic approach than to have each viewpoint presented in its most extreme form (and elevated volume), rather than carefully nuanced at the risk of diluting its impact?
Collecting all these thoughts, of vigorously confronted opposing arguments pointing in every which direction, it is little wonder to me that at times the novel reads like general pandemonium. And that's exactly the way Roth wants it -- loud and raucous.
Russ, I must say loud and clear...I couldn't agree with you more.I might add...and this would likely fall into some kind of sub-theme...I think it is the story of the American Experience specifically....(which partly explains why the characters and their priorities or motives are so foreign to me...?).
The thing is...I ask...is the novel saying that the "cause and effect" of the American Experience the immigrant family, it's challenges and turmoils are going to result in such a gap between the following generations?
Is there a nuanced set of beliefs in the motivation of immigrants?
Gee, how do I word this?
Okay...
So we have the first immigrants coming to live in America with the promises and ideals...and I'm sure we could make a list of things lie ekeing out a living, less taxes, certain definitions of freedom, starting over, work hard and it will pay off, a better life for future generations...
What I'm wondering...has the ideals of the immigrant changed? Does America offer the same dreams?
Is the novel perhaps showing that not only did the immigrant family have an evolution...and WHAT was that evolution?
In some ways...any newcomer to America is probably familiar with the fallout of the 1960's, no?
Does this alter what the American Experience is thought of from other countries?
We could use me as an example...what if I were to immgrate to U.S. I've married a man here. He is Polish/Czech-American and he is cynical about the government politics etc. (he is in Chicago where the Gov just got busted for bribery and corruption). Meanwhile...I am from Canada and we have a rather suspicious thinking attitude to politics and "ideals" or "dreams". I mean, after all...I've read American Pastoral.
I can't have any delusions about what the American Experience or Dream might offer me...can I?
Yet...my husbands parents , and my husband...do feel that America is the greatestplace for opportunity and freedom etc (do you love the "etc", I can hear Steve laughing right now)...even though they would say there have been disillusions they still have a sense of hope and dreams for U.S.
Russ said it is a story of both shortcomings in American society and of the tumultuous disorderly way the American experience evolves.
I think this is what really grabs me about the novel...on a philosophical level versus on the idea of "caring" about these characters...is somehow...the novel suggests to me we haven't seen the end of the evolution...
What is in store for immigrants who moved here since the 1960's?
I might even wonder...what does Roth, the man, think of the ideals expressed with Obama...I wish I could phone him and ask!
Russ also said "for the Levovs the Dream ended up as a nightmare. Yes, it did and it is sad and terrible that they believed their child became a terrorist (no proof, no reliable characters vouching)..I see two things. The ideals within the immigrant family were so strong and particular that a child veering from those same ideals was a frightening as if she became a terrorist! And two...even though if it's true that Merry did become a terrorist...the values that she was concerned about despite her interest in violence...lets say all the violent political revolutionaries at the time...still: these ideals of equality, of fairness are really much more valuable now and we see them as important, if not more so, than money or "success"...no?
What I mean is...I don't agree with the arguing, I think the closedmindedness between the generations and the anger in the novel is very sad...but it brought about important human rights changes and perspectives.
Maybe there is a sense in the novel that "evolution" philosophically and emotionally is ugly...if the novel is consciously writing about social change/social evolution...the mechanics of change...of metamorphus might not be "pretty"?
Maybe...and this is getting back to the way the novel is written it is written like "clinically" like "scientific observational notes"...which would blend in nicely with Russ' idea of witnessing an evolution of the American Experience...
Russ2 wrote: "......it is little wonder to me that at times the novel reads like general pandemonium. And that's exactly the way Roth wants it -- loud and raucous.
Yes! The entire reading for me was a constant yelling of the characters and a pulling at the reader. The only other Roth I've read is Patrimony, that one had none of this passion.
Yes! The entire reading for me was a constant yelling of the characters and a pulling at the reader. The only other Roth I've read is Patrimony, that one had none of this passion.
Candy, that's quite a post! And thank you for your kind agreement. It will take a while for me to respond, but let me quickly react to one particular point you raise, namely:
I think it is the story of the American Experience specifically....(which partly explains why the characters and their priorities or motives are so foreign to me...?).
I think I probably agree with you that it is the story of the American experience, if that is the emphasis you intended. As far as I can tell -- and maybe I am totally wrong -- and, at the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I think the American Experience in unique in the world. My impression of the European and Asian countries of origin of American immigrants is that different nationalities are much more located within individual national borders there, much more so than in the United States, where all nationalities are contained and intermixed within one single national border. Of course, I can't see the United States from the outside, any more than I can see Europe (or Canada) from the inside, so I hope readers will allow for whatever unintended disortions there are in my view.
However, with respect to your parenthetical comment, Candy, I can hardly comment, for the reason just stated, other than to say that is interesting to hear a reaction from Canada so close over our common border.
But might it also be that, in stretching his characters to have extreme viewpoints and behaviors (if that is what he does), then perhaps he also stretches them out of recognizable correspondence with real people. I've grown up among Jewish families all my life, and I don't recognize the Levovs among any of the families I know. Jewish or otherwise, in fact.
I think it is the story of the American Experience specifically....(which partly explains why the characters and their priorities or motives are so foreign to me...?).
I think I probably agree with you that it is the story of the American experience, if that is the emphasis you intended. As far as I can tell -- and maybe I am totally wrong -- and, at the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I think the American Experience in unique in the world. My impression of the European and Asian countries of origin of American immigrants is that different nationalities are much more located within individual national borders there, much more so than in the United States, where all nationalities are contained and intermixed within one single national border. Of course, I can't see the United States from the outside, any more than I can see Europe (or Canada) from the inside, so I hope readers will allow for whatever unintended disortions there are in my view.
However, with respect to your parenthetical comment, Candy, I can hardly comment, for the reason just stated, other than to say that is interesting to hear a reaction from Canada so close over our common border.
But might it also be that, in stretching his characters to have extreme viewpoints and behaviors (if that is what he does), then perhaps he also stretches them out of recognizable correspondence with real people. I've grown up among Jewish families all my life, and I don't recognize the Levovs among any of the families I know. Jewish or otherwise, in fact.
Pontalba,
I'm glad somebody else heard the shouting besides me. :)
Russ
I'm glad somebody else heard the shouting besides me. :)
Russ
Russ2 wrote: The book is mordantly ironic with respect to the title, so just what does the title imply? post #365
Steve wrote: And don't overlook the obvious irony of the title, Russ2. The centerpiece of this novel is an act of extreme violence. Nothing is less pastoral that than. post #371
Steve that is exactly what was mentioned and I agree with both of you - it couldn't be more ironic.
It seems to me that is Roth's strongest quality.
Steve wrote: And don't overlook the obvious irony of the title, Russ2. The centerpiece of this novel is an act of extreme violence. Nothing is less pastoral that than. post #371
Steve that is exactly what was mentioned and I agree with both of you - it couldn't be more ironic.
It seems to me that is Roth's strongest quality.
Interesting stuff. Thanks Russ fr your quick reply. You too Steve!I have family on my mothers side that is Jewish, tons of Hebrew, Israeli, Jewish friends...and not even part of them resembles this Levov family, Russ, that is why I responded so strongly to the comparison between them and Fiddler On The Roof Fiddler-on-the-roof-from hell maybe...
:)
I do definately think that the gap of my comprehension...and interest is this Canada difference. I am fascinated by the story abd the time period in U.S. history.
It is a romantic time period when I was first aware of it...and the Vietnam war word of protests etc hit my young ears. The music reflected this and when I got older I read my step-mum's copy of Kent State.
Although we have a constitution and many ideals in Canada...lots of human rights laws...we do not have the same investment in an utopia type ideal. We do not lie politicians, or bigotry, religion is extrememly subtle in Cananda.
Like the U.S though..we are a country with a narrative of the immigrant, but perhaps since we are smaller and much more conservative thn U.S. we just never dreamt as big as yu all dfid.
I mean if you were growing up and said you wanted to be an actor, or a politician or famous or rich...chances are you'd get a "who do you think you are"? kind of response heh heh. Canadians don't really get too many "high flalutin ideas"...which is endearing on one level and is also a sign of our less support of "dreams"...which is sad on another end.
I always thought the dream thing and hopes were very sweet in U.S. In Canada nobody would tell their kid..."one day you might be the Prime Minister"...n fact, they might even be a little uncomfortable with knowing a politician that closely heh heh!
Canadian doctors, actors, artists and lawyers make a fraction of wages or wealth compared to U.S. In fact, it's probably pretty difficult to become a millionaire in Canada...you CAN...but we don't really have the business, population or dream philosophy to maintain such a wide berth of people to share that attitude.
You'd really almost be hospitalized for delusions if you said you were going to grow up to be Trump or Madonna or JayZ. You would definately have transplanted to the U.S.
But don't get me wrong...children reject their parents philosphies just as much in Canada I am sure. There is an old-think mentality among many fmailies and previous generations...they think or global warming is bs, that it's okay to wish everyone a happy christmas even if those peopel are Chinese-Canadian Buddhists or Jewish. Some old-think resents our two national languages or that Quebec has a distinct society etc.
Fortunately we have many laws in place should someone actually be intolerant...they could be charged wit a human rights violition.
Steve you bring up a huge clue!
I agree that we have to try and trust the brother Jerry. I think he's a bit of a yob and not reliable...but we take aleap that he has some evidence that Merry was involved. I guess her running away from home on the day of the explosion will have to suffice.
If we agree that there is irony in the title...is it possible there is irony in the final question? "What on earth is less reprehensible than the life of the Levovs?"
For me that is an ironic question...on every page this family does something that is reprehensible to me at least...if the title is ironic...isn't the closing question also ironic?
The article with Bill Ayers seemed very appropriate Steve...the poor ol ,Levov family wasn't tolerant of their own child with a stutter...or her interest in religion or politics...it's a vastly more diverse country and the Levovs are dinosuars...
I don't think that the hopes and dreams expressed in AMERICAN PASTORAL are indicative of only the immigrant experience. My father's family came to this country in the 1700's and my mother's family came in the 1800's. Most of my ancestors were farmers, and the dream of each generation in this country is that your children do better than you do. So my father left the farm and started his career of working the best jobs that he could find in the world. His dream was for his children to go to college, because he did not have that opportunity. His parents had an 8th-grade education, my parents both graduated from high school and my brother and I both got a B.A. and an M.A. It is just part of the American dream whether you just arrived here or have been here for generations.Jane
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...
Robt