When I read
a book, my head swims with ideas and questions and a multiple other troubling
matters. The more a book worries me, the less am I willing to ‘like’ it. (Like how I am uable to let go after my reread of Disgrace. I
will have to either read ‘Scenes from Provincial Life’ or ‘Gone Girl’ before I
am fit for society.) And that is
exactly what has happened with American Pastoral, Philip Roth’s 1997 offering
and part of his great American trilogy (with The Human Stain, and ‘I married a
Communist’). I was hooked from Chapter 1, then set adrift, leaving me
flailing for concrete ground. Hmmm, let me quit the high-flown semantics, quickly get to the meat of the story. We can analyze and argue
later.
American
Pastoral is narrated by Nathan Zuckerman, fictional writer, and Roth’s alter
ego. Zuckerman is in his seventies here, a survivor of prostate surgery that
has left him impotent and weak of bladder, a solitary pathetic figure nourished
we presume, only by his writer’s curiosity and the satisfaction of regularly realizing
his creative potential. Nathan runs into a man from his past, Seymour ‘The
Swede’ Levov, who their entire Newark neighborhood once idolized, apparently because
he was blonde, blue eyed, steep jawed and fantastic in sports. Believable
enough; it is pointed out anyway that in those high school days of the forties,
when Zuckerman’s ilk of second generation Jewish immigrants had just stepped onto
the first rung in the ladder to assimilation, Swede Levov
appeared to have arrived there already, showing them that it could be done. (One also infers that Levov’s lack of swagger imbued him with an aura: of the established one, of, should I say it, the well meaning, reticent Anglo
Saxon at the top of the food chain!)
But on meeting him after all these years the star-struck Nathan is disappointed to find a bland, self-satisfied
man, insisting on rubbing the lonely Zuckerman nose in cozy photographs and
triumphant tales of family achievement. Zuckerman responds by consigning Levov to
the boring platitude spouting multitude, one beneath the eagle eye of the
author-narrator. However, a co-incidental meeting a few years later, makes Zuckerman realize how utterly wrong he has been
in his reading, for the Swede, despite his obvious success in the diverse
fields of sport and business and love, had been laid low by his beloved
daughter’s destiny. Perhaps she had brought her fate upon herself, but it is no
less horrifying to a parent for all that. That piques Zuckerman’s interest and
he sets about dreaming up a ‘plausible’ version of what could have happened, a version
that forms the substance of the book.
Philip Roth |
How plausible Roth is, is borne out by
the reception his book has received, for it cannot all be attributed to
virtuosity, however much one likes the author’s gorgeous rants, or finds evocative
the human interaction portrayed, or thinks interesting the descriptions of
human endeavor – cattle farming, plastic surgery, glove making, feeding cake,
take your pick. The American Pastoral has remained one of the most widely read
and critically acclaimed American novels to date, and this will have to be because
Roth writes the truth. But why am
I not satisfied? Is it because in the best traditions of contemporary novelists
he refuses to make one point (you already know I am thinking Disgrace here),
but starts up a story abounding in any number of points, if only you picked
them up? Is this the fate of the novel in the post analytic world where even
evil has been teased into nothingness, where the author inevitably loses his
direction? Yes, I have digressed here.
We also wonder
if the Swede’s moving away from his tribe (a Jewish identity), in the name of
an assimilation that has not really happened, creates a vacuum in his child’s
life that she tries to fill with her own individually created belief systems? Or
is it only a case of crisis paralysis, for as the book progresses, Swede Levov
seems unable to take any coherent action vis-à-vis his daughter. I could not
help taking my musings further- so much land and so few people - you either
farm the land or you squire it, or you move beyond the suburban. Is America
creating little family islands brooding in provincial isolation, tinderboxes ready
to explode anyway? It is amazing
that one can get so carried away about the imaginary doings of imaginary
characters.
But still.
Kuch khatakta hai. Ennomo neruderethey! And the more I think, the more I feel
that it is the character of the Swede that does not sit right for me. He sounds
wonderfully good childy in his John Appleseed fantasy, right up to when his
daughter reaches adolescence. But is it possible that such a man would achieve
all his dreams? In my limited experience, our gifts and talents give us a start
in life, but what one makes of a business or a marriage requires character, and
while self-delusion helps, it is never enough. The Swede could not have been
such a babe in the woods, such an innocent if he came this far. And I do get it;
there is an underside to him, steely or weak you decide, the side that does not
see alternative scenarios, that walks away from a broken engagement, a broken
marriage, the faith. I suppose he finds it more difficult to walk away from a
broken child, but would such a character anguish like that? Who knows? I had to
ask others.
Tarun was
like – Swede Levov realizes that he cannot accommodate his daughter in the life
he has made for himself, and that is his tragedy. Alright. I went to the book
discussion.
Madelyn
felt the book was pitch perfect in its portrayal of America. Having grown up in
a New York neighborhood next door to many Jewish families, she could identify
with the setting and that in itself, was exhilarating. Madelyn also found the
development of the novel symptomatic of what she felt was happening in America,
‘the descent of the collective dream of the American Pastoral into the
individual American berserk’. She appreciated also, how American history had
been swept into the scope of this novel –World War II, the race riots, the Vietnam
war, the weathermen, Angela Davis, the sexual revolution, the Watergate
scandal. If Madelyn had to pick one inexplicable wrong move – by Levov/
Zuckerman/ Roth, it would be the kiss. She could not see how such deviance
could so normally be woven into the story. My take is that the Swede gives
himself away in more ways than one, through that incestuous kiss – in effect it
is an admission that Merry’s stuttering is a terrible affliction that needs drastic
recompense. I have to admit however, that the episode came across rather self
consciously clever in a post Freudian way. In the tradition of Woody Allen and Portnoy…
I saw also in Roth’s writing, a delineation of the Jewish identity, how it explained many things
to me, and how uncomfortable that made me. I did not need these sociological
inputs about a people after the history lesson of Master and Margarita. Does
reading great fiction make one an armchair ethnologist? Mamta asked how this story
would have panned out in an Indian context- she felt an Indian middle class
household would have never moved beyond Meredith, her story would have become
theirs. Shivalik felt that the novel was really about America, the story of a
nation that discovers itself veering off a blameless course to a happy ideal, as
it gets blindsided by events. Possible. The sweep of the novel is American; why
should there not be an allegorical significance?
Of course
everyone wondered about Merry’s breakdown and the causes for that- the mother,
the lax upbringing, an isolated life. It was interesting that I had read ‘Some
Girls’ by Jillian Lauren just a week before starting American Pastoral.
I cannot
end the review without registering a protest against the portrayal of a
religion so moderate in its outlook as a kooky violent group, even from the
warped perspective of a demented Meredith. Jains are vegetarians but scrupulously
clean, but more importantly a basic tenet of their faith is ‘anekantavada’. Anekāntavāda encourages its adherents to
consider the views and beliefs of their rivals and opposing parties. Proponents
of anekāntavāda apply this principle to religion and philosophy,
reminding themselves that any religion or philosophy—even Jainism—that clings
too dogmatically to its own tenets, is committing an error based on its limited
point of view. Roth could have surely picked another religion to project as
fanatic. Maybe he was being ironical.
But the book
makes you think. It is important and readable. Pick it up.
No comments:
Post a Comment