American Pastoral.

Before I get to the book, I’ve got two new draft blog entries up, one on Purke, Coffey, and Grichuk, the other on Graham, Cole, Wilson, and Berry. And, of course, Jason Churchill continues to churn out daily updates on top picks’ performances.

Stand in awe not of Communism, my idiot child, but of ordinary, everyday loneliness. On May Day go out and march with your friends to its greater glory the superpower of superpowers, the force that overwhelms all. Put your money on it, bet on it, worship it – bow down in submission not to Karl Marx, my stuttering, angry, idiot child, not to Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-Tung – bow down to the great god Loneliness!

Philip Roth’s American Pastoral – winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, #99 on the Guardian 100, and part of the TIME 100 – tells the story of Seymour “Swede” Levov, a star high school athlete whose perfect, seemingly worry-free life is shattered when his daughter and only child, the ironically-named Merry, commits an act of domestic terrorism that takes a life and slowly tears Swede’s world apart. American Pastoral is one of Roth’s “Zuckerman novels,” featuring his alter ego, grumpy author Nathan Zuckerman, although it is a blessing that Zuckerman disappears as an active character after about 75 pages. The novel then shifts to of metafiction – it is not Swede’s actual story, but Zuckerman’s reimagining of Swede’s story based on a handful of details he got from Swede and later from Swede’s brother Jerry. This aspect is particularly unsatisfying; unlike, say, McEwan’s bait-and-switch novel Atonement*, we’re in on the gag all along, but the question of whether we’re reading Swede’s “actual” story or what Roth wants (consciously or subconsciously) Swede’s story to be hangs over the entire work.

*Oddly enough, the TIME 100 includes at least four works of metafiction – the two I’ve mentioned, Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin, and Flann O’Brien’s At Swim-Two-Birds. Only the last one was a fully-realized and satisfying work of fiction, which may be because it didn’t take its interior novel very seriously – the line between reality and fiction was deliberately blurred and the work is more farce than Serious Novel.

If Roth succeeded at anything, it was creating a deeply disturbing work of fiction. Other than the thought of one’s death, nothing hits at one’s emotional core as much as a thought of the destruction, gradual or acute, of one’s family. Merry appears to be just another angry teenager until she throws a bomb, and even in hindsight there was no clear warning to her parents that she was even capable of such an act of abject violence. Swede’s idyll is destroyed in between the time he goes to sleep one night and wakes up the next, and the devastation is compounded by the fact that Merry disappears immediately after the bombing. One thing that you can’t fully understand until you have a child is just how completely your emotions are wrapped up in that child. No matter what Merry did, Swede can not sever himself emotionally from her. She is his daughter, and his only child at that, and even if reuniting with her meant she would have to go to jail, he is emotionally determined to find her and, metaphorically and physically, bring her home.

Unfortunately, Swede’s emotional determination is an isolated character trait, as, for whatever reason, Zuckerman (Roth) did not imbue him with decisiveness. Swede confronts a couple of inflection points in the novel, simple and I would say obvious choices, and time and again he chooses inaction. There’s one scene towards the novel’s end where Swede has his best chance to piece something of his life back together – like a torn labrum, it will never be the same again, but it can be partially repaired – and, channeling Bill James on Jeff Bagwell, he passes. I found this not only maddening but beyond belief: There’s no way. I could not put myself into Swede’s shoes in that situation and choose “none of the above.” And I doubt many fathers, if any, would choose it either.

Swede’s failure to take any of the “right” choices means that the story lacks closure. We know from early on what has happened to Swede, and we have a pretty good idea of what ultimately happened to Merry (although whether Swede was telling the literal truth there may be open to debate). What we don’t get is the interim – Zuckerman focuses on the five or six years between the bombing and the start of the breakdown of Swede’s marriage, but doesn’t tell us what happened to Merry, who on earth Rita Cohen was, how exactly Swede’s marriage broke apart (did we see the triggering event? Did they hang on and fake it for a few more years), how he ended up with his second wife and three sons and whether or not that gave him any peace or happiness or proved inadequate to fill the gaping void left by the departure of his daughter from his life … we get none of these answers. I’m not saying every question needs a firm resolution, but Roth leaves us with more frayed ends than an overwashed head of hair.

The decision to focus on Swede over Merry is part plot contrivance, since Zuckerman knows Swede but never met Merry, but when Merry has a chance to say her piece, Zucker-Roth shifts to summary mode. We get pages upon pages of description of the manufacturing of ladies’ gloves and the history of the manufacturing of ladies’ gloves – was Roth momentarily possessed by the spirit of Herman Melville? – but of Merry’s life on the run we get a few paragraphs. The autobiography of Merry Levov could be – would be – a hell of a book. But I sure learned a lot about gloves, or the attitude of early 1970s couples towards Deep Throat, or the history of Bill Orcutt’s family.

I don’t know if Roth has ever addressed this, but in many ways Swede Levov resembles Rabbit Angstrom. He’s not an agent of his own destruction the way that Rabbit is, but they have similar backstories – star high school athletes who never quite live down that early fame and promise but who carry their sports-related nicknames through life, who marry against the wishes of their domineering fathers, and whose family lives come apart at the seams as we watch and as they fail to take basic steps to preserve them. Rabbit runs, while Swede stammers. In the end, it’s kind of the same thing.

Had Roth not wasted the first 75-odd pages on that annoying little Zucker – thus sparing us his self-centered Donnie Downer act – and rounded out the Swede story a little more, it would have been a clear Klaw 100 entry. Once the narration shifted, the pace picked up dramatically around the handful of tangents into glove manufacturing and Orcutt family genealogy, and he created one very compelling (if flawed – but is the flaw Roth’s, Zuckerman’s, or Swede’s?) character in whom most readers, particularly parents, should find some sympathetic or familiar trait. If anything, the book ended 75 pages too soon, and I wish Roth had expended the energy he blew on Zuckerman’s prostate on filling in some of the blank spots on the Levov family canvas.

Apropos of nothing other than its presence in the book, I did learn one unusual new word: uxorious, meaning excessively fond of or submissive to a wife. I’ll have a hard time working that into a Draft Blog entry.

Comments

  1. Keith, let me just say first off that I’m a big fan of your baseball stuff, and more recently, the dish too.

    I’ve read a few Roth books, and they can be quite enjoyable or they can completely bog you down to the point of not wanting to finish. American Pastoral was the latter for me. It just completely ran out of steam with 100 pages left, and I’m never one to give up on something when I get so far into it. It was like a meal that was “pretty good” but way too heavy. I got too full and it didn’t keep in the fridge.

    Anyway, if you’d give a chance to another Roth novel, the one to pick is The Plot Against America. It’s one of his most recent, and certainly one of his most readable and entertaining. The story centers around a what-if – what if Charles Lindbergh had won the 1940 presidential election over FDR? And yeah, there’s a bit of Roth’s pontificating on the “plight of the Jews”, but it’s not quite as severe as in other works of his, probably since the story is told from the point of view of a child.

    Can I assume you’ve read Roth’s The Great American Novel?

    Keep fighting the good fight!

  2. I consider myself a Roth fan, but found American Pastoral underwhelming. Of his most recent work, I prefer The Human Stain. Unfortunately, so did Hollywood.

    That said, I just like Roth’s style. His writing keeps me going, even though his characters (especially Zuckerman) can be hard to like.

  3. I have to depart from the majority opinion and say I think Pastoral is Roth’s best novel. But I find it curious that he’s doing a lot of his finest writing at an age when most fiction writers are in steep decline. When will the Pulitzer people pull their heads out of the sand and start testing for PEDs?

  4. Keith, if you aren’t a fan of Zukcerman’s prostate stay away from Exit Ghost, which stars Zuckerman’s prostate.

  5. First, Keith, thanks for the blog! I’m a relatively new initiate to The Dish, and am enjoying it thoroughly.

    While I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your individual observations about American Pastoral, my ultimate conclusion differed from yours. I’m not a Zuckerman fan, either, but I thought that the novel-within-a-novel device worked well here. The gaps in the story provided some of the most thought-provoking discourse in the book. The question of what happened to Merry isn’t really a concrete one with a simple answer – it’s the reason the Swede spent the ensuing years as a pretty tortured guy. Her inability to see it in such complex terms was in keeping with her character; she really felt a couple of paragraphs summed it up just fine. And the Swede’s inaction seemed in keeping with his character as well – he seemed like a man who was simply beaten down, consumed in his own mind, no longer able to act or react.

    I’d be interested to hear your take on other Roth books – I wasn’t a huge fan of Plot Against America, but I found Portnoy’s Complaint to be a great contrast – it’s dated now, but still really funny.

  6. It’s interesting that you have such dislike of metafiction, but also such love for Absalom, Absalom!, which I would say is probably the second most important metafictional book after the Canterbury Tales, and also perhaps the book where the metafiction is most important to understanding its purpose.

    A, A! also seems to me to be the best comparison for American Pastoral–Zuckerman plays much the same role as Quentin and (especially) Shreve play in A, A! I’m not saying Roth’s book is close to the same level as Faulkner’s, but Zuckerman’s presence strikes me as important and valuable to the project.

  7. I know I’m coming late to this party, but I’ve just finished reading this book and I just wanted to thank you for this review. I totally agree with everything you’ve said, short of your annoyance with Zuckerman – and since this is the first Roth book I’ve read, Zuckerman annoyance may be cumulative!

    Thanks!