standard 4 (content knowledge)

7/25/2019 Standard 4 (Content Knowledge)

1/19

"I'm Just Jewish . .Defining Jewish Identityin Philip Roth's Goodbye,

Columbus and Five ShortStories

Patrick Silvey

ABSTRACT. Roth scholars are largely, and accurately, in agreement that in

Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories(1959) Roth uses irony to satirize

American Jewish middle-class anxiety about assimilating into the predomi

nantly gentile American culture. This article explores the method by which

Roth satirizes his Jewish characters. Specifically, the article demonstrates

that, throughout the collection, Roths caustic attitude toward many of his

characters is rooted in basic moral principles of the Jewish faith. Though

Roth critics would certainly never label Roth a moralist, his first publishedcollection of stories shows the writer to be critical of his Jewish characters

via a moral paradigm.

What is it then between us?

Walt Whitman, Crossing Brooklyn Ferry

At its release, Philip Roths Goodbye, Columbus was met with enthusiastic

praise by some and harsh criticism by others.1Among those who applauded

Roths literary talents were critics Irving Howe and Alfred Kazin, as well as

successful Jewish novelist Saul Bellow. Howe, for instance, wrote that Good

bye, Columbusbristled with a literary self-confidence such as few writers two

or three decades older than Roth could command (229). Still, several of


2/19

many Jewish readers who accused Roth of exploiting Jewish-American culture

in order to gain acceptance as an American author (Parrish 1). In his essay

Writing About Jews, Roth claims that one rabbi actively protested his workto the Anti-Defamation League, asking What is being done to silence this

man? Medieval Jews would have known what to do with him (160). Rabbi

Theodore Lewis condemns Roths portrayal of Jewish Americans saying that

the Jewish characters in his short stories and novels [are] depraved and lecher

ous creatures. The only logical conclusion any intelligent reader could draw

from [Roths] stories or books, is that this country nay that the world

would be a much better and happier place without Jews (qtd. in Isaac 182).

Many within the Jewish community took issue with Roths portrayal o f the

Jewish cultural and religious identity, labeling him a self-hating Jew.

There is no shortage o f scholarship that explores the subjects o f Roths

social criticisms in Goodbye, Columbus. One early critic, for instance, writes

that the major force behind [Goodbye, Columbusis] an indictment of the Jew

ish upper-middle class (Larner 28). Likewise, Debra Shostak identifies the

underlying theme o f the collection as a criticism of Jewish assimilation after

the Second World War (117). But for a richer understanding of the text as a

whole, critics would be wise to discuss not only what Roth is satirizing, but

how he is criticizing it. Certainly, the novella Goodbye, Columbus could be

categorized as an indictment of the Jewish upper-middle class, and Eli, the

Fanatic is easily a story about assimilation. Critics, like Jeremy Larner and

Shostak, who have characterized these stories as critiques of the modern Jew

ish way of life as Roth saw it, are not incorrect in their assertions. But the fact

that Roth criticizes assimilation and Jewish materialism through principles

established by traditional, even orthodox Jewish values serves to validate those

criticisms. This is especially true since Roth would later come under attack by

Jews who claim to ground their attacks at him in the principles o f Judaism.Though it cannot be denied that Goodbye, Columbus is a social indictment,

many o f Roths more harsh critics have oversimplified the collection by insist

ing that Roth purposefully condemns the American Jew. In fact, the collection

reveals Roth to be a social critic who is both bemused at, and cynical of those

American Jews who have abandoned the morals o f Judaism in favor of the

more convenient morals o f American individualism. Perhaps then the only

crime that Roth commits with Goodbye, Columbus is the crime of holding

a mirror to unflattering truths. Even this accusation is a bit too simplistic,

though. Jewish scholar Samuel Osherson theorizes instead that [s]uch stories

[that appear in Goodbye, Columbus] were OK as long as they were confined to

a Jewish audience; Roths sin was that he wrote a best-seller, and showed our

[Jews] dirty laundry to the goyim (32). Thus, many Jewish critics of Roths

work might have found Goodbye, Columbus troublesome not simply for its

unflattering p ortra it o f some American Jews, bu t because it was critical while


3/19

JEWIS H MATERIALISM IN GOODBYE, COLUMBUS

Neil Klugman is by no means a privileged Jewish boy. He lives with his aunt

and uncle in a Jewish neighborhood in the city of Newark. He openly admits

with neither pride nor shame that he was educated at Newark Colleges of Rut-

gers University, and he works at the Newark Public Library in a respectable

position that promises early promotion to the kind of industrious, conscien-

tious young man Neil appears to his immediate superiors to be (Halio 13).

For all this, Neil is right to be somewhat surprised when he rather effordessly

becomes romantically involved with Radcliffe student Brenda Patimkin and

her social climbing family. Critic Jay Halio accurately describes Brenda as

a Jewish American Princess who is rich, spoiled, and smart, if somewhatshortsighted (14). Through her, Neil is introduced to the posh, suburban,

materialistic world of Jewish postwar prosperity.

Brendas father owns a successful business, Patimkin Sinks, and as Alan

France claims, the Patimkins struggle to distance themselves from their past,

to establish membership in the national, largely gentile, elite (84). This truth

becomes most evident when Brenda admits to Neil that her familys wealth has

allowed her to have cosmetic surgery on her nose. The dialogue of this scene

is very telling:Im afraid of my nose. I had it bobbed .

What?

I had my nose fixed.

What was the matter with it?

It was bumpy.

A lot?

No, she said, I was pretty. Now Im prettier. My brothers having his fixed

in the fall. (13)

The Patimkins have already financially distanced themselves from their Jew-

ish cultural baggage, but the fact that theyve fixed Brendas nose and plan

to fix Rons indicates a conscious attempt to create physical distance from

it. And yet it is no t their identities as followers o f Judaism that they wish to

abandon. After all, Mrs. Patimkin reveals with pride that she is Orthodox and

that her husband is a Conservative Jew (8889). Therefore it is clear that it isnot necessarily their religious past from which the Patimkins are attempting

to distance themselves, rather it is their ethnicity and their lowermiddle

class roots in Newark (France 84). Still, though Mr. and Mrs. Patimkin have

deluded themselves into believing that they are Orthodox and Conservative

Jews, they are fully aware that Brenda and Ron do not identify themselves as


4/19

Hebrew studen t Ive ever seen...but then, of course, she got too big for her

britches (89). Likewise, when Neil acknowledges to Mr. Patimkin that he

knows that the term gonif translates as thief, Mr. Patimkin replies, Youknow more than my own kids. Theyregoyim,my kids, tha ts how much they

understand (94). Whether or not Brendas parents have done so consciously,

they have raised two very privileged, secular children. And with their no lon-

ger bumpy noses, their ethnic identity has been made to be just as ambigu-

ous as their religious identity.

The Patimkins preoccupation with materialism and American commodity

culture is most apparent to Neil through their consumption of food. His first

dinner with the family reveals that dieir eating habits mirror their consumerism:

When [Mr. Patimkin] attacked his saladafter drenching it in bottled French

dressingthe veins swelled under the heavy skin of his forearm. He had three

helpings of salad, Ron had four, Brenda and Julie had two, and only Mrs. Patim-

kin and [Neil] had one each [...]

There was not much dinner conversation; eating was heavy and methodical

and serious, and it would be just as well to record all that was said in one swoop,

rather than indicate the sentences lost in the passing of food, the words gurgled

into mouthfuls, the syntax chopped and forgotten in heapings, spillings, andgorgings. (2122)

Phis dietary affluence of the Patimkins is further exposed when Neil explores

their basement. He discovers a mirrored bar that was stocked with every kind

and size of glass, ice bucket, decanter, mixer, swizzle stick, shot glass, pretzel

bowl all the bacchanalian paraphernalia, plentiful, orderly, and untouched

(41) stocked with twentythree untouched bottles of Jack Daniels. Moreover,

Neil stumbles upon an old refrigerator heaped with fruit, shelves swelled

with it, every color, every texture. ..greengage plums, black plums, red plums,

apricots, nectarines, peaches, long horns of grapes, black, yellow, red, andcherries. . . Oh Patimkin! Fruit grew in their refrigerator and sporting goods

dropped from their trees! (43).

The Patimkins cornucopia o f fruit serves as a contrast to that o f Neils

Aunt Gladys. During Neils first interactions with her in the story, he explains

that he dislikes choosing fresh fruit over canned fruit or vice versa because

whichever [he] preferred, Aunt Gladys always had an abundance o f the other

jamming her refrigerator like stolen diamonds (6). In an essay comparing

assimilationism in Goodbye, Columbus and Eli, the Fanatic, Shostak pos-

its that [t] he refrigerator is the emblem of success in America, the holy vessel

that demonstrates the equal importance of gathering and spending material

wealth as a means to delineating the broadly sanctioned identity in the world

(118). France also sees the refrigerators in Goodbye, Columbus as symbolic

possessions; he claims that [r]efrigerators...are important emblems of social

mobility. Neils Aunt Gladys is preoccupied with her own refrigerator; her


5/19

o f these critics seem to agree tha t in this story R oth is very explicitly attem pt-

ing to m ake food a sign of consum erism a nd m aterial wealth. Th is is o f great

significance to the story as . . in trad ition al Jewish culture , the ind ividu alsrelation to food is defined in terms o f the an cient d ietary laws whose function

is to distinguish the Jews irreversibly from othe r tribal groups a n d ...to serve

as material pro of o f the Jews covenant w ith the m ono theistic G od (Shostak

117). Therefore, th e Patimk ins abu nda nce o f food works to place them at

the great ban qu et o f Am erican com m odity culture (France 84). Moreover,

[i]n centering several scenes around the admiration and consumption of

food, the story dem onstrates bo th the rom ance o f plenty for the Jew attem pt-

ing to define a place in 1950s American culture and the disillusionment that

ple nty can cause (S hostak 117). For th e Patim kin s, fo od has becom e less a

connection to the culture and religion o f Judaism an d more a symbol o f sen-

sual satisfaction afforded by the American capitalist ethos.

N eil s connectio ns to Afr ican Americans th roughout G oodbye, C o lum -

bus are another im p ortan t class dis tinguisher in the story. D uring his first

phone call w ith Brenda she asks him to describe him se lf. Neil tells her tha t

he is . . . da rk, an d, likely as a joke , B renda asks h im Are yo u a Negro?

(7). C ritic P eter R udny tsky claims tha t [t]his eq uation o f the m iddleclass

Jew w ith the black reinforces N eils sense o f social inferiority (25). N eils

sense o f inferiority is o nly exacerbated as he comes to w itness firsthan d th e

opulence o f the Patim kin hou sehold. N eil even attem pts to hide his lower

class status d urin g his stay w ith th e P atimkins by leaving his one shirt w ith a

Brooks Brothers label to linger on his bed w hile unp ack ing (63). Still, despite

N eil s sham e for his social standin g he fin ds a connectio n w ith th e sm all

colored boy (31) at the library who turns out to be a Gauguin enthusiast.

N eil adm ires th e boys in tere st in th e G auguin reproductions, and because o f

the bo nd he senses between the two o f them , he later lies to a wh ite librarypatron w ho wishes to check ou t the G auguin book, te ll in g h im tha t its been

p u t on ho ld (48).

N eil s connectio n to the chara cte r o f Carlo ta, the Patim kin s N avahofaced

N egro m aid (2 1), is a lso m eanin gful in te rm s o f how N eil negotiate s his own

iden tity in c ontrast to the Patimkins. After N eils first encou nter w ith the

African American boy at the library he goes to the Patimkin home a second

time. W he n he arrives, Brenda, Ron, a nd M r. and Mrs. P atimkin are w aiting

for him so that they can leave to take Ron to the airport while Neil looks

after Brendas you nge st sibling, Julie. After th ey leave, N eil stands in th e hall

o f the hou se an d thinks to h imse lf tha t [he] felt like Carlota; n o, n ot even

as com fortab le as th at (40). T h e fact tha t N eil w ou ld feel like the Pa timk ins

African Am erican m aid m akes it clear tha t he is very aware tha t his social class

is likely m uc h closer to C arlotas than it is to th e Pa timk ins.

All of Neils anxieties ab ou t his social inferiority becom e m ost p rom inen t


6/19

knows that she left her diaphragm at home intentionally, knowing her

mo ther would likely stumble upon it. Neil also knows that Brendas interests

have never been in satisfying her parents demands of her, yet she insists toNeil th at [tjheyre still my parents. They did send me to the best schools,

didnt they? They have given me everything Ive wanted, havent they?

(134). Brendas words to Neil indicate more than an attempt to satisfy her

parents. She is explicitly telling him that it is her social status that makes

them unsuitable for one another. Her parents sent her to an Ivy League

school and gave her everything she wanted; therefore, she and Neil are

incompatible. As France contends, Brenda must ultimately recognize that

self-interest is defined by class interests, which take primacy over romantic

inclinations (88). And though it is Neil that leaves Brenda crying in the

hotel room, Brenda has intentionally initiated the events that eventually led

to their break-up by leaving the diaphragm at home. Brenda is, in short,

done slumming it with Neil; she is ready to move on to a man who more

closely matches her social class.

After the fight, Neil wanders the streets of Cambridge. In the window

of the Lamont Library Neil stares at his reflection and sees that I was only

that substance...those limbs, that face that I saw in front of me (135).

France claims [w]ith this image we have reached the limits of the post-warreification o f wealth, success, status, and sexual desire. For Neil there is no

alternative to the hollowness o f the 1950s commodity culture (89). Frances

contention might be valid if it had been Neil who had rejected the upper-

middle class commodity culture rather than the other way around. Shostak,

on the other hand, theorizes that [fjinding himself reflected back tohimself

from the outsideof that bastion of highbrow, gentile America to which he has

aspired, a t last Neil recognizes the Jews excluded position, no matter his mate

rial attainments. He remains a Jew (119). Goodbye, Columbus is, after all,a story about Jewish entry into the American commodity culture. Neil has

been rejected, but as readers we are meant to understand that this may not

be such a terrible thing. He may not have gained the status of the Patimkins

high-class American materialism, but he has retained his identity as a Jewish

outsider. Roth intentionally writes the ending of this story to be ambiguous;

whether or not Neil values his Jewish identity (or if he even should) is left

uncertain. Earlier in the story, Neil explains to Mrs. Patimkin that he is just

Jewish (88). However, this ending seems to suggest that Neil has undergone

a journey toward recognizing and understanding his identity as a Jew. With

this story, Roth exposes the social class distinctions that have been made

within and among the American Jewish community. More importantly, he

demonstrates tha t the concept o f social class is necessarily unsympathetic, and

is therefore decidedly non-Jewish. In other words, social climbing Jews such

as the Patimkins would seem to have lost the sympathy that ought to define


7/19

JEWISH/CHRISTIAN HOSTILITY IN THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS'

Oscar Freedman is the type of endlessly inquisitive young man who is some-

what wiser than the authority figures who surround him. The Conversion

of the Jews begins with Ozzie conversing with his much less thoughtful

friend Itzie Lieberman about an argument Ozzie had with his Hebrew school

Rabbi about the nature o f Jesus Christ. Ozzie understands that He was a real

person, Jesus, but he wasnt like God, and we dont believe he is God, yet

when Rabbi Binder claimed that its impossible [for God to father a child]

Ozzie became confused. In his confusion he asked Binder if [God] could

make [the world] in six days, and He couldpickthe six days he wanted right

out o f nowhere, why couldnt H e let a woman have a baby without havingintercourse? The question and the conversation are both over the head of

Itzie who can only respond by saying You said intercourse, Ozz, to Binder?

(140). Still, Ozzie goes on to explain to Itzie that the Rabbi refused to answer

this question. Because of this, Ozzie must ask his mother to come to the

Hebrew school for a third time to discuss his obstinacy with the Rabbi.

That evening, Ozzie plans to tell his mother that she must again visit

Binder, but he decides to let her light the Sabbath candle first. The scene

articulates Ozzies incontrovertible connection to his faith:[W]hen Mrs. Freedman came through the door she...went to the kitchen table

to ligh t the three yellow candles, two for the Sabbath and one for Ozzies father.

When his mother lit the candles she would move her two arms slowly towards

her, dragging them through the air, as though persuading people whose minds

were half made up. And her eyes would get glassy with tears. Even when his

father was alive Ozzie remembered that her eyes had gotten glassy, so it didnt

have anything to do with his dying. It had something to do with lighting the

candles...When his mother lit the candles Ozzie felt there should be no noise;

even breathing, if you could manage it, should be softened. O zzie... watched hismother dragging whatever she was dragging, and he felt his own eyes get glassy.

(14243)

It is obvious tha t there is a great deal of reverence in Ozzies observance of

Jewish tradition in this scene. The somberness of this moment, though, is

juxtaposed with a mom ent of violence. After Mrs. Freedman finishes lighting

the candles, Ozzie tells her that she must again visit with Rabbi Binder and

[f]or the first time in their life together she hit Ozzie across the face with her

hand (143). Th e reverence Ozzie has for his faith is further emphasized by his

refusal to read Hebrew scripture quickly on the grounds that he could read

faster but that if he did he was sure not to understand what he was reading.

Though there is no logical reason for Ozzies escape to the school rooftop,

once there he finds himself in a position of powera position he decides to

utilize. Ozzie threatens to jump while Binder pleads with him not to. Mrs.

Freedman arrives and joins Binder in pleading for Ozzie to come down safely


8/19

person in the crowd admit that God can make a child without intercourse

(157). Next Ozzie forces evetyone to say they believed in Jesus Christ,

before he tells his mother [she] shouldnt hit [Ozzie] about God [...]Youshould never hit anybody about God (158). When she promises never to hit

him about God he jumps to safety into the fire departments yellow net that

glowed in the evenings edge like an overgrown halo (158).

Its truthfully no wonder that Roth has been accused by many of being a

self-hating Jew (Glenn 95). O n the surface, the act o f writing a story about

a Jewish Hebrew student who forces an entire group of Jews to say they

believed in Jesus Christ would seem to warrant such an accusation. Yet crit

ics have largely overlooked this controversial element of the story. One early

reviewer criticized The Conversion of the Jews for being too pat, saying

its .. .moral, You should never hit anybody about God, is ultimately hokum

(Hyman 37). Other critics find the story problematic for its structure. Alfred

Kazin, for instance, believes that in The Conversion of the Jews Roth is too

anxious not only to dramatize the conflict but to make the issue absolutely

clear (qtd. in Halio 26). Reading this story as mere allegory, however, might

be a bit reductive. It seems to me that Halio might have a more conclusive

reading of the text overall. He claims that

in the world of the child, simplicity rules, as it does for Ozzie Feedman. Therein

also lies the humor of the story and its import: adult sophistications and their

consequences are finally no match for the single-mindedness and courage of a

litde boy, for whom the logic of Gods omnipotence and mercy overwhelms allother considerations. (26)

In o ther words, Rabbi Binders dismissive claim that a God who created the

world in six days could not have a child without intercourse is unsatisfying

to Ozzie because Binders claim is based not on logic or reason but on an

awareness of longstanding Jewish/Christian hostility. As Theodore Solotaroffclaims, Ozzie is not the kind of boy to allow God to be hedged in by the

conflicts o f Judaism and Christianity (27).

Moreover, the faith that Ozzie forces upon his onlookers is not unlike

the faith that has been forced upon him. After all, Ozzie is coerced to read

Hebrew scripture quickly at the cost of comprehending it. He is antagonized

for his inquisitive nature, and the questions he insists on posing all involve

Jewish privilege. He first wonders how Rabbi Binder could call the Jews

The Chosen People if the Declaration of Independence claimed all men to

be created equal (141). Next, he demands to understand why his mother

considers a plane crash to be a tragedy only when she discovers among

the list of those dead eight Jewish names (142). It seems that Ozzie has

found an inconsistency within the Jewish commandment to . . . love [ones

brother]: he is as thyself (qtd. in Jung 387). Thus, when Binder refuses to

approach the question of Jesus Christs possible divinity with logic opting


9/19

to determine his wordsOzzie decides he has had enough of the hypocrisy.

His actions throughout the second half of the story demonstrate his attempts

not only to confront that hypocrisy, but to force his Jewish onlookers toconfront it as well.

JEWISH FAVORITISM AND SOLIDARITY INDEFENDER OF THE FAITH"

Along with The Conversion of the Jews, Defender of the Faith is one of

Roths most controversial stories collected in Goodbye, Columbus. The story

was first published in a 1959 issue of The New Yorker and was met almost

immediately with outrage by many Jewish readers (Parrish 129). In his essay

Writing About Jews, Roth quotes from several letters he received from Jew-ish readers after the story was published. One letter was sent directly to Roth:

Mr. Roth:

With your one story, Defender of the Faith, you have done as much harm

as all the organized antiSemitic organizations have done to make people believe

that all Jews are cheats, liars, connivers. Your one story makes people the gen-

eral public forget all the great Jews who have lived, all the Jewish boys who

served well in the armed services, all the Jews who live honest hard lives the

world over . . . (160)

The second letter was received by The New Yorker and was then forwarded

to the writer:

Dear Sir:

[. . .] We have discussed [Defender of the Faith] from every possible angle

and we cannot escape the conclusion that it will do irreparable damage to the

Jewish people. We feel that this story presented a distorted picture of the average

Jewish soldier and are at a loss to understand why a magazine of your fine reputa-

tion would publish such a work which lends fuel to antiSemitism.

Cliches like this being Art will no t be acceptable. (160)

Moreover, one rabbi and educator in New York City told Roth that he had

earned the g ratitude.. .o f all who sustain their antiSemitism on such concep-

tions of Jews as ultimately led to the murder o f six million in our time (qtd.

in Jews 16162).

The story revolves around three Jewish privates and their Jewish com-

manding officer, Sergeant Nathan Marx. When Marx is initially confronted

by Private Sheldon Grossbart, who asks the Sergeant if he and his fellowJewish personnel might be allowed to attend Jewish services on Friday eve-

nings rather than cleaning the barracks along with the other privates, Marx

submits to Grossbart because the request seems to be a fairly minor one and

because Grossbart makes a point to tell Marx that this is a matter ofreligion,

sir (165). Over time, however, as Grossbarts requests of Marx become more


10/19

than they are about ethnically based preferential treatment. As Halio explains,

Playing on Marxs sense of guilt more than on any sense of solidarity he might

have with his landsmen (that is, fellow Jews), Grossbart finagles special passesand exemptions from onerous duty for himself and two of his friends (27).

Moreover, Grossbarts fidelity to Judaism comes into question as the story

progresses. Grossbart asks Marx for a weekend pass a few weeks after Passover

so that he and his friends can visit relatives in St. Louis[...] [for] a whole

Passover dinner. When Marx denies Grossbart his requestpasses are never

given during basic training Grossbart accuses Marx of persecuting [him]

(187). Finally, Grossbart threatens to leave without the pass and Marx finally

submits to his request. When Grossbart returns, however, he tells Marx that

he and his friends had gone the wrong weekend and had used the pass not

to go to a Seder but to a Chinese restaurant. It has become obvious to Marx

at this po int that Grossbarts requests for special treatment are based not on

an interest in following religious tradition but on his own self-interest. In this

way, Grossbart is one of those Roth characters who, in the words of Stephen

Wade, [use] Jewishness as a shield and a convenience (68).

Given the lengths Grossbart is willing to go to in order to avoid discom

fort, it is rather unsurprising when Marx learns that he has somehow gotten

exempted from being shipped to fight in the Pacific along with the otherprivates. Because Nathan Marx now understands Grossbarts motivations, he

arranges to have Grossbart sent to the Pacific instead. After learning that the

safety Grossbart thought he had secured through manipulating his superiors

has been compromised by Marx, he confronts Marx and accuses him of being

an anti-Semite. Marxs actions, however, are far from anti-Semitic. As Jessica

Rabin submits, Marxs betrayal o f Grossbart, ostensibly calling in a favor to

help out a Jewish kid bu t actually undermining Grossbarts manipulations,

seems to be an endorsement of personal integrity rather than of a single exclusionary category of identification (18). Marx has realized, in short, that it is

fairness, not favoritism that is the heart o f equality. According to Dan Isaac, in

forcing Grossbart to fight in the Pacific

Sgt. Marx has taken an action that appears callous and even anti-Semitic, unless

understood as arising out of an honest conflict that profoundly wrestles with the

problem of how best to serve Jewish interests. The solution is one that sacrifices

the interests of one not very likeable member of the tribe to an abstract principle

of absolute justice. (189)

One early reviewer of Roth wrote of Defender o f the Faith that it was the

only one of [the stories collected in Goodbye, CoLumbus\ that seems wholly

successful to me (Hyman 37). Likewise, Howe claimed that [n]either before

nor after Defender of the Faith [had] Roth written anything approaching

it in compositional rigor and moral seriousness (236). As Howe points out,

at least part of the success of this story is due to its moral complexities Like


11/19

dilemmas with great subdety (56). This moral and ethical subdety might

refer to Marxs last words in the text. As the privates ready themselves for war

and attempt to accept their fate, Marx claims that [b]ehind me, Grossbartswallowed hard, accepting his. And then, resisting with all my will an impulse

to turn and seek pardon for my vindictiveness, I accepted my own (200). In

admitting that Marx acted vindictively he may be admitting that his actions

were less about doing what was right and more about getting even with a

man who has repeatedly taken advantage of him. Still, regardless of Marxs

motivations it is clear from the outcome of the story that Marx has received

a prophetic vision of universal justice (189). In the end, Marx has finally

refused to hand over any more of his sense of fairness and responsibility to the

seductive appeals of Jewish solidarity (Solotaroff 27).

There is one other aspect of Defender of the Faith that contributes to its

wholeness as a story. During Marxs first interaction with his commanding

officer Captain Paul Barrett, Barrett tells Marx that Id fight side by side with

a nigger if the fella proved to me he was a man. I pride myself.. .that Ive got an

open mind. Consequently, Sergeant, nobody gets special treatment here, for

the good o rthe bad. All a mans got to do is prove himself.. .And I admire you.

I admire you because of the ribbons on your chest (166). Despite assurances

that Barrett has an open mind, his rhetoric here shows both Marx and thereader that the opposite is true. A lesser writer would have made it impossible

for a reader to believe that someone as thoughtful and savvy as Marx would be

capable of being manipulated by Grossbart for so long. However, in creating

an obviously racist (and probably anti-Semitic) man as Marxs commanding

officer, Roth has effectively [t] rapped [Marx] between two antipathies, two

grotesque distortions of attitudes toward Jewishness (Isaac 188) so much so

that it is believable that Marx would allow himself to be taken advantage of by

Grossbart. Moreover, amidst these two remarkably different attitudes towardJudaism, Marx is forced to create an identity for himself. He sees both Gross

bart and Barrett as unattractive extremes and becomes instead the defender of

a democratic theory by which the accidents of birth give no exemption from

our common fate. He acts from a sense of justice tha t is, finally, humanistic in

its universality (Guttman 174). And this universal justice that Marx enacts in

the story is ultimately a form of universal sympathy.

The question remains, however, about what it is that so many Jewish readers

found unattractive in this story when it was first published. One aspect of the

story some readers might have found problematic was its treatment of Jewish tra

dition. After all, there is nothing immoral about Jewish soldiers requesting to be

allowed to attend religious services while serving in the armed forces. Moreover,

Grossbarts request to be allowed to remain kosher is not unreasonable. The con

text of the story is, of course, the end of World War Two and, therefore, Jewish

readers might be fair to criticize a story that would seem to belittle ones right to


12/19

as Roths text would support, the following of Jewish tradition is only important

for those who attempt to live with moral integrity and absolute universal justice

and sympathy. Michael Rothberg writes about another complaint many Jewishreaders had with the story. According to Rothberg,

[w]hat probably made the story so disturbing for some members of the Jewish

community was the supplementary, anticipatory suggestion, incarnated in Gross-

bart, that the emergence of consciousness of the extreme could so easily become

the occasion for sentimental, politically interested claims to ethnic solidarity. (57)

Readers were, in short, upset that Roth would anticipate Jewish favoritism

with a character such as Grossbart. Critics are right to be appalled by Gross-

barts self-interest. However, the moral integrity of Marx ought to serve as anantithesis to the lack o f moral integrity o f Grossbart. Moreover, Roths story is

not an indictment of Judaism as a religion. On the contrary, Marxs universal

justice functions in the story as a defense of the faith rather than a rejection

of it. Readers who have found fault with Roths criticism o f certain Jewish

individuals would do well to look more closely at his affirmation of Marxs per

sonal integrity and his identity as the essential Jew of the story. Roth himself

summarizes his critics complaints writing that I had told the Gentiles what

apparently it would otherwise have been possible to keep secret from them:

that the perils of human nature afflict the members o f our [Jewish] minor

ity (Jews 161). He goes on to defend his story claiming [t]hat I had also

informed [Gentiles] it was possible for there to be such a Jew as Nathan Marx

did not seem to bother anybody (161). In other words, Jews who have found

reason to criticize this story for the way Grossbart is represented as a Jew seem

to have overlooked the fact that Marx is a Jew as well.

ASSIMILATION IN ELI, THE FANATIC"

Like Goodbye, Columbus, Eli, the Fanatic is centered on suburban Jews

who are actively working to assimilate into American culture. For the Jews of

Woodenton, unlike Mr. and Mrs. Patimkin, assimilation is reached through

a rejection of religious identity. In the words of the title character, Wooden-

ton is a progressive suburban community whose members, both Jewish and

Gentile, are anxious that their families live in comfort and beauty and seren

ity (261). Elis words are intentionally vague; in truth the Jewish members

of the predominantly WASPish Woodenton community have assimilated by

repress[ing their Jewishness] in order to smooth their entry into Americanculture (Shostak 119). Therefore, when the openly Jewish Leo Tzuref along

with a nameless concentration camp survivor operates an Orthodox yeshiva

out o f his home, many of the towns Jewish residents become uncomfortable.

Because Eli is an attorney, he has been commissioned by the community to ask

Tzuref and his eighteen students to close the yeshiva on the grounds that it is


13/19

he and the Jewish Woodenton residents are right because they are adhering to

American lawhe claims matter-of-factly that [the location of the yeshiva] is

a matter of zoning (251). Tzuref, however, sees that the Jews of Woodentonuse the law as an excuse to attempt to distance themselves from the Orthodox

Jews of the school. An early critic of Roth for instance claimed that, with this

story Roth means to condemn a society that turns zoning laws into subtle

instruments of persecution (Isaac 191). Thus, by asking Eli When is the law

that is the law not the law? (251). Tzuref attempts to appeal to Elis sense of

(Jewish) morality. Tzuref is establishing the difference between the laws of the

American legal system (of which Tzuref is in violation) and the laws of Judaism

(of which Eli and the Jews o f Woodenton are in violation).

The characterization of the Jews of Woodenton is significant in terms of

Roths very pointed condemnation of them. Ted Heller, a particularly vocal

member of the community, goes so far as to call the Orthodox Jews [gjoddam

fanatics (258). FJis letter to Tzuref is also very telling in regards to Elis con

nection to his Jewish identity:

Woodenton, as you may not know, has long been the home of well-to-do Protes

tants. It is only since the war that Jews have been able to buy property here, and

for Jews and Gentiles to live beside each other in amity. For this adjustment to

be made, both Jews and Gentiles alike have had to give up some of their moreextreme practices in order not to threaten or offend the other. Certainly such

amity is to be desired. Perhaps if such conditions had existed in prewar Europe,

the persecution of the Jewish people, o f which you and those 18 children have

been victims, could not have been carried out with such successin fact, might

not have been carried out at all. (262)

According to Eli, the Woodenton Jews have given up their extreme practices in

order to live comfortably among non-Jews. However, the many Protestants of

Woodenton have no voice in Roths story. After all, it is the Jews who continually

assert their discomfort with the presence of the yeshiva. Therefore, the assimi

lated Jews of the town respond passionately to Tzuref and his yeshiva (ostensibly

without prompt from the Woodenton Gentiles) because in theirparanoid[my

italics] and reactive suspicions, [the Woodenton Jews] consider themselves in

jeopardy, at risk of being seen as Jews (Aarons 9). Moreover, that Eli would

speculate to a group of Holocaust survivors that the Holocaust might have been

less successful or perhaps avoided altogether if European Jews had worked to

assimilate to European culture is both tactless and grossly uninformed. Halio

describes Eli as by no means heartless or insensitive (32), yet his words toTzuref certainly make him seem that way. Perhaps then Elis letter to Tzuref

functions to indicate how put upon Eli feels as a representative of his commu

nity. Put another way, given the nature o f Elis transformation in the story, it may

be unfair to accuse him of being inconsiderate. He does, after all, feel forTzuref

and the children, [just as] he feels for his community, whose members increas

i l hi l h di h h l i (32)


14/19

In his letter to Tzuref, Eli requests that [t]he religious, educational, and

social activities of the Yeshiva at Wooden to n ... be confined to the Yeshiva

grounds [and] Yeshiva personnel are welcomed in the streets and stores ofWoodenton provided they are attired in clothing usually associated with

American life in the 20th century (262). The second of Elis conditions refers

to the unnamed Orthodox Jew attired in a black hat [and] suit (261), the

traditional garb of Hasidic Jews. Tzuref sends an immediate and extremely

succinct response: The suit the gentleman wears is all hes got (263), which

instantly calls attention (both for Eli and for the reader) to the trauma caused

by the Holocaust.

Clothing, like food in Goodbye, Columbus, is associated with Jewish

identity in Eli, the Fanatic. For the Jews of Woodenton, the Hasidic Jews

black suit and hat undeniably identifies him not only as distinctively Jew-

ish but as distinctively different from the other inhabitants o f Woodenton.

Victoria Aarons claims that the Jews of Woodenton are to the yeshiva Jews

what the gentiles are to the Jews of W oodenton ...the Woodenton yeshiva

calls to attention that there are Jews, calls attention to the Jews as a flagrant

symbol o f difference (16). Shostak, on the o ther hand, argues that [t] he

intense discomfort the Woodenton Jews feel in the presence of [the Orthodox

Jews] who are simply attempting to be the Jewish selves they know (and were

prohibited and nearly annihilated during the lives in Europe from which

they have escaped) finds a focus in their appearance, especially their clothing

(119). Thus, the presence of the yeshiva is just as problematic to the Wooden-

ton Jews as is the presence of the Hasidic refugee who is easily distinguished

by his black clothing. Both bring unwanted attention to the Jewish identities

that the towns Jews have sought to undermine for the sake of assimilating.

Therefore, when Eli dresses himself in the Hasids black suit he is distinguish-

ing himself from his fellow Woodenton Jews, who define themselves by theiraccomplishments in the American economy (Halio 21).

Though critics generally praise Eli, the Fanatic as one of the better sto-

ries in the collection, there are many who have criticized it. Stanley Hymen

claims that though the story reaches one high point of power and beauty...

the rest of the story is rambling and diffuse (37). Likewise, Irving and Har-

riet Deer write that Elis transformation cannot be understood or accepted by

his neighbors, for it is private and also dishonest in the sense that Eli can no

more own the experiences that make orthodox dress a truthful expression of

the Greenies identity, than he can disown that part of himself which belongs

to Woodenton (qtd. in Guttman 177). These sorts o f critiques seem to be

unfairly based on the storys basic limitations. Roth ends his story by claiming

that the sedative Eli receives from the hospital interns did not touch it down

where the blackness had reached (298), which indicates that what the reader

has witnessed is Elis first step toward a longer journey of spiritual enlighten-


15/19

tate a lasting change in terms of his acceptance of his cultural (and perhaps

religious) identity. Halio, for instance, reads the story as an exposure of the

essential truth concerning the loss of values, of tradition and identity [that]Eli Peck finally comes to recognize and, in his bizarre but necessary way, tries

to restore (35). In a broader sense, Isaac asserts that, taken as a whole, Eli,

the Fanatic explicates what Goodbye, Columbus merely implies: Ameri-

can Judaism has become the willing servant of an immoral society, corrupted

by the very force it should oppose (191). The Wooden ton Jews, in short,

have lost sympathy with Tzuref and the other Holocaust survivors they

have, therefore, denied the ethical obligations of their Jewish identities just

as they have denied their ethnic identities to their WASPish neighbors and

themselves. Thus, the perception...that [Roths] fiction has compromised

the integrity o f JewishAmerican cultural identity (Parrish, The End of

Identity 85) is both inaccurate and off point. With stories such as Eli, the

Fanatic Roth is working to expose the hypocrisy inherent in claiming to be

Jewish while refusing to practice the Jewish principal of universal sympathy.

RELIGIOUS INTEGRIT Y INGOODB YE, COLUMBUS

AND FIVE SHORT STORIES

The remaining stories in Goodbye, Columbus (Epstein and You Cant Tell

a Man by the Song He Sings) are not necessarily relevant to this discussion,

and therefore have not been discussed in this essay. Though both of the sto-

ries could be seen as dealing with elements o f Jewishness, neither of them

directly addresses the contradictory or hypocritical nature of specific Jews

which seems to be one major focus of the other stories in the collection. Still,

it would be reductive to attempt to come to any singular conclusion about

Goodbye, Columbusas a whole. Despite the fact that Roth was only twenty

six when the collection was published, Goodbye, Columbus's depths andcomplexities] show him . . . to be a surprisingly mature writer (Halio 36).

Generally speaking, throughout the four stories that I have discussed, Roth

seems to be working not only to expose the inconsistencies that existed within

some modern JewishAmerican individuals but also to show individual Jews

struggling with their Jewish identities. Osherson writes that Judaism is often

identified with a particular set o f beliefs or with specific religious observances

or with ethnic identities (bagels and lox, heresmy Judaism). Yet our Jewish

identities are often expressed by what we do and the choices we make; identityis truly provisional to our choices and behaviors in the world (240). Many

Roth scholars would deny that Roth is, in any way, a moralist in the tradi-

tional sense. As Robert Greenberg argues, Roth distinguishes between artistic

and moral responsibility; and regarding his artistic work, he disavows moral

responsibility (496). Especially in terms of his later work, Roths tone is too

cynical and too reliant on comic detachment (494) to be called moralistic


16/19

Goodbye, Columbus.Rather, my argument is that whether Roth is intention-

ally being a moralist or not, with Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Storieshe

was writing a collection that is consistent with the basic moral principles ofthe Jewish faith. Roth does this by showing an acute awareness that some Jews

tend to view Jewish identity as a set of traditions as well as an ethnic identity,

as opposed to a way of acting. In Goodbye, Columbus the Patimkins iden-

tify with their religious identities (though they aim to surgically remove that

identity from their children) bu t assimilate by means o f becoming American

materialists and succumbing to the alluring nature of American social hier-

archy. Jewish authority figures in The Conversion of the Jews define their

Jewishness in contrast to the Gentiles in general and to the Christians in par-

ticular. Private Grossbart utilizes his Jewish identity in order to receive special

privilege in Defender o f the Faith. And in Eli, the Fanatic, Roth is con-

cerned with the failure to acknowledge Jewish suffering (even by other Jews)

(Rothberg 56). Thus, by criticizing the way contemporary Jews act, Roth has,

perhaps unwittingly, aligned himself with the Old Testament prophets who

condemned Jews for their lack o f sympathy.

Still, Roths criticisms are aimed not at the institution of Judaism as a whole

but at certain individuals with in it who, in the aftermath of the Holocaust,

came to undermine what is most essential about Jewish identity. Oshersonwrites that while he was growing up in an affluent suburban neighborhood

(outside of New York City) in the 1950s he came to associate Judaism with

smugness, insularity, and materialism (3). And though readers might easily

find fault with many Jewish characters in Goodbye, Columbus, those readers

would do well to remember those Jews who oppose and overcome them.

Though Neil Klugman is in many ways a flawed individual, he does come to

see the Patimkins as a materialistic and morally compromised Jewish family.

Oscar Freedman refuses to allow God to be defined by tension between Jewsand Christians. Nathan Marx rejects Jewish favoritism in favor of sympathetic

and universal justice. And Eli Peck comes to differentiate himself from his

fellow Woodenton Jews by making a connection not just with formerly perse-

cuted Orthodox European Jews but with himself and his true Jewish identity.

And as Parrish contends, his protagonists story matters to the extent that it

reflects the transformation of the group of which he is a part (The End of

Identity 87).

In The Facts: A Novelists Autobiography, Roth writes at length about his

struggles with Jewish critics throughout his early career. In one of the most

memorable scenes in the book, he discusses his participation on a panel dis-

cussion, along with Ralph Ellison and Pietro di Donato, at Yeshiva University

in 1962. After the three participants spoke, the moderator directed his first

question at Roth: Mr. Roth, would you write the same stories youve writ-

ten if you were living in Nazi Germany? (127). Roth discusses his inability


17/19

minutes realizes that I was not just opposed but hated. Still, Roth claims

that he had no intention as a writer of coming to be known as controversial

and, in the beginning, had no idea that my stories would prove repugnantto ordinary Jews (124). The fact that Roth is so consistently nonplussed by

critiques such as this one demonstrates that such readings say more about the

anxieties of the reader than they do about Roth. And as Isaac states, Roths

collection serves to pose a valid question to his readership: To what extent

can a civilization compromise its values in order to survive, and still retain its

distinct and original integrity? (192).

NO TES

1. I refer to both the book, Goodbye, Columbus and die novella, Goodbye, Colum-

bus frequently throughou t this article. From this poin t on the italicized Goodbye,

Columbusrefers to the entire collection [Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories] and

the nonitalicized Goodbye, Columbus refers to the title story o f the collection.

WORKS C ITED

Aarons, Victoria. AmericanJewish Identity in Roths Short Fiction. The Cambridge Companion

to Philip Roth.Ed. Timothy Parrish. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 921. Print.

France, Alan W. Philip Roths Goodbye, Columbus and the Limits of Commodity Culture.MELUS15.4 (1988): 8389.JSTOR.Web. 3 Feb. 2011.

Glenn, Susan A. The Vogue of SelfHatred in PostWorld War II America.Jewish Social Studies.

12.3 (2006): 95136.JSTOR.Web. 18 Mar. 2011. < www.jstor.org>

Greenberg, Robert M. Transgression in the Fiction of Philip Roth. Twentieth Century Litera

ture. 43.4 (1997): 487507. EBSCOHost.Web. 28 Mar. 2012.

Guttman, Allen. Philip Roth and the Rabbis. Critical Essays on Philip Roth.Ed. Sanford Pinsker.

Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1982. 17281. Print.

Halio, Jay L. Nice Jewish Boys: The Comedy of Goodbye, Columbus and the Early Stories.

Philip Roth Revisited.New York: Twayne Publishers, 1992. 1336. Print.

Howe, Irving. Philip Roth Reconsidered. Critical Essays on Philip Roth. Ed. Sanford Pinsker.


Hyman, Stanley Edgar. A Novelist of Great Promise. Critical Essays on Philip Roth.Ed. Sanford

Pinsker. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1982. 3640. Print.Isaac, Dan. In Defense of Philip Roth. Critical Essays on Philip Roth. Ed. Sanford Pinsker.

Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1982. 18293. Print.Jung, Leo. Judaism and the New World Order: Human Equality and Social Reconstruction.

American Journal o fEconomics and Sociology. 4 (1945): 38593.JSTOR. Web. 4 Mar. 2009.

Larner, Jeremy. The Conversion o f the Jews. Critical Essays on Philip Roth.Ed. Sanford Pinsker.


Osherson, Samuel.Rekindling the Flame: The Many Paths to a Vibrant Judaism.New York: Har

cort, Inc., 2001. Print.

Parrish, Timothy L. The End of Identity: Philip Roths American Pastoral. Shofar: An Interdis

ciplinary Journal o fJewish Studies 19.1 (2000): 8499. Print.

. Introduction: Roth at MidCareer. The Cambridge Companion to Philip Roth.Ed. Timothy

Parrish. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 18. Print.

. Roth and Ethnic Identity. The Cambridge Companion to Philip Roth.Ed. Timothy Parrish.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 12741. Print.

Rabin, Jessica G. Still (Resonant, Relevant and) Crazy After All These Years: Goodbye, Columbus

and Five Short Stories Philip Roth: New Perspectives on an American Author Ed Derek Parker


18/19

Roth, Philip. Defender of the Faith. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories.New York: The

Modern Library, 1959. 159-200. Print.

. Eli, the Fanatic. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories.New York: The Modern Library,

1959. 247-98. Print.. The Facts: A Novelists Autobiography.New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1988. Print.

. Goodbye, Columbus. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories.New York: The Modern

Library, 1959. 1-136. Print.

. The Conversion of the Jews. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories. New York: The

Modern Library, 1959. 137-58. Print.

. Writing About Jews.Reading Myselfand Others.New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975.

117-36. Print.

Rothberg, Michael. Roth and the Holocaust. The Cambridge Companion to Philip Roth. Ed.

Timothy Parrish. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 52-67. Print.

Rudnytsky, Peter L. Goodbye, Columbus: Roths Portrait of the Narcissist as a Young Man.

Twentieth Century Literature 51.1 (2005): 25-42. JSTOR.Web. 3 Feb. 2011. Shostak, Debra. Impersonation and the Diaspora Jew. Philip RothCountertexts, Counter-lives.

Columbia, South Carolina: U o f South Carolina P, 2004. 107-57. Print.

SolotarofF, Theodore. Philip Roth and the Jewish Moralists. Contemporary American-]ewish

Literature: Critical Essays. Ed. Irving Malin. London: Indiana UP, 1973. 13-29. Print.

. Philip Roth: A Personal View. Blooms Modem Critical Views: Philip Roth. Ed. Harold

Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. 23-40. Print.

Wade, Stephen. Jewish American Literature since 1945: an Introduction. Chicago, IL: Fitzroy

Dearborn, 1999. Print.


19/19

C o p y r i g h t o f P h i l i p R o t h S t u d i e s i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f P u r d u e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s a n d i t s c o n t e n t

m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t t h e c o p y r i g h t

h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r

i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

standard 4 (content knowledge)

Documents