A particularly poignant passage from around the middle of the book strikes me as a continuation of the concept of traditionalism VS anarchism, and the summation of a lot of themes in the book.
Swede details his experiences as a young adult beginning with his christening as "Swede" in freshman year basketball practice to his experiences in the army as a young adult. In a contrast to Zuckerman's somewhat alienated existence detailed in earlier chapters, Swede is fully immersed in the culture and feel of America. He lives and breathes it. While he has tried as hard as one possibly can to see how Merry could despise this country so much, he feels that hating America is like hating a part of himself.
His whole family history is based upon the struggle to assimilate and to be able to feel as American as their neighbor, to live the American dream. The hard work of his ancestors has all lead up to him, a former high school athlete and successful businessman with a Christian wife in a beautiful mansion in a secluded New Jersey town. He intends to savor his success, not only because it feels good but also it is because his success relates to something bigger than himself. He works hard, but he loves the life that he has been given and is grateful for his family for giving him this opportunity.
To Swede, the American Dream isn't just a concept, it is the central drive that not only got him where he was but also pushed his father forward, inspiring him to work hard so that his son would have more opportunity than he does, just as his own father had done. The American dream is so closely linked to his family that hating it is almost the same thing as hating his family. It hurts him to realize that Merry understands this and still reviles what he holds so dear.
It is interesting to me that Merry represents a break in the chain of the "immigrant mentality" seen so clearly in Swede and his relatives. I think that a fair amount of her problems are related to Swede and not her mother as many in Old Rimrock assume. Does a total integration into society signify that the next generation will be able to shun the society that gave them the privilege they have? It is interesting how Roth frames the dynamics of this switch in ideology. It's sort of a 'you can't miss what you never had' situation. Does this occur in real life?
Swede will never be as wholly Jewish as his peers growing up but he will never be able to erase the part of him that will always remain a product of that environment and the immigrant mindset, making his clinging to the American dream and total assimilation all the more tragic because he will never truly embody the American pastoral. He can come close, and he can look and act as if he is already there, but the very fact that he is so drawn to this concept of "being an American" is indicative of an outside perspective that cannot be erased.
Stay tuned for Ideological Conflict pt. 2, which will examine the unconditional love a father has for his daughter and probably some other stuff as well!
Would you say that a major topic in your book is the idea of traditionalism vs. anarchism? My book seems to have an underlying issue with the modern way of life for young adults, but it's never clearly stated. Would you say that traditionalism vs. anarchism is the sole consideration in your book?
ReplyDeleteI would say that it's one of them! My book is comprised of a lot of different themes, and while traditionalism vs. anarchism is one of the main themes, and the one that presents the conflict for the majority of the book, the end of the book sort of brings them together as one by insinuating that idealistic belief in any philosophy is basically just asking for disappointment.
ReplyDeleteI think your last statement to Madeline, about the problems of idealism, no matter which outlet or direction it takes, gets at what I was going to comment on in response to your post.
ReplyDeleteSo instead, I'll comment on something else.
Your post, and your questioning of the conflict between the different generations, reminds me of the section in The Handmaid's Tale where we see Offred consider her views of feminism as a response to her mother's views, or perhaps more accurately, they are a reaction against them. The similarity between these two generations seems to suggest that it's only when we feel comfortable within a certain construct that we can question it or rebel against it. By which I mean that Offred can act more traditionally because the barrier regarding female behavior has been broached. Merry can likewise question the traditionalism of her father because he has already created a comfortable place from which she can do so.
Does this make sense?