So what...?

[christina]

As I finished the book, I felt a small speck of "so what...?" Or in other words, whay was this written? I think to place it in the realm of pure entertainment would not be accurate, but I am interested in what each of you took away from this book. What did you learn? Why was it written? Etc.

[Phil]

I think the most obvious reason for the novel is its place in literary history as the first American Jewish novel. As I recall, it is the first such novel to deal with ordinary Jewish life in the U.S. The concerns are internal to the Jewish community rather than being conflicts with the gentile world, although the larger world certainly has an effect on the almost closed world of New York Jews. The conflicts in the novel are consistently between Jews and other Jews all along the scale of assimilation. So the major “so what” I come away with is an apparently genuine insider's view of a culture and community that is not my own.

In addition, however, I think the book is a metaphor for how Potok thinks the Jews should interact with the modern world. David Maltin is the model. He is an observant Jew (I sense that he would be a member of a conservative synagogue rather than orthodox) and is committed to the study of the Talmud, but is not opposed to using modern methodology to do so. In Rav Gershenson's class, we see Reuven using what is in essence textual criticism (popular with many liberal biblical scholars) to conclude that the extant Talmudic text is wrong. The methodology clearly comes from Reuven's father. Gershonson forbids Reuven to use it in his class, even though he indicates no personal objection to it. So I think David Maltin is the model for what Danny will become and Danny represents the way Potok thinks the Jews should change. They should wear the Tallit, but keep the tzitzit inside their outer clothing. They should keep their faith and tradidtions, but they should use their unique experience and skills to become, as Reb Sauders says of Danny, "a Tzaddik to the world."

Phil

[Katrina]

I just got looking through this forum again and really wanted to reply to this post, even though it's been a long time.

For me, there are two main points in this story. The first is about suffering and the human condition. It raises questions concerning the necessity of suffering and how it is to be dealt with, as well as how it affects us as human beings. Reb Saunders knows how important it is for his son to be able to empathize with those who suffer, and he imposes a very strict discipline on him as a means of teaching him that empathy. But for a lot of people, that also raises some questions of, for lack of a better word, ethics. Is it really right for a person to impose that kind of deep emotional suffering on another person, all for the sake of a great big object lesson?

The second is the long-lasting and deep nature of true friendship. So often I think I am completely unwilling to be a true friend. I look around at the people I consider my friends, and sometimes I have to ask myself just how deep my friendship for them really runs -- how much would I really be willing to go through to remain friends with them, and how much would I take before just giving up and deciding that it wasn't that important anyway because I can always make new friends?