Thursday, December 11, 2008
Phillip Roth's The Plot Against America is the dystopian novel of the past. Roth doesn't write about the possibility of future horrors -- he writes about the horrors that might have been.
This novel is written in a unique way -- as the fictional autobiography of the author. Using his own name, his own family, and his own childhood community as the setting, Roth embarks on this "what if" dystopian view of history.
For instance: what if, say, Roosevelt lost the 1940 presidential election? What if, instead, Charles A. Lindbergh won?
Such is the premise for The Plot Against America. Lindbergh's election launches America into a time of "perpetual fear" for the nation's Jews. Under his leadership, America never enters World War II. It does not aide Britain. It tries to isolate itself from the chaos reigning in the rest of the world -- that is, until Lindbergh buddies up with Hitler himself.
We see the deterioration of nation, community, and family through the eyes of seven-year-old Phillip, the eyes of a child. Who else could be more affected by the shape of history? As Roth writes --
".. Harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforseen is what the science of history hides, turning disaster into an epic."
Roth takes us right into that terror, into that uncertainty, by reshaping the course of history, and showing it to us through the eyes of a child powerless to stop it.
The narrative switches between Phillip's first person perspective, and the omniscient perspective of a Roth describing historical events. Chapters move between Phillip's family and neighborhood sphere to a more global sphere, in order to get a clearer picture of the world Roth is creating. At first it seems an odd move to make, a bit forced and awkward, but as the book progresses Roth makes the style his own and gets it to work quite nicely.
The major criticism I have of this book, however, is the ending. Throughout the entire novel, Roth makes a point of showing us how any alteration in history can drastically effect the present. It's the domino effect -- one thing changes, and everything else follows. But, despite this point which is manifested in the very premise of the book, he chooses to end it how? By tying it right back up with the present. He conveniently brings an end to every historical alteration he had so meticulously created, so that the end of the book is congruous with the present as we know it.
Why? It defeats the very purpose of the book. And if it's obviously a work of fiction, does it really need to match up with today's reality? I think not.
Even given this disappointing ending, however, this is a definitely a book worth reading. Roth knows his stuff -- literary and historical.
This novel is written in a unique way -- as the fictional autobiography of the author. Using his own name, his own family, and his own childhood community as the setting, Roth embarks on this "what if" dystopian view of history.
For instance: what if, say, Roosevelt lost the 1940 presidential election? What if, instead, Charles A. Lindbergh won?
Such is the premise for The Plot Against America. Lindbergh's election launches America into a time of "perpetual fear" for the nation's Jews. Under his leadership, America never enters World War II. It does not aide Britain. It tries to isolate itself from the chaos reigning in the rest of the world -- that is, until Lindbergh buddies up with Hitler himself.
We see the deterioration of nation, community, and family through the eyes of seven-year-old Phillip, the eyes of a child. Who else could be more affected by the shape of history? As Roth writes --
".. Harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforseen is what the science of history hides, turning disaster into an epic."
Roth takes us right into that terror, into that uncertainty, by reshaping the course of history, and showing it to us through the eyes of a child powerless to stop it.
The narrative switches between Phillip's first person perspective, and the omniscient perspective of a Roth describing historical events. Chapters move between Phillip's family and neighborhood sphere to a more global sphere, in order to get a clearer picture of the world Roth is creating. At first it seems an odd move to make, a bit forced and awkward, but as the book progresses Roth makes the style his own and gets it to work quite nicely.
The major criticism I have of this book, however, is the ending. Throughout the entire novel, Roth makes a point of showing us how any alteration in history can drastically effect the present. It's the domino effect -- one thing changes, and everything else follows. But, despite this point which is manifested in the very premise of the book, he chooses to end it how? By tying it right back up with the present. He conveniently brings an end to every historical alteration he had so meticulously created, so that the end of the book is congruous with the present as we know it.
Why? It defeats the very purpose of the book. And if it's obviously a work of fiction, does it really need to match up with today's reality? I think not.
Even given this disappointing ending, however, this is a definitely a book worth reading. Roth knows his stuff -- literary and historical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
