|
In Honor and Memory of Fr. Pierre Demers (談德義神父 1921 - 2002) |
|
The Conversion of the Jews
|
|
The theme and subject matterof a story should be distinguished. The subject matter just tells us what the story is about in brief form. A paraphrase (integrated into the next section) describes the story, part by part, in different words. In “The Conversion of the Jews” the subject matter is the hostile response a Jewish boy receives when he poses a religious question to his mother and rabbi. The theme is the central or dominating idea in a literary work. There may be several aspects to the same theme. Roth’s theme in the “conversion” may be described in the following ways: On the religious level, it is a good example of how a rigid orthodoxy leads to a kind of persecution of those who depart from the tradition; on a more humanitarian level, it is simply one more illustration of man’s intolerance towards his fellow man. More positively, it is a plea for freedom of individual conscience and a variety of life views, for life, after all, is more important than any particular formulation of religious belief. |
|
|
|
Surface and Underlying Meanings “The Conversion of the Jew’s is a highly focused story in which the conflict is clearly twofold: man vs. society, and man vs. man. In the first conflict, a young boy becomes increasingly isolated from the traditional benefits of association with others of a like culture; and, in the second, he comes into direct antagonism against an individual who represents what that society values-orthodoxy, conservatism, and xenophobia. Oscar Freedman (note the symbolism of the name, freed-man) is studying for his bar-mitzvah, a study which is designed to better indoctrinate the young Jewish boy into his faith by memorizing centuries-old answers to questions. It is a “rite of passage” that he is to undergo, and his religious leaders are helping to prepare him for it. After the ritual Hebrew practice, they have a discussion period with the rabbi, a humorless man named Binder (a binder, someone who binds; hence, the rabbi is not opening minds, but closing them). The problem is that Oscar, or Ozzie as he is called, is not willing to accept the standard answers to his questions. He demands that they be logical. Oscar is not atheist. He believes the myths of his religion; for instance, that God made the world in six days and that He made light. It is just this belief that gets him into trouble. After Rabbi Binder tells him that Jesus Christ was born the product of sexual intercourse, rather than the supernatural method the New Testament claims (the Virgin Mary conceived be the Holy Spirit), Ozzie wants to know why a God who could make light couldn’t “let a woman have a baby without having intercourse.” The rabbi is portrayed in the story as neither a good man nor a bad one but simply as one whose task is to pass on the values of the older generation to the new one; since hi does not question those values, he is, therefore, incapable of giving Ozzie a satisfying answer to the question. What Ozzie wants to know, in effect, is: why are our (Jewish) myths true and theirs (Christian) false? It is a question that cannot be answered in the logical framework Ozzie insists on, so the Rabbi simply repeats what he has said before. When Ozzie asks for the relationship of the Jews as Chosen People to the American Declaration of Independence he gets no more satisfying answer, because he is questioning the fundamental beliefs of his culture, beliefs which do not stand the test of logic. Religion has very little to do with logic. It has to do with faith. So Ozzie appears to be a very dangerous character to his teacher. He should be more like Itzie, who “favored closedmouthedness, especially when it came to Ozzie Freedman’s questions. “Itzie is the unthinking, unquestioning, uncomplaining adherent who is a Jew only because he was born one. When confronted with Ozzie’s doubts that a lightmaking god couldn’t make a virgin give birth, hi recognizes the paradox but is more interested in Ozzie’s courage in using the term “sexual intercourse” in front of a rabbi. One can see in this situation the potential for an explosion of some sort. A young boy is questioning the teachings of his elders, repeatedly. He is thus far doing it “within the system,” but if the system does not bend enough to allow for his unorthodoxy he will either be expelled from it or will himself bring about some change in it. A third possibility is that he will adapt to it, but that is not very likely in Ozzie’s case because he is increasingly cut off from those around him. He has long since given up trying to communicate with his mother. Her reaction to his difficulties with Binder has been to hit him in the face. It is a blow to his pride. Boys in early puberty particularly resent being hit in the face by their mothers. Children may be hit in the face, but young men may not; the blow means they are not yet men. Thus when Ozzie receives his second blow, from Rabbi Binder, the one that causes blood to come from his nose, he breaks. He has suffered mental and now physical rejection by both his mother and his surrogatefather (since Ozzie’s real father is dead). He has suffered the one blow without striking back, but the second is too much for him. He screams a curse at the rabbi and runs to the roof. It must be pointed out that even to this point there is no suggestion that Ozzie will try to “convery” the Jews. He shows none of the qualities-or the motivations-of a messiah-figure. He is only a bright young Jewish boy who is seeking some logical answers to theological questions. If he were supplied with them, or some substitute that will allow him to live in harmony with his environment, he Would probably calm down. The second conflict in the story, man vs. man, comes into play, however, during the ironically named free-discussion time when Binder goads Oscar into rebellion. Ozzie has not wanted to talk, but the rabbi has forced him to. But even this does not directly cause the explosion. Fate, in the person of Itzie, creates the circumstances necessary for Oscar’s final act of disrespect. It is “in the midst of the commotion” caused by Itzie’s obscene gesture and the resulting laughter that Oscar finally blurts out the unforgiveable statement, “You don’t know! You don’t know anything about God!” This insult cannot be borne. The rabbi is the representative of the adults in the culture, and their accumulated wisdom and beliefs; thus, an insult to Binder is an insult to the elders of the tribe. Priests and scholars in any society have been traditionally venerated more for this reason than for their individual intrinsic worth. When, after being struck by Binder, Ozzie escapes through the trapdoor onto the roof, he is estranged from his mother and rabbi. It is quite natural that he should act rather hysterically. “Can this be me?” he asks. “Is it me? It is me?” Roth compares him to a thief on his first job and a bridegroom about to be married, people who are entering into a new stage of their lives, from which they cannot return. But Oscar is no thief, nor is he a willing bridegroom. He has come up to the roof only to get away from Binder and, of course, Binder’s is the first voice he hears once he is sighted at the edge of the roof. He is peremptorily ordered to come down. Things haven’t changed. Now the second of three events occur which are not caused by the protagonist (Oscar) and antagonist (Binder) of the story. Blotnik, the old janitor, thinks of things only in terms of their effect on the Jews; he calls the fire department to get Oscar down from the roof. The firemen, finding no fire, and seeing a thirteen-year-old boy on the roof of a synagogue, logically conclude that they have been called to stop a suicide. Why else would they be there? Binder confirms this, probably to crowd as sensible they all agree without being asked. When Ozzie dives into the net in the last paragraph of the story, complete with the “Christian halo” (indicating special holiness), he is diving back into the society he left, but one which is now-he thinks-modified by his sacrifice, hopefully one that will be better for it. It would be a mistake to analyze this story simply in terms of a Jewish-Christian conflict. That would be a very narrow view. The story starts out somewhat that way, with Ozzie and Itzie having a theological discussion about Christian and Jewish dogma, but it quickly develops into a tale about a broader and more fundamental conflict-man’s intolerance to his fellow man. Ozzie is a victim of intolerance-he is persecuted in the name of religious orthodoxy-and the persecution is all the more poignant because the “villains” in this story are Jews, who have probably suffered more for their religious beliefs than any other single minority group. One does not need to be Jewish to understand this story; nor does he even need to be a Westerner. Too much attention should not be focused on the “conversion” in the story. Quotation marks have been used throughout to describe that event, because in all likelihood the sentences uttered by Ozzie’s mother, the rabbi, and the rest at the end of the story do not represent true conversion to another faith. It is much more likely that when he gets out of the firemen’s net, Ozzie, after a few congratulatory pats on the back by Itzie and the rest of the boys, will be hauled off for home by a now irate mother, perhaps with Rabbi Binder following like a bird of prey. What Roth is trying to show is that people should be allowed to believe what they want, without being made to follow rigid patterns of belief and behavior, that these rigid patterns foster intolerance for those who do not follow them exactly. As we follow the fortunes of Ozzie, the misfit, we see an essentially good boy being forced into anti-social behavior by the monolithic structure of his society, its inability to change or tolerate innovation on the part of its members. Ironically, Ozzie manages, through a combination of events beyond his control-the two slaps, the classroom mayhem, Blotnil’s phone call, Binder’s lie to the firemen and, finally, Itzie’s exhortation for him to jump-to turn they don’t believe. Things he doesn’t believe, either. There is no suggestion in the story that Oscar believes in Christ as anything more than the historical figure Binder admits him to be; forcing the crowd to profess belief in him simply strengthens the ironic meaning of the title. It should be noted also that Ozzie’s methods are as totalitarian as Binder’s. Although he does not use force on his converts, he threatens the useof force against himself to get them to convert, and forcible evangelism is neither Christian nor kosher (religiously acceptable). What Roth is trying to tell the reader of “The Conversion of the Jew’s is that people shouldn’t feel they have to convert others to their way of belief, that goodness can be achieved in many ways and with many different guidebooks. What on the surface is an amusing anecdote of a boy flapping his wings on the roof of a synagogue, can thus be seep to be, on another level, a story of social conflict within a closed society and, ultimately, a plea for tolerance for people and beliefs we may not understand.
|
|
|
|
The plot progresses steadily from the persecution of Ozzie for his freedom of thought to his forcing the Jewish community, at least for a time, into the Gentile form of worship and belief-kneeling in prayer and confessing to the virgin birth of Christ-and exacting the promise never to persecute in the name of God. The superficial sense of suspense we feel over whether Ozzie will jump or not is subtly subordinated to a certain dissatisfaction we feel about the authenticity of the “conversion”- another kind of suspense that lingers well beyond a reading of the story. The climax of the story comes when the community seems to be ready to sacrifice its ideology and form of worship to save the life of an individual and allow him his freedom of thought. This is a typically tolerant belief of twentieth-century democracy, in opposition to the dogmatic theocracy of the Salem community which hanged witches. We may again use the Freytag Pyramid to diagram the structure (the numbers indicate deeper levels of meaning):
A. 1) Harassment of the Jewish boy, Ozzie, because of his “Christian heresy.” 2) Persecution of another in the name of religious orthodoxy. 3) Man’s intolerance of his fellow man. B. 1) i- Ozzie escapes to the roof. ii- He exacts various promises from the on-lookers.. iii- His threatened suicide is called off and he comes down from the roof. 2) Apparent liberation from religious persecution and authoritarianism. 3) Acceptance of the freedom of the individual conscience. C. 1) Ozzie’s fellow Jews accept his “Christian” demands. 2) The persecutors become the persecuted. 3) Tolerance of another’s convictions.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion: Summary and Similarity The reader may naturally wonder why these two particular stories have been chosen to be included in this volume. They must have some similarities, and they, of course, do. By way of final summary, let us divide them into groups: Thematic similarities: Both are stories about challenges against religious dogma. Setting similarities: In “Young Goodman Brown,” the Puritan village community of the “Elect” was set against the wilderness of the forest. In “The Conversion of the Jews,” the Jewish ghetto community of “The Chosen People” is set against the wilderness of the modern city-jungle, a mixture of all sorts of religions. Plot similarities: Both stories build quickly to a plateau, on which most of the critical action takes place-the witches’ Sabbath in “Young Goodman Brown” and the synagogue roof in “The Conversion of the Jews.” Character similarities: In both stories one man sets himself up against his community convinced he is superior to them. He comes to this belief through a startling series of events leading to a new personal insight into reality. |