Skip to main content

Bag O' Books: 'The Finkler Question'

Three thoughts about Howard Jacobson's "The Finkler Question":

* This novel has very much the feel of a 1960s' Philip Roth comic novel -- in its obsessions with questions of sex and Jewishness -- only told from the point of view of a British Goy, Julian Treslove. I myself have made jokes about wanting to "convert to secular Judaism," for many of the same reasons that Treslove embarks on a (doomed) quest to adopt a Jewish identity for himself. His quest is usually hilarious, but his ardor for the Jews at times feels like it actually contains traces of anti-Semitism. 

* Roth's novels seem meant for a wider, non-Jewish audience. But one gets the sense in Jacobson's novel (if one is Gentile) of peeking into a private conversation about the nature of Jewish identity, how much of it is bound up in the nation of Israel, and how much non-Israeli Jews should burden themselves -- and be burdened by others -- with Israel's role in the Middle East. Julian is meant, I suppose, to be the character the rest of us identify with in viewing those conversations, but he's so oblivious to his own ridiculousness that we're kept at arm's length. On reflection, that's probably intentional. 

* That said, it all really comes down to penises. And a passage in the novel in which Julian waxes rhapsodic about the erotic power of his (very Gentile, very uncircumsized) penis is a masterpiece in the long and storied annals of literary dick jokes. It's probably no accident that the most true-seeming character in the novel is Hephzibah, Julian's girlfriend and accidental guide into Judaism -- and the only woman character whose thoughts we're permitted to hear directly. Unlike Julian or his friends, Finkler and Libor, she doesn't seem to embody a point-of-view on the questions mentioned above; instead she lives her Jewishness, and encompasses (literally, it seems) all of the contradictions that the three men have with each other. She's messy. So is life. And so, often, is identity.


Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…