In American
Taliban Abraham writes that John Parish “ introduced himself to himself.”
In The Romance Reader, Rachel has, in
a way, done this as well. As the narrator detaches from her community, as she
peels away the layers of religion, marriage and seamed stockings, she begins to
gain a true understanding of herself. At the novel’s close, Rachel is on her
way to what Abraham calls “Gnosis,” the “deep, internal, imaginative knowing of
oneself.” Although Rachel has not yet reached this state at the end of The Romance Reader, her rebellion and
determination to find freedom indicate she will get there one day.
The author hopes that all younger
generations are given the opportunity to achieve “Gnosis.” She described her
fear, saying that we may not get the time we need to reach internal
understanding. When the John Walker Lin story first appeared in 2001, Abraham
feared that “Gnosis” would no longer be possible. She worried that Lin’s story
would keep young adults from setting out on their own and seeking knowledge and
power. Abraham turned these reservations and suspicions into fuel for her book,
American Taliban.
Perhaps the author’s conviction and devotion to the idea of
“Gnosis” stems from the importance it played in her own life. It seems that to
create characters who achieve or will achieve “Gnosis,” a writer must have
experienced the phenomenon herself. Abraham has. Her attachment to freedom
probably comes from the lack of it that she had as a child. Stifled by the parameters of her
religion, Pearl was emerged in the conventions of her family’s belief system.
“In life, we are always emerged in something, but being emerged in anything
doesn’t lend itself to self discovery,” Abraham said. She seems to have found
“Gnosis” in college, when she had distance from the Jewish community and room
for exploration.
In Shoshana Ziblatt’s review, “‘The
Romance Reader’ Reveals Dreams, Tensions of a Chassid,” the author states that
“Pearl Abraham’s first work of fiction, leaves the reader wondering where the
author's identity ends and the main character's begins. And therein lies its
success” (Ziblatt). Rachel and Pearl are plagued by the same dilemmas. Both
vacillate between family and the desire for freedom. It was surprising that
even now, decades later, the tension between the author’s past and present
still feels palpable.
Although Pearl outwardly protested the
stringencies of the Hasidic community, she also stated that the culture is “not
based on corruption but on beliefs.”
In Shoshana Ziblatt’s review,
the author states that Abraham belongs to no “ organized branch of Judaism, but still feels what she calls
the "internal rhythm" of Chassidic culture.” Pearl still clings to
the romantics of her religion; “Sunsets on Friday nights mean something to me,
certain religious days of the year mean things to me," she said (Ziblatt).
The author approached religion with what
seemed to be a newfound practicality.
She discussed religion as fiction, explaining that “it begins with a
vision by some leader. If it is true enough, it gets picked up.” She also noted
that the founder of Hassidism was a fiction writer himself. These ideas harkened back to some of
Nicole Krauss’ statements. Krauss remarked that God was the greatest created
character of all. Abraham also defended religion, stating that modern society
tends to blame it too much. She acknowledged that religious convictions can be
limiting, but this might not always be the case, “sometimes it is just an easy
fault.”
Pearl Abraham’s personality was, perhaps,
the greatest surprise this year. Areyah Lev Stollman was soft-spoken and
self-aware, just as I would have envisioned an adult version of his
protagonist. Nadia Kallman was slightly eccentric but filled with the same
enthusiasm that permeated in The
Cosmopolitans. Nicole Krauss was careful with her words and spoke in the
same lyrical style as The History of
Love. Although Pearl had biographical similarities with Rachel, and although
both strived for the same goals, their personalities varied significantly.
While Abraham has said that "Rachel is impulsive in a way [she] is not”
and that she is “not so courageous,” the opposite seemed to be true (Ziblatt).
Perhaps it came with life experience, but Abrahm seemed devoid of insecurities and comfortable with her
place in the modern world.
It has become abundantly clear that
compassion is one of the most important qualities a writer can have. Stollman
stated that the empathy he uses with his patients translates in his writing as
well. Kallman said that her own similarities with her characters allow her to
write with a deeper understanding. Krauss remarked that writing is the road she
takes to empathy, which leads to better writing. Abraham would probably agree
with all three. She believes that an author must “have a kind of love and
understanding for every character she creates.” Rachel’s mother is a fierce,
strong woman trapped in a Patriarchal society. Pearl said that as a writer, she
loved writing the mother’s character the most. She was an antagonist for
Rachel, but she suffered too.
At one point in the evening, Abraham
quoted her mentor E.L. Doctorow, who said that a writer “ knows best when he
knows the least.” I believe this true. However, Abraham’s The Romance Reader seems to negate this idea. Pearl’s novel is
compelling, poignant and ultimately successful but didn’t she use the what she
new and had lived to create her story?
Ziblatt,
Shoshana. "’The Romance Reader’Reveals Dreams, Tensions, of a
Chassid." The Jewish News Weekly of
Northern California (1995): 1-3. ProQuest. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment