An interesting book review about two new books by Bernard Malamud. While this is not baseball related, it is some current news about the author of our current novel. I learned lots of interesting things about Malamud -- I always knew the baseball book was an anomaly in her collection -- but what new information did you learn about Malamud the author?
Share your thoughts. Thanks for being insightful! Keep up the good work.
I thought the most interesting part of this article was when Malamud says, "I'm an American, I'm a Jew, and I write for all men." I think that this sentiment that Malamud's writing transcends all cultural or religious barriers is perhaps why it was so easy for the author to pick up baseball as a subject matter. In much the same way, baseball was the national game, meant to overcome any barriers and appeal to all. In this sense, Malamud's writing in "The Natural" would appeal both in content and in form to "all men". This is also expressed when Malamud says that "stories are stories, they have not nationality." Malamud's writing, much like baseball, is meant to be something that is not defined by class, religion, or culture.
ReplyDelete-Grace
It's interesting to read about the story behind the author of the Natural, and the complex politics that go along with it. The fact that Malamud is a Jew seems to play a major part in his life, and sparks controversy in his work. He incorporates this part of himself in some of his works, but it's clear he doesn't want it to completely define who he is as a writer, and as a person. I think he would agree with Philip Roth's statement: “I am not a Jewish writer, I am a writer who is a Jew." I think Malamud would concur that he doesn't want his religious affiliation to cover up the real meaning and intention behind his work. I also learned in this article the vastly different stories that Malamud writes about. It's interesting to learn about the complexity that Malamud strives to achieve and the diverse topics he writes about. Lastly, I found it intriguing that many of his stories don't have happy, gleeful themes, including the Natural. "The Assistant" and "The Fixer" are two novels that embrace a melancholic theme, somewhat similar to that of the Natural. It says a lot about the writer in the endings the he or she enjoys writing about.
ReplyDeleteGrace & Ben -- awesome insights. Great start, again.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the most interesting part of this article was how it described the complex uniqueness of Malamud’s work and how each of his works fits into his distinctive writing style. Malamud is judged for his religion and how that is integrated into his writing, but he also talks about how he writes “for all men.” He says, “A novelist has to, or he’s built himself a cage.” Malamud never wanted to be trapped inside a cage of his own writing, so he strove to show different parts of American life, which is why I think “The Natural” is such an important part of his collection of literary works. “The Natural” includes themes from other pieces of Malamud’s writing, as the article says, “His stories know suffering, loneliness, lust, confinement, defeat; and even when they are lighter, they tremble with subterranean fragility.” The story of “The Natural” is radically different from many of Malamud’s works, yet it still fits perfectly into his collection because of what lies beneath the surface of Roy’s sad tale.
ReplyDeleteI think this article portrays a complicated yet profound view on Malamud's life and on his work. The most interesting part of the article for me was this quote- "In its tormented, satirical and startling underminings, “A New Life” — which, like “The Natural,”* stands tonally apart from Malamud’s other work — is one of those rare transfiguring American novels that turn wishing into destiny". Though talking about A New Life, I think the last part of the quote speaks to the Natural as well. That part of the quote stood out to me the most because Roy wishes and wants throughout the entire novel, however, his destiny is not what he thought it was going to be. Roy wishes to be a hero, yet, was he ever destined to be one? I do not think so.
ReplyDeleteWe have talked repeatedly about how "The Natural" is as you said, an anomaly among his works, but after reading this article I got the sense that it is not as disconnected as we may have thought. The novel is about Roy, and less about the sport of baseball. It has the "loneliness, lust...and defeat" that the article call signature aspects of Malamud's writing. It talks about how "houndings...duties and obligations fall on Malamud's characters with the power of commandments". This is something we see in Roy as he moves through his life. In "The Natural" baseball is more a setting than a topic of the novel, and in baseball Malamud showcases aspects of human nature, that are signatures of his other works. This article has really made me question how big of a role baseball actually plays in the novel, and whether or not the same story of a flawed hero could be told in a different setting.
ReplyDeleteSandy Schenker:
ReplyDeleteI liked this article and found it very interesting trying to compare "The Natural" to this article and all of Malamud's other books. For instance, there are some clear similarities comparing Roy to Malamud's regular tone and themes of "suffering, loneliness, lust confinement, defeat". Roy exemplifies all of these themes, and I find extremely interesting and impressive how Malamud was able to use all of the themes of most of his books, and put it solely into one person, Roy. I also really like the part of this article when Malamud says "I'm a jew, and I write for all men". I really like this part because of the way he uses and in this quote instead of but. I like this because he shows that no matter one's nationality, even if it is deeply connected in the book, it is not the sole purpose of the book, and every book has many layers and the reader should focus on all of them, instead of just the most visible one.
I loved this article mostly because I love hearing that someone who I have had some connection with is jewish. My jewish identity plays a huge role in who I am. It plays a huge role in what I think about certain topics, how I feel about current events, and what I believe in, but as Malamud alluded to in the article, his work and religion do not tie together. His work is not controlled by his religion which is how I feel as well. When writing a paper for english I very rarely am looking through the lens of my religion, much like Malamud. Phillip Roth, another famous writer says, "I am not a Jewish writer, I am a writer who is a Jew,” which seems to be the same outlook that Malamud has. It is obviously a huge presence in his life but he wishes that it is not what controls him. Since being Jewish means that you are a part of the minority when talking about religion, it is very easy to be categorized by that. However, Malamud makes sure that that is not what he is all about. He is about his writing, his hope that people make a connection with his characters and make a connection with the book, his judaism is not what is meant to come through.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting book review about two new books by Bernard Malamud. While this is not baseball related, it is some current news about the author of our current novel. I learned lots of interesting things about Malamud -- I always knew the baseball book was an anomaly in her collection -- but what new information did you learn about Malamud the author?
ReplyDelete“I am not a Jewish writer, I am a writer who is a Jew,” This quote was very interesting to me because at first look it seems the same meaning yet when you take a second and look at it you see the glaring differences of the contrast of being a Jewish writer and a writer who is a jew. This article was very unique to our usual articles we read because I feel in this one much more than any of the other pieces we have read that you need to be a certain type of person to understand all the lingo. The quote of "Cather’s prairie Bohemians, or the denizens of Updike’s Brewer or Faulkner’s Yoknapatawpha" has me wondering who these people are. When this happens I usually just skim over the words and just try to guess them out, but I feel that when you have a concrete understanding of who people are and what is being said, you really understand each and every idea and notion. This connects to earlier conversations in class when we first were discussing baseball lingo which I thought was fascinating and taking more real life examples of truly understanding an article or piece.
Perhaps some authors will be called out for sticking too much to their roots, but I believe it is unfair for people to accuse Jewish writers of trying to “destroy the English language” with their work. I think it is incredibly common for authors to draw upon their own cultural background and experiences in order to come up with creative and educated ideas for their books. Malamud supports this view as he speaks about his take on the influence from religion. He says, “I know something about [Jewish] history, the quality of their experience and belief. . . . The point I’m making is that I was born in America and respond, in American life, to more than Jewish experience.” While he acknowledges that some of what he writes is grounded in his religious background, I appreciate that he refuses to be defined by just one aspect of his identity.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this article, I couldn't stop relating it to the struggles that colored men and women had to go through everyday and especially for Jackie Robinson in baseball. When Philip Roth says “I am not a Jewish writer, I am a writer who is a Jew”, it gets rid of all categories that go with writing. Just because Roth is Jewish doesn't mean he always writes about Jews. Also, in my opinion one of the strongest quotes from this piece, when Malamud says "I write about Jews, when I write about Jews, because they set my imagination going. I know something about their history, the quality of their experience and belief...", why wouldn't Malamud write about a subject that he is fantastic at writing about? If we compare this quote to Robinson, we could say the same thing, why wouldn't he play baseball? He is the best at it. People always said, Robinson was a black baseball player. They really should have said Robinson is a baseball player who is black. The matters that are in Malamud's life are in some way also incorporated into "The Natural", which is very interesting, intentional or not.
ReplyDeleteThis article seemed to be a great tribute to a man that, judging by the one I have read by him, is an amazing author. It is interesting, yet not surprising to me to read about the classification of him as a Jewish Author rather than just author that happened to be Jewish. Despite my knowledge of the history of the Jewish people and their struggle with stereotyping and other forms of antisemitism, it never fails to amaze me just how loaded the word Jew is. Perhaps it is that Jews are often defined by their peoples' struggles that the heaviness of the word remains, but regardless of the reason it remains very annoying for me. Specifically in literature, movies, and other media Jewish people are often defined by stereotypes or oversimplifications. For example, there is often a Jewish lawyer, who is never the badass lawyer, but usually the annoying or shady lawyer.
ReplyDeleteDespite the common simplification of Jews in literature it seems that Malamud has been able to expertly write his way around these stereotypes and bring out the truly relatable human aspects of all his characters. This it seems sets his writing apart, and makes it all the more enjoyable.
I was really surprised by this article. It was shocking to me that someone who does not have a big connection to baseball, and who is not specifically a baseball writer was able to write "the natural". In the article it talks a lot about him being a successful Jewish writer and it talks about how "the natural" and "a new life" are much different than his other works. I personally think it is really interesting how Malamud is able to write on topics that are usually not what he is known for writing about, and have them be very successful. I believe that most writers usually stick to writing mostly about what they know best which is why this article really made me appreciate how good Malamud really was at writing.
ReplyDeleteI really had not thought much about Malamud, or the context of his history as a writer, much in my analysis of the Natural, though I now wish I had read this before I read the book. I likely would have approached it with a different frame of mind. I thought the article made one really interesting point, saying he didn't succumb to the easiness of cynicism. I had, upon my initial reading of the natural, deemed the work deeply cynical, especially the connotations that accompany Roy. But I now realize he avoids the luring traps of cynicism by countering the nihilistic viewpoints with a potential pass to moral success, a crucial side note that had gone unnoticed by me until prompted by this article.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the review and learning more about Malamud and his style, I thought a lot about Malamud's writing and what I have noticed about the books he has written. Though writing about completely different subjects between The Natural and other works like A New Life, I think that it is clear that he is writing about mainly the same themes, but showing them through different lenses, characters and stories. It sounds to me (haven't read the other books so I could obviously be wrong) like he continued to take the themes of personal relationships, insider vs. outside (being an "other"), and personal transformation and that they may be concurrent throughout many of his other works as well. It was interesting to see how one can write the same thing in so many different ways.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing a Catholic, I haven't experienced most of the stereotyping that Malamud and all Jews experience. I honestly don't think I've ever heard a stereotype around Catholics; however, I am aware that for Jews, they are common. When Malamud was writing, people seemed to think Jewish writers even had their own style based on their religion. The author of this article talks about how one woman Jews were, “trying to destroy it [the English language] and all other living things they touch.” Somehow, it was believed that through their style of writing, they could destroy all other known styles of writing. During the time that Malamud was writing, he understood this idea. He said, "I’m a Jew, and I write for all men. A novelist has to, or he’s built himself a cage." Malamud declared that his writing was not written to be read by Jews only, because if that were the case, he'd be putting himself in a situation where he could not reach his full potential. For example, Malamud's "The Jewbird" may seem as if it is meant to be read by jews, but it doesn't mean that he writes like a Jew, but instead uses his Jewish heritage in writing a book similar to other writers. The difference in his writing comes from the idea that he doesn't see anything as trivial, but instead, as the author writes about in this article, that everything is at stake. This is what truly separated him from most other Jewish and non Jewish writers.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I believe that Malamud was very calculative as to why he choose to write about baseball. Malamud through out his career has had to prevent himself from being labeled the “Jewish writer”. He states in the article, “I’m a Jew, and I write for all men. A novelist has to, or he’s built himself a cage”. Malamud used baseball to step out of his cage. By writing about baseball Malamud was able to tap in to demographics that he would not be able to reach without it and in doing so exposed American’s to the underlying themes that he expresses through out his different novels. Without Baseball it is quite possible that Malamud’s genius and writing would never have had the impact that it has today. Which causes me to be in awe of his brilliance. I find it amazing that he was smart enough to use the popularity of baseball as a tool to expose his message and genius throughout America instead of just one specific demographic of people.
ReplyDelete-Luc
I respect how malamud considers himself to be a writer before he considers himself a jew. I also like how this article highlighted malamud's ability to portray common concepts through completely different subject matter. I also love how he does not "fall into the easiness of cynicism" because I agree in that at times cynicism can be somewhat of an author's copout.
ReplyDelete