I thought the whole premise of the book was so very interesting. Mainly, because I had no idea that our national "hero" Lindbergh was anti-semitic. And I felt that the book was saying that all Christians were anti-semitic. And I was so dissappointed that it wasn't showing the good people that don't judge along those lines. That is why I was happy once they introduced the new Italian neighbors. That is exactly how I feel my large Italian family would have acted in that situation. I guess I went away from this book with a new understanding. I was surprised that some Jews must hate Christians. It was the same surprise I had as a child the first time I realized people can be prejudiced against white people too, and not just the other way around. (Sorry, I grew up in the Midwest in a wonderfully colorblind family, and never even understood that this was an issue for some people until high school.)

I am very happy that you started this group Cara. It is great to get to know knitters at another level. I am not quite finished with the book so I am going to be careful not to read to much of the disscussion before finishing. However, I did want to comment on the timing of reading this book.
I have been watching the Public Television series about the making of Aushcwitz. It has been chilling to read a story that follows a path of no resistance to the horror of the concentration camps. At the same time I'm reading articles in the NY Times about German and Russian legislators (Jan 27th)making similar anti-semitic comments that I am reading in this book.
All of this has made it hard for me to read this staight through. I can make it through about 30-50 pages before I need to take a break and think about it.

Angela,

Thank you for your comment. I did not feel that the book was saying all Jews hate Christians at all! (That said, I should disclose that I am Jewish.) I think you have to remember that the characters in this book live in an incredibly insular community - everyone is Jewish. When the Italian family moves in downstairs, it's only because they themselves are part of the Homestead 42 program and were in fact forced to leave their own insular community.

That said, I think the book needs to be viewed from the point of view of the community it's about - a community that is living under a very real and terrifying threat.

There was a very interesting subplot in the book, I think, that dealt with how some Jews feel about other Jews - if you think about it (general you) much of the conflict was between Jews - Alvin and Mr. Roth, Evelyn and the Roths, Sandy and his family. The broader conflict between Lindbergh's administration and Fascism mirrored the conflict going on in the Roth's own home.

Deb,

I know what you mean. The timing is a little eerie. We were watching a show the other day about homosexual survivors of concentration camps - I don't think any of them were Jewish. I found the book to be very scary as well. I think it's an important read - not so much because I believe it portends what's to come, but because it serves as a reminder of what actually did happen. Did you read the Roth essay? I think it's very interesting to hear what he has to say.

One of the articles I read, I can't remember which one now, made the point that what's interesting about this time period is that if a 'Holocaust' were to ever happen in the US, it would've happened at the time the book takes place - all the elements were in place - just think - we did put Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps. The important thing to remember is that it was stopped before it could ever reach the scale of the European massacre. We stopped ourselves from going that far beyond humanity. Maybe there's a glimmer of hope after all?

Thank you for your comment.

Cara, your questions are great. And your post is excellent for an online book group. Really well done.

Unfortunately, I haven't finished the book. I'm about 100 pages from the end, and after reading your summary I really want to finish. The plot is dragging at this point for me.

I do love the humor in the book. I love seeing the world through young Philip's eyes. I love how he clearly loves his parents and how they are portrayed~ especially his mother.

Ill be back to comment more after I finish the book.

Thanks Cara, for starting this group, the discussion, and for listing some reviews to read in preparation for the discussion. I have to keep this short, because I'm on my lunch break right now :) but I read the reviews from the New Yorker (which I thought was interesting and insightful) and the American Conservative, from which the following is the ending paragraph:

"This is a repellent novel, bigoted and libelous of the dead, dripping with hatred of rural America, of Catholics, of any Middle American who has ever dared stand against the war machine. All that is left, I suppose, is for the author to collect his Presidential Medal of Freedom."

I was very taken aback by this review, because it seemed to me that the reviewer missed every point Roth was trying to make. But most specifically Roth's treatment of Jewish-Christian relations. In contrast to the reviewer, I thought Roth illustrated the various levels of Jewish - Gentile social relationships (on a personal and societal basis) beautifully: from Young Philip's fascination with Christians, Herman's relationship with his employer, Bess's ingrained fears from her childhood experiences and her rise to status amount the neighborhood mothers, the comparison of the towns when Herman is offered the promotion and the boozing Christians, Sandy's relationship with the family in Kentucky.

The fine distinction I thought was not necessarily in pointing out active Anti-Semitism, but rather, how insular both the Christian and Jewish communities were, and how strange they must have seemed to each other (with the Jewish community having a much keener awareness of the Christians than vice versa). Speaking from a Christian (Irish Catholic) standpoint, I certainly didn't think it dripped with hatred towards Middle America etc., (quite aside from the specific political situation) but rather portrayed the Jewish community as having a bewildered fear born of their past experience and stark cultural differences (cultural mindset, community holidays, attitude towards alcohol), and that Roth used Herman and Bess as the perfect vocal pieces for reasoned judgment battling one's worst fears; morality and responsibility stacked up against fear, anger and the unknown, both taking on the either role with each other or within their own self.

Did anyone else (aside from the American Conservative reviewer) think that the novel was Christian/Middle-American hating?

Jackie

Oooh - I just posted, but hadn't seen all the other comments.

Laura,

I agree with Cara, I didn't think that Roth portrayed all Christians as anti-Semites, and the example that sticks with me is the Kentucky family. I half-expected for Sandy to come back from Kentucky jaded because they treated him badly because he was Jewish, or that they would have been reluctant to help with Seldon. Rather, I think that Sandy's enthusiasm upon his return speaks to both the lack of anti-semitism on an individual basis (because he had such a positive experience it doesn't seem likely that the Kentuckians were scheming on how to turn the dirty Jewish boy into a wholesome Christian, nor were they unhappy about welcoming him into their home). Additionally, I think that Sandy's enthusiasm highlights a reason for the Jewish community's desire to stay insular (before and aside from the government trying to weaken the community) - the openness to Christian culture either leads to a dilution of the strong Jewish community (Sandy coming home eating pork and wanting to be a farmer, and exactly the reason why the OAA would work to the fascists' advantage) or to rejection and ridicule at the hands of Christians (Herman's probable situation had he been promoted and transfered to the Christian Met Life office).

Deb & Cara,

I also think the timing is eerie, *especially* given the undercurrents present in European politics (I read recently a French diplomat made a blatant and disgusting anti-semitic comment during a state dinner which was seemingly taken as acceptable conversation) and also I was impressed with how Roth made it seem infinitely more understandable how a horrific tragedy (the Holocaust) could have occured through the eyes of our own culture, in step by 'innocent' step detail. How a government can turn children against their parents, which is something I had trouble understanding beyond an academic level before.

Jackie

I just read the review that Jackie mentions in the American Conservative, and it gives away every detail about the ending. I totally disagreed with the reviewer. I certainly don't think that Roth exhibited hatred towards Christians/rural Americans. It must be remembered that the story is told through the eyes of young Philip, and what he knows is the opposite of rural/Christian. Also, our society in those days was much more insular. I think the book is an accurate portrayal of America at that time.

First, my general thoughts. I read this book while traveling and getting stuck in airports with all the snow. Many people asked me what I thought of the book and I said disturbing, but great.

Why disturbing? Because it gave an interesting view of how things can change so drasticly and quickly, without people really even noticing!

I'd have to say that the character that I could get out of my mind was Rabbi Bengelsdorf. I kept puzzling over and over again why he would support the administration, as they moved the Jews from their 'safe' communities to the Midwest, where they were all alone.

I read this on Saturday and liked some of it and disliked others. I love alternate-history, "What if" books and think he did a good job of portraying this scenario. (Although I question the rationale he gave at the end for all of Lindbergh's actions--I don't want to give anything away here, but I thought that was really reaching for a way to absolve him for his sins . . . a singularly Christian thing to do, actually!)

The characters were all excellent and real, though I think that Sandy seemed just a little too malleable for a teenage boy. I didn't think that it portrayed all Jews as hating Christians, but it sure bought into the supposed anti-semitism of just about every non-Jew in the book except for the farmers in KS and the Italian family downstairs. I don't know if Roth meant to portray it that way, or if it was "accidental," or if it was just because that's how fictional-Philip was seeing the ever-changing world.

Did anyone else wonder at the main character having the same name as the author??

Did anyone else think that things came together again to rationality a little too easily? (Not to mention apparently winning WWII so easily, despite the late entry and by a population that just months earlier had been rabid for peace and anti-semitism?)

Cece ~ I was curious about Rabbi Bengelsdorf, too. I think he speaks to the power of assimilation; the need to be accepted by the majority as a way to attain peace, security, and the freedom to exist. After all, on the face of it, Lindbergh appears honest and non-threatening:

"... what Charles A. Lindbergh represented was normalcy raised to heroic proportions, a decent man with an honest face and an undistinguished voice who had resoundingly demonstrated to the entire planet the courage to take charge and the fortitude to shape history and, of course, the power to transcend personal tragedy." (p. 53)

Men like the Rabbi need to believe what they see; to look underneath the surface would bring an indictment, thus threatening the security of one's existence.

For me, the most telling statement from the Rabbi was the following:

"The Jews of America," the rabbi told us at dinner, "are unlike any other community of Jews in the history of the world. They have the greatest opportunity accorded to our people in modern times. The Jews of America can participate fully in the national life of their country. They need no longer dwell apart, a pariah community separated from the rest. All that is required is the courage that your son Sandy displayed by going on his own into the unknown of Kentucky to work for the summer as a farm hand there. I believe that Sandy and the other Jewish boys like him in the Just Folks program should serve as models not only for every Jewish child growing up in this country but for every Jewish adult. And this is not merely a dream of mine; it is the dream of President Lindbergh." (pp. 106-107)

The need for acceptance is so strong that it overrides the Rabbi's ability to think critically. For example, when the Rabbi spoke at the Lindbergh rally, he excused Lindbergh's earlier anti-Semitic statements: "Contrary to the propaganda disseminated by his critics," the rabbi informed us, "he did not once visit Germany as a sympathizer or a supporter of Hitler's but rather he traveled each and every time as a secret adviser to the U.S. government." (p. 38) That is a rather remarkable spin job. After all, the Rabbi understands that many of his "distinguished [Jewish] friends" in Germany are being "ruthlessly persecuted by the Nazi hoodlums who have taken command of their homeland." (p. 39) Why does he distance himself from his German Jewish friends? Is the need for security so strong that one is willing to bend reality in order to gain acceptance? What drives a person to suspend critical thinking in favor of collaboration with the powers that be? One answer would be: fear. Fear drives us all to act in ways that are not always rational. If Jews aren't safe in America, where do they go in order to survive?

At the end of the book, Roth sums up the three distinct Jewish reactions to the growing American anti-Semitism: "My father chooses resistance, Rabbi Bengelsdorf chooses collaboration, and Uncle Monty chooses himself." (p. 359)

I'm curious about the author of The American Conservative piece. I'll do some checking around to see what I can find. I don't understand his review at all. More than anything, it sounds like a personal vendetta against Roth. The writer is obviously very angry. Why?

Deb in NJ,
I agree wholeheartedly about Sandy. He changed way too quickly for me. I mean, we all know about teenage boys and their interest in girls, but I thought Roth (the author Roth) was trying to saying something more meaningful with Sandy - especially his calling his parents ghetto jews and assimilating so easily into the Kentucky farm.

Kerstin,
I put that American Conservative piece in just for you! ;-) Talk about agenda. It's a novel for pete's sake - you don't like the author, don't read it. Don't you get the feeling this guy would've hated anything Roth wrote, regardless of the topic?

I like what you say about the three distinct Jewish reactions - I was trying to get at that a little bit. The arguments between the family members are very compelling and I think something of a commentary on how the Nazis were able to get away with what they did - divide and conquer.

Bengelsdorf is a very interesting character, but ultimately I think, one that leans a little too close to charicature. He's never fully developed (as I don't think he should be - he's a foil not a fully blown protagonist/antagonist) - he's only there to lend another point of view - one that Herman Roth must fight against. Bengelsdorf is manipulated from the get go, and everyone realizes this except Bengelsdorf himself, Evelyn and for a little while Sandy. He's actually quite a pathetic character.
(He also really reminds me of the character who leads the ghetto in King of the Jews.)

Deb in NJ - about Roth as the main character - I'll refer you to the essay Roth wrote about why he wrote the book. I think it was necessary for him to write it as himself as a young boy - it's something of a tribute to his parents as well.

He's often criticized (?) for being very autobiographical. This isn't the first time he appears as a character in his own books. It's something of a literary conceit, of course, but in this case, I think it works.

In the big scene where the Dad and the nephew were fighting, what were they fighting about? Or, I should ask, why was it such a destructive fight when they didn't agree with one another?

I just have a few minutes here (I too am on my lunch break.) I really enjoyed this book for many reasons. The one that stands out to me that hasn't yet been talked about is style of writing. This included, among other things: LOOONNNG sentences, scenes within scenes, and the conservative use of the adjective. I thought that Roth pulled this novel off beautifully. The amount of information and character expressed in a relatively short novel is a statement to his ability to hone the English language. There are few novelists who can pull such complex layering off without confusion.

American Pastoral is one of my favorite novels. I read it a few years ago and looked to other Roth novels. I came across Deception, a novel written completely in dialogue, a very different format. It also speaks to Roth's mastery of the written word.

I'm gushing. I guess I am easily impressed? How do you all feel about the style?

Angela,

In re-reading the section, I think it's the tension of all that's happening out in the streets (Winchell's assasination, the riots in various cities, the notion it could be in their backyard at any moment) and the fact that the Roths don't like what Alvin has become, working in Atlantic City and such, that seals the deal. It's all more evidence of divide and conquer:

...the anti-Semites were about to be abetted in their exhilarating solution to America's worst problem by our taking up the cudgels and hysterically destroying ourselves. (p. 295)

Wendy,
Well - you know I love American Pastoral, but I have to say, in Plot I thought he was tripping over himself with some of his signature Roth sentences. I much prefered the straight forward style of most of the book - it was something of a departure for him - and I think it worked well with Young Philip as storyteller.

Thank you, Cara

I have already passed my copy of the book to my SIL, so...I'm unable to reread the parts I keep thinking about.

And I too wondered about the style this book was written in. It was very different from anything I had previously read. Interesting how it was written from a boy's pov, but also from an adult's looking back.

What if...the family had moved when the Dad had been offered the better position? I keep thinking about how the story would have progressed in that situation. They wouldn't have needed the Homestead 42 act, they would have already been moved out of their element! Do you think they would have been harmed by patriotic neighbors (like Seldon's mom)?

Sorry, just musing here :)

There are just a couple of things I would like to comment to. First-I really enjoyed this book despite listening to the audiobook with a less than stellar narration.

First Annie's comment about America being more insular. Children always see their lives as being that way, as they are very egocentric. Anything outside their homes, immediate families, moving into extended families and schools, anything else is foreign to them. Compound this with in an era when people lived in strong cultural neighborhoods and Philip's view of the world would be very narrow. I also think people living in these neighborhoods were the second and third generations of people who moved here and formed communities which made them feel safe, creating a familiarity and *safeness* in a strange place. Watching their children expand out of these mini-countries and interract with cultures that were strange to them had to have been so frightening. I don't think anyone that immigrated here realized how, in just a couple of generations, how watered down their culture would become. This is bound to scare people and give the impression of hatred. Fear often leads to contempt. It is similar to raising your children, you have control over their schools and friends, then they get to a point where you hope what you have given them holds them through as they experience all kinds of other influences.

The second thing that struck me near the end of the book is how neatly everything was wrapped up (Deb in NJ mentions this). It was hinted at when Winchell was killed and Roth states that the next presidential candidate to be assassinated was R. Kennedy. Maybe I come from a "Back to the Future" backround, but I sort of feel that no matter what change is made in history, no matter how small, or how neatly resolved would still change all of what happened after. So many books go so far, then make a neat package in the last 1/8th of the story. For me, that is what happened at the end of this book.

One more point, I had a bit of trouble with the maturity of the 8 year old. I had to keep reminding myself that maybe it was sort of written as a memoir, though the feeling was current narration. There seemed to be an understanding and wisdom that were hard for me to believe.

One of the elements of Roth's style I enjoyed was his use of lists. I've not read any of his other novels, so I don't if lists are an aspect of "signature Roth sentences." A few lists I noted were: a wonderful description of women's work (3); Sandy's art supplies (24); the defaced stamps in Philip's dream (43); all the self-sufficient things Mr. Mawhinney could do, in contrast to Philip's insurance salesman father (93); the guests at the Rabbi and Aunt Evelyn's wedding (246-48); and the many cities that had suffered riots (295).

Good afternoon. Is anyone else having a problem getting past her own paranoia? I'm about 1/2 through the book, and I'm about 1/2 enjoying it. The other half is thinking WAY too much, as in "you know, this isn't that far from reality these days..." or, as in, "this could happen. This really could happen." Maybe it's my age (53) and my upbringing as the only Jewish child in a Catholic neighborhood where I was called "Christ-killer" and locked in dark places more than once, but I'm idenfitying so strongly with the fictional threat that I can hardly keep the plot straight.

That said, this is a masterwork. The way Roth posits the way the country changed, how it responded to a hero's image, how even Jewish people bought into the thing -- incredible.

Let me recommend, for anyone who thinks this book is completely fictional, The Temple Bombing by Melissa Greene. Synagogues were bombed in Atlanta not that much after the events in Roth's novel -- and the attitudes of some of the locals towards Jews was frighteningly similar.

Teresa - I completely agree with about them living in an incredibly closed community - remember too - there was no TV, only radio and programming was very, very limited. The greater world was right outside your door - and no where further.

I also agree that he wrapped it up too tightly. I was struck too by the RFK reference. Difficult book to end though - I think the difference here (from something like Back to the Future) is that Roth (the author) didn't really want things to be different - he just wanted to say what if? Of course the consequences would have been much vaster if Lindbergh had really been president. It's almost ridiculous to think that Roosevelt would just be re-elected and everything would pick up in history the way it actually happend. So, for me, the ending only works if you think of the book as some kind of fantasy.

On the narrator's age - I think you have to read the book as if you're looking through a filter. There's the eight year-old Roth and there's the older man remembering his childhood. It's a fairly common point of view strategy. That's what makes third person so useful when writing - the lens can go wide and come in close - and you can have many filters on the lens. ;-)

JBB - Great comment about the lists! I often teach in my writing classes that lists are a great way to charaterize and place the reader in a setting. In my opinion, they're not used enough. A great example of lists is the short story, "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien. It's quite famous, and very, very powerful. It's about soldiers in Vietnam and the whole story is basically lists of the things the soldiers carried. I can't recommend it enough. Thank you!

Melanie,
It definitely kept me up at night. I don't if I was paranoid, but I was tense. I, too, enjoyed the twisting of the hero's image and how easily the public can by into what a popular figure is selling. I think Roth did a great job with that as well. Thank you.

I'm only about 70 pages from the end, now, and I want to read them at one great gulp --

Last night, as I was reading, one sentence (p.172) stopped me cold: "Never before - the great refrain of 1942." What a brilliant line - the contrast between the fictional "never before" and the reality of "never again" absolutely stunned me.

What an interesting point about the seeminly preternatural maturity of the narrator. I assumed that it was a filtered narration, and that assumption made Philip's collapse into fever even more shocking than it might otherwise have been. Here I was, assuming that he was processing and understanding, and all the while he was amassing way too much experience for a child to process. (For a look at how a narrator handles a POV in which a child's narration becomes more sophisticated as she matures, look at What Maisie Knew by Henry James.)

Philip seemed perfectly plausible as an eight year old. I was mature in my observations at that age and my middle son is as well. In fact, the young Philip and my Sam sound very similar.

Melanie ~ The lines I find most frightening when viewed through the lens of our current political situation are:

"A political catastrophe of unimaginable proportions was transforming a free society into a police state ..." (p. 354)

"This time around, though, those violently defending their lands from usurpation and their way of life from destruction weren't Indians led by the great Tecumseh but upright American Christians unleashed by the acting president of the United States." (p. 357)

Absolutely, "it" could happen again.

I see that Joe Lieberman voted for Gonzales today. Like Rabbi Bengelsdorf, he chooses collaboration.

I've been reading everyone's comments, and am afraid that I won't be able to state my thoughts as eloquently as others. That said...

Like a lot of you, I had trouble believing Sandy's personality changes. I suppose I had an easier time believing the first change, because I'm sure a summer away like that would change anyone. But the second change, when he just about forgets his ideologies in exchange for girls seemed a little too abrupt.

Someone brought up the writing style. I felt the pacing was a little slow at first, but as the book progressed I actually like the slower build up. But then he kicks everything into high gear in Chapter 8 (I believe that's the chapter), where he puts the events into fast forward by using the newsreel clips. This felt like such a departure from the rest of the book that I had a hard time with the rest of the story. I'm not sure if it was that chapter that did it, but the rest of the book felt a little chunky to me. Although when Seldon's mom dies, my heart went out to both Seldon and Philip. Seldon because he's been orphaned. Philip because he was ultimately the cause of it.

Finally, I thought the ending was a little too... I don't know the word. Convenient? I had the same feeling that I did when watching Lord of the Rings and the eagles came swooping in to save the day. Huh? It just seems a little too left-field or something for me. I have to admit that every so often throughout the book I would think, what if the Roth's (and other families like them) were on the paranoid side? What if Lindbergh isn't quite as bad as everyong thinks? Of course, the OAA and the Homestead 42 program convinced me otherwise. But, although I thought this from time to time, to try and explain Lindbergh's actions through the blackmail kidnapping of his child just seemed too convenient.

Overall I really liked the story, but I don't think I liked it as much as many of you did.

I finished the book this afternoon, and my first thought was -- thank heavens for the historical appendices. They let me come back to reality, re-ground myself, as it were, and made me realize I need to know more about that era. (Doris Kearns Goodwin's book was a good start -- I went out and bought the book by Jon Meacham.)

Yes, the ending had a bit of the deus-ex-machina flavor, but it was not completely out of character with the rest of the book. The Hollywood hero came, and then he went. Maybe it was a little extreme to have Anne's words change the course of history like that, but it did redeem her a little, for those of us who have loved Gift From the Sea.

As I read, I thought more and more about 1984. Phil will suffer forever for the Winston Smith-like moment when he seals Seldon's fate, sending him to KY. Also, I know that Roth says (DO read the NY Time essay) that this book is not meant to be a roman a clef, or to mirror the ugly political present, but it does, it does: the clean-cut, plain-spoken man who is believed by the public, but who really is the front for evil forces (philosophical and financial) behind the scenes. (Yes, I am thinking of Cheney and his ilk.)

Yes, Kerstin, I also thought of Lieberman as Bengelsdorf-like collaborator (esp. after that apres-speech kiss the other night).

I need time to digest this book.... Excellent book choice! Excellent forum for discussion!

A little late to the party, here, but I've been out of town on business. My thoughts on:



~Sandy~I didn't find his transformation unbelievable, because I felt that his only allegiance was to himself the artist. I think his connection with his Kentucky "parents" was entirely natural, and I loved that they turned out to be decent folks (no pun intended) that could be relied upon when Seldon needed help.



~Neatly tied up ending~I finished the book a few days ago, so I could be wrong, but I thought the ending absolving Lindbergh was mainly Anne Morrow's spin. . .



I could not get over what I felt the book was saying about what is happening today in America. That, for me, was the most chilling.



Also, I found Roth's interminable paragraphs and exceptionally long sentences irritating, and until I got used to them I had a hard time getting into the book.



In the end, I really enjoyed this book, mainly because it was such a clear warning for where we might be headed as a country.



By the way, I thought the passage that Terry Gross highlighted (of the cousin masturbating) in her interview was a bizarre choice, and not at all indicative of the story.

Cara, I'd like to tackle one of your questions:
"What do you make of Philip running off to the Catholic orphanage? Is he trying to escape not just his family, but his Jewishness?"

Both his family *and* his Jewishness, I think, because both suddenly represented danger and upheaval. The nuns in the street might seem alien to Philip, but they also would seen unchanging, not likely to erupt into emotional storms. (Little did he know! But children never think of authority figures as fully human, right?) Likewise the orphanage, home to children stripped of their families, would seem a haven to a child whose family had been stripped of its secure core.

I wonder (political aside here) if Roth intended Philip's encounter with the horse to be a literal "kick in the head" on the part of religious and political entities at the time that did not assist the Jews in Europe.

I'm still reading the book (it only arrived on January 29) but it's impressive. Really. It was a great first choice, so thanks Cara!

I haven't read everyone's comments in detail yet, but I did read your (Cara's) opening post. I also think my favorite part is the humor that fronts for sadness. I loved the lines when Philip is first planning to run away to DC and stay with Alvin and take care of his stump... And I just finished the part where he gets kicked in the head by the horse.

And the author is a master of telling the story simultaneously from the child's perspective and from the adult's.

Hello to everyone. I've read with interest everyone's comments concerning The Plot Against America.

I think Philip Roth's TPAA is a very powerful book. I've been doing some research and not only is the main character's name the same as the author's, but the entire family's names are the same as Philip Roth's actual family ... AND ... the author was born in Newark, New Jersey.

I feel as if I should start out by saying that I was raised as a Catholic. (I thought everyone was Catholic until I was at college.) That said, being ignorant of other religions or cultures by no means equals or leads to prejudice.

Has anyone mentioned the word 'isolationist' here? That was a factor in the United States not immediately going to war in the book. There have been isolationists for every major historic conflict. It's not all about being Jewish. In fact, when Philip was sharing his disappointment about his father not taking the promotion that was offered him, their not moving into the new house with the attic full of stashed-away postage stamps, he said it was because he was Jewish. I just thought it was because they weren't moving. Obviously, I had a completely different opinion, perhaps because of a completely different upbringing.

Having watched years of X-Files episodes and reading the adventures of Dirk Pitt in many Clive Cussler novels, I didn't have the trouble with the tying up of Lindbergh's motives as much as other people. In fact, I thought it quite clever. I was a bit taken back by this comment:

I thought that was really reaching for a way to absolve him for his sins . . . a singularly Christian thing to do, actually!)

but I imagine that there should maybe have been a :) after it. I wasn't at all surprised that individuals were portrayed as not being anti-semitic. People are complex--period.

Interesting enough, I read that Lindbergh, who was obviously infatuated with all things having to do with airplanes, was very impressed with Germany's highly advanced aircraft industry. I wonder if this could be one of the reasons that he kept the medal he'd been given. To me, there's a clear correlation between this and Sandy holding on to his drawings of Lindbergh and Philip having his Lindbergh stamp stashed away in the book.

I would certainly hope that nothing like what happens in TPAA could happen in America today. I think we can only do our best, as individuals, to ensure that our country learns from its past.

Thank you, Cara, for starting this discussion. I'm so glad I read The Plot Against America.