Fiction Recommend: Memory Wall

Memory Wall

Anthony Doerr

267 Pages

Scribner, 2011

One day about a year ago, I was riffling through books in the fiction paperback section at Barnes & Noble, a bit bored, none of the passages I read piquing my interest, when I opened a book titled The Shell Seekers. I turned to a page somewhere in the middle, picked a passage at random, and began to read. I don’t remember precisely what the particular paragraph was about (other than that it was nature-related), but I do remember my startling reaction to it: the unconscious holding of my breath, the delicious chill that rippled down my spine. I had a visceral response to the words I was reading, the kind you get when discovering an unbearably beautiful line of poetry or music that is so eloquent it hurts.

I bought the book of course. And that’s how I was introduced to the work of Anthony Doerr.

Hasidic Williamsburg: A New Generation. Photographs by Zen

At the core of Hasidism lies family. This is true both religiously and socially. And it is why children take center stage, with so much of Hasidic life revolving around them.

Perhaps the most articulate expression of this detail is a passage in Samuel Heilman’s text, Defenders of the Faith:*

“These voices and the children from whom they came were the humming engine of the haredi world. Although I had been looking at them only obliquely, as a secondary aspect of haredi life, children were clearly at its center.

“The haredim, of course, understood this unequivocally. Everywhere there were signs of the importance of children to them. It was literally in the signs written on the walls… One phrase painted on almost every block seemed to say it all. Some said the Neturei Karta scribbled it as a rebuttal to the efforts of the Ministry of Education to dictate what must be done in their schools…. And still others explained that it was simply a general expression and necessary reminder of what mattered most to haredim, a cry from the heart, so it did not really matter who actually wrote it because everyone here believed it.

“The scrawl on the wall was chilling in its simplicity: DO NOT TOUCH MY MESSIAHS…. This line that haredim howled whenever they perceived their young—their anointed princes—under attack from the world outside was a slogan that summed up all they were about.”

In deference to the children whom Hasidim hold so dear, I present the following images by Zen. These children are the fruits of the Pioneers’ efforts. The new generation.

* Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry (1999) Heilman, Samuel. The above passage is on page 169. The book is an examination of haredim in Israel, particularly of Belz and Toldos Aharon Hasidim. Heilman took a participatory role when making this study.

Not My Battle (In the Gothamist)

I am naïve sometimes. Each time I guilelessly believe something only to be jolted with the truth, I feel like a simple-minded child.  Here’s my latest experience:

This morning I read a short piece in the Gothamist about Rabbis plastering the Williamsburg streets with posters telling women to dress modestly. Although the piece was a mere three paragraphs short and featured a single quote by Baruch Herzfeld who said, “These men think they are doing God’s work, but they are fanatics — everyone in Williamsburg hates them,” it managed to garner 145 comments (at the time I’m writing this), with a fair share poking fun of Hasidim. Nothing unexpected (and some comments were actually hilarious). Nothing unexpected, either, that half the people who wrote seemed to have no clue about the Orthodox Jewish or Hasidic construct.

Anyhow, I perused the thread, promising myself that I would not join the discussion. “The battle is not yours to fight” and all that.

Protesting Naipul's Sexist Statements

Nobel laureate, Sir V. S. Naipul, made news last week when he unabashedly opined that no female author was equal to him, and that female writers, collectively, wrote badly. “Women writers are different,” he claimed, because of their “sentimentality, the narrow view of the world.”

I envisioned, the moment I read this, indignation—palpable and manic like a hemmed in frog—bouncing off countless women’s skins. I saw these women pounding their keyboards, writing irascible comments on blogs, web sites, twitter, facebook, or anywhere else they could spew their outrage against the revolting statements made by this “abominable” man.

Indeed, nearly every online newspaper that covered this story was inundated with furious, passionate comments, mostly from women. To these women, it didn’t matter that they themselves weren’t writers; they felt personally insulted, regardless. And added to the pain of the insult itself was the anger that the criticism was unjustified. One only had to read the work of Joyce Carol Oates, Barbara Kingsolver, Toni Morrison, Deborah Eisenberg, Alice Munro or Margaret Atwood (to name just a smattering of modern day female fiction writers) to know how absurdly baseless Naipul’s remarks are.

Mouth Full of Argument and No One to Argue With

So this is a conversation I had with a friend about a week ago:

Me: Did you see the post on Blog X?

Friend: You mean where he put up a picture of a poster in Williamsburg that tells women to move to a side when men are likely to bump into them?

Me: Yep, that’s the one.

Friend: Ugh, disgusting. The frummies keep making up new chumrahs every day.

Me: But that poster is just put up by one meshugane guy. Same guy who hires a car with a microphone every chol hamoed, shouting that no one should go and see the plays and presentations performed at different venues. He’s a fruitcake.

Publications Represent The Ideal: My Response to Amy Davidson in the New Yorker

I received an email from a friend informing me that my Photoshopped Hillary post was mentioned in the New Yorker. Intrigued (and not a little flattered), I clicked on the link my friend provided. Well, turns out, I wasn’t exactly mentioned in a New Yorker article (*sigh*), but someone did recommend my post in the comment section on a piece called, “The Bin Laden Raid and the Vanishing Women,” by Amy Davidson.

Although it was quite deflating to find out no one at the New Yorker had noticed my lovely blog, I was actually glad I’d gotten to read Davidson’s short essay. Not because it was an enjoyable, funny little read—although it was!—but because I disagreed with a point she made and wanted to comment on it. Unfortunately, no matter what I tried, I couldn’t register with the site, and you have to be registered in order to comment. (If anyone knows how to go about registering, please let me know. My email to the mag went unanswered.)

The Photoshopped Hilary Clinton Brouhaha

Ultra-Orthodoxy (aka Hasidism) is one of the most misunderstood denominations, and the brouhaha over the photoshopped Hilary Clinton picture is the latest example. The general assumption is that women being refused “face space” in ultra-orthodox publications is due to a tacit attempt to “silence” the female voice as well as the overall lack of respect for women in ultra-orthodox society. Although several pundits—Albert Friedman, publisher of Di Tzeitung, and Dov Hikind, NYS Assemblyman, among them—have attempted to explain that not publishing images of women is merely a modesty standard that the Orthodox abide by, few people are listening.

And small wonder. Hilary Clinton is not what one would think of as a sex symbol. To say that cutting her picture is necessary in order not to incite lustful thoughts seems, to the world at large, a ludicrous explanation. Furthermore, feminist discourse has (thankfully, in my opinion) become commonplace, and so, the phrases “silencing the woman” and “dominant male ideology” are part of the layman’s lexicon, springing instinctively to mind in a situation such as this. Never mind that bookstores catering to the Orthodox are filled with books about inspirational women and/or by female authors, belying the silencing of women claim, and that the ultra-orthodox were on the whole, exceedingly supportive of Hilary during her run for presidency, negating the lack of respect for women claim. These facts are dismissed and ignored. As is typical with stereotypes and preconceived opinions, the popular viewpoint prevails, despite evidence to the contrary. 

Williamsburg Pioneers Making a Living: Photographs by Zen

A sofer (Hebrew for scribe) writing a mezzuzah (a parchment inscribed with certain Hebrew verses and affixed to the doorways of Jewish homes)

A Seamstress.

The modesty laws of traditional Judaism require that women's sleeves cover their elbows, that skirts cover their knees, and that shirts aren't cut low. Seamstresses often get business altering store-bought clothes to accommodate these rules.

New Look

Hello Readers,
A friend let me know that the design of my blog makes it difficult for people to read my posts on their phones. I actually loved the design, but function is more important than style. So I'm trying out this new look. If you have an opinion on it, please share.
RFiedler

Why Hasidism Endures, Part II

Psychologists differ on the precise details of a human’s emotional requirements, but on the whole, they agree that they cover the following:

• the need for recognition; to give and receive attention
• the need for connection with other humans
• the need for purpose and meaning, i.e. spiritual fulfillment
• the need for security; to feel safe and anchored
• the need for feeling part of a wider community
• the need for friendship and intimacy
• the need for privacy
• the need to feel a sense of status within a social grouping
• the need to feel a sense of accomplishment and capability

Hasidism intrinsically provides all of the above.