RSS
The safety question: Jewish existential dilemmas in Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s hilarious ‘Long Island Compromise’
Long Island Compromise
Taffy Brodesser-Akner
(Random House)
Of the three middle-aged Fletcher siblings whose perspectives are told in Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s extremely funny-yet-serious second novel—which was published on July 9, 2024—it pains me to admit that I am a Nathan. Nathan’s the worrier, ramped up to 11 for art’s sake, but I see where Nathan’s coming from. You never know if an old tree that’s been there for hundreds of years might fall on you, is the sort of thought Nathan expresses in Long Island Compromise. That I can relate to. I have wondered about trees. Whereas his kid brother, nicknamed Beamer, stoned out of his mind on drugs some of which I’d never heard of, behaves in ways so irresponsible it’s almost painful (in a good way, as in, the writing is impressive) to read about them.
Nathan and Beamer are a yin to a yang, or more like two sides of a black-and-white cookie. Beamer is a man overflowing with what the biological determinists would call testosterone: no risk untaken, no woman unavailable to him. All id. Nathan’s a little weenie—a Nathan’s—afraid of his own shadow.
There is also a sister, Jenny. She’s the scholar, the rebel, the nose job rejecter. (Rhinoplasty was evidently de rigueur in wealthy Jewish circles on 1998 Long Island; my memory of 1998 Manhattan is that they were viewed among otherwise similar Jews—snobbishly—as very Long Island, so it tracks.) She seems like the sort of person who’d extract herself from a narrow, cossetted suburban upbringing and do great things, but she flounders because… well, because of a family curse.
Carl Fletcher, their mega-rich factory-owner father, was briefly kidnapped for ransom when Beamer and Nathan were young, and just before Jenny was born. This seems like a spoiler but is how the book opens. The siblings’ curse is an impossible-to-disentangle mix of growing up with their traumatized father never reckoning with his experience, and the trust funds making it so that they never need to work. That financial necessity is the mother of getting your act together, to borrow and botch an adage, is, superficially, the point of the book. But there’s far more to it.
***
Taffy Brodesser-Akner is a New York Times journalist, known for her celebrity profiles, though the piece of hers I think about the most is an essay on The Rules, the 1990s dating guide advising women to pretend not to be into men so as to seduce those men. I remember enjoying her 2019 novel, Fleishman is in Trouble, but not to this extent. I don’t remember basically hurling it at everyone being like, read this immediately.
Long Island Compromise picks up on some of the same themes as Fleishman, including marital woes and the resentments the merely upper middle class can feel towards the rich. It’s the story of the Fletchers, a massively wealthy Reform Jewish family living in something like Great Neck that isn’t Great Neck, told from the perspective of an omniscient narrator who grew up with the Fletchers, but without their means. The narrator has a distinct voice and doesn’t shy away from an editorializing comment or fact-check, but only brings in a first-person I near the end, just the once. All the reader knows of the storyteller is that this is someone with a scoop on the Fletchers. It’s fiction, but with real-life inspiration: the 1974 kidnapping of Long Island, NY steel factory owner Jack Teich; Brodesser-Akner knows the family, and she wrote about the story as a form of advance promotion for this novel.
I wrote about the real-life 1974 kidnapping of Jack Teich — the one that inspired my new novel, Long Island Compromise — and the way that trauma holds on. It changes, and, if you’re lucky, it morphs. But in my experience, it never really goes away. https://t.co/B4GcjJ7YWL
— Taffy Brodesser-Akner (@taffyakner) July 7, 2024
There’s a nostalgia to the book, with its quaintly pre-2020 preoccupations. Daughter Jenny introduced as uninterested in shopping and primping, in what seems like a hint of a gender-topics plotline to come. She is instead a garden-variety (albeit depression-prone) straight woman, vacillating between the draw of the nice boy next door and that of the charismatic cad. And there’s a plot arc around the fact that what the Fletchers got rich producing—polystyrene, known as Styrofoam—now has a terrible environmental reputation. I kept expecting Jenny—a lefty labour organizer—to take a Greta Thunberg turn and denounce her family specifically for making Earth-destroying microplastics, but environmentalism is at most an afterthought.
There are some brief nods to contemporary culture wars, with #MeToo alluded to as on the horizon, and in the painful scene where Beamer thinks he’s written a brilliant script but finds himself facing a sensitivity reader of sorts who alerts him to the problematicness and cultural appropriation and such. Beamer pivots to deciding that he will write about oppression in an #OwnVoices manner, because everyone agrees that Jews are oppressed, right? Poor Beamer, never did stand a chance.
***
The number of times I thought, this, this is the funniest line in the book, is substantial. We learn, of a secondary character who has spent the previous section berating Jenny for being rich and hiding this fact about herself, “Andrew left New Haven soon after he was fired and went to work at his father’s hedge fund.” Any other writer would have said something about how it turned out Andrew was a hypocritical (not to mention antisemitic) rich kid himself, but Brodesser-Akner just drops this detail with utmost elegance. Boom, Andrew interlude over.
We learn that the town of Middle Rock had been called Duty Head, but that it lost that name “immediately when the mayor went to cut the ribbon and that new train station and heard someone say the name Duty Head aloud.” There are passages about families having, or not having, microwaves that would alone be reason to read this book.
Being a woman myself, I cannot speak to whether Brodesser-Akner has cracked the supposedly uncrackable code and entered the minds of male characters, a la Adelle Waldman with The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P. She gets details about the menfolk right from what I’ve observed, particularly the stuff where Beamer (who, recall, puts anything and everything into his own body) is quietly judging his wife for getting work done on her face. He thought she was so much prettier before, when they first met! So like a man to forget that, cosmetic interventions or not, women’s faces shift away from conventional ideals as we age.
And the novel’s title, and what it refers to, suggests we no longer need to sit around wondering who will be the next Philip Roth.
***
To speak of the Jewishness of the novel is expected, certainly in this venue. And here I realize the thing to do is to enumerate the references to Reform temple and to Orthodoxy, to the rabbi character, to Hadassah, to the Holocaust, to Israel Bonds, to the way that, much like trauma, the propensity to give out sports-team-themed yarmulkes crosses generations. Bar mitzvah scenes serve the function that a wedding will on a Midsomer Murders. Intermarriage, dybbuks, eating bacon, not eating bacon, it’s all in there.
There are also Jewish in-jokes, at least I think there are. Is the Fletcher patriarch “Zelig” because of the 1983 Woody Allen movie of the same name? (Would have to be, given the role of impersonation in Zelig Fletcher’s origin story.) Does Jenny, in a bout of listlessness, consider “marine biologist” as a career possibility in reference to George Costanza’s fake career? (A stretch, but I like it.)
But it’s impossible to read the book and not see it as being about the hostages. Yes, even though it is not, objectively, about that, because it couldn’t be.
As a strictly chronological matter, Brodesser-Akner started writing Long Island Compromise well before Oct. 7, 2023. But books are published into the worlds that exist when they appear, and it is now all but inevitable that a book about how you can think you’re safe—specifically, that you, as a Jew, as a Jewish family, have found safety—and then all of a sudden someone sneaks up at you and the next thing you know, you’re kidnapped and tortured. Kidnapped and tortured by someone who sees your comfort as at their expense. (Carl’s kidnappers claim to be working on behalf of Palestinian liberation, but this turns out to be part of what is effectively gibberish. The enemy is within, is all I’ll say.)
There’s a passage in the book (more than one, but it’s one in particular coming to mind) about the precariousness of it all, about how the Holocaust and associated horrors and desperation are always lurking. No, the individual Oct. 7 abductees were not Styrofoam gazillionaires, but they were Israelis or others present in Israel who thought they were secure in Israel, who couldn’t have known what was coming for them, and indeed who’d have seemed paranoid if they’d anticipated anything of the kind. And no, being held hostage for over a year is not the same as being locked up for ransom for a week, but the thematic question of the impact on an individual and those close to them resonates.
How are others not seeing this? According to The Forward reporter Mira Fox, “Even their trauma isn’t particularly Jewish; anyone could be kidnapped.” A sentiment I’d have agreed with on Oct. 6, 2023.
Must Jews be defined by trauma? Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s sharp new novel offers a surprising answerhttps://t.co/yJ8XfO2b68
— TheForwardFeed (@TheForwardFeed) July 8, 2024
Last summer, in his review for the leftist publication Jewish Currents, critic Mitchell Abidor argues that the book “struggles to say anything of substance about being a Jew in America today.” Did he and I read the same book? The safety question—are Jews safe, do Jews feel safe—is central to the postwar Jewish experience and so much more so of late.
In a review of Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s new novel, Long Island Compromise, Mitchell Abidor argues that the book ultimately reproduces the nullity at the heart of contemporary American Jewish life.https://t.co/WU6LbXfHpj
— Jewish Currents (@JewishCurrents) August 2, 2024
Brodesser-Akner’s own main non-fiction interventions in this area are from the before-times—a 2015 Tablet essay about antisemitism and accusations of “Jewish privilege”; a 2021 New York Times review of Joshua Cohen’s novel The Netanyahus with insightful personal-political digressions—but you know what? That’s fine. Maybe some moments elude the essay, and are best processed through novels, even ones not directly written about them to begin with.
The CJN’s opinion editor Phoebe Maltz Bovy can be reached at pbovy@thecjn.ca, not to mention @phoebebovy on Bluesky, and @bovymaltz on X. She is also on The CJN’s weekly podcast Bonjour Chai. For more opinions about Jewish culture wars, subscribe to the free Bonjour Chai newsletter on Substack.
The post The safety question: Jewish existential dilemmas in Taffy Brodesser-Akner’s hilarious ‘Long Island Compromise’ appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
JNS.org – Jews have long been champions of freedom of speech in the United States, yet they often have not hesitated to advocate canceling speakers who are antisemitic or virulently anti-Israel. Many Jews feel that those who spread hatred against them or Israel should face consequences, but they are frequently uneasy about the mechanisms used to deliver those consequences. This ambivalence was true before Donald Trump returned to the White House, but has become more prevalent since his administration began taking aggressive steps against antisemites and their institutional enablers.
Free-speech advocates often invoke Louis Brandeis’s famous line, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (the exact quote was “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”). With apologies to the great Jewish jurist, when it comes to antisemitism, this is pure rubbish. The idea that exposure will neutralize hatred has been disproven by centuries of Jewish persecution. Hate doesn’t melt away in the light; it mutates and metastasizes. Permitting antisemites to spread their rhetoric on campus doesn’t disinfect; instead, it creates a toxic environment for Jewish students and undermines academic integrity. Professor Scott Galloway put it best: “Free speech is at its freest when it’s hate speech against Jews.”
Even while extolling free speech, Jews are often willing to oppose antisemites speaking on campus. For example, last year, alumni, faculty, community groups and parents of students at Brown University signed a letter urging the administration to disinvite U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (who was recently reappointed to her position over Jews’ and US objections) because of her history of antisemitic and anti-Israel remarks.
This tension between the desire not to appear as suppressors of debate and the need to confront hate speech is torturous. Jews often find themselves asking: Is opposing a bigot’s right to speak a betrayal of liberal values or a defense of moral ones?
Though none would admit it, the attitude of campus protesters is: We have the right to be antisemites, and no one has the right to say or do anything about it. So, they are understandably upset when anyone calls them out as bigots or makes them pay for the consequences. This is why so many cowardly hide behind masks, unwilling to take responsibility for their words or actions.
Antisemites complain, for example, when groups like the Canary Mission publicize their public statements. It’s like pulling a hood off a Klansman. Publishing personal information about antisemites is not kosher, but exposing what they say is fair game. Students who support terrorists deserve to be shamed. They enjoy no First Amendment protection from being called out for being immoral or just plain stupid.
If employers decline to hire individuals who support hate, that’s not censorship; it’s discernment. International students can speak their minds, but they may be subject to deportation if they endorse designated terrorist groups like Hamas. Exercising that authority is not persecution; it’s policy.
When the antisemitic tsunami hit campuses after Oct. 7, nothing seemed to stem the tide. Now that the Trump administration has started to deport antisemites and withhold government funds from universities, we are finally seeing universities take the problem seriously. True, the administration is using a sledgehammer tactic that is making some Jews uncomfortable, but the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the Biden administration, on the rare occasions it was applied, was ineffective. Some Jews have said these steps will make antisemitism worse. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of antisemitism, which is that no excuse is needed to hate Jews. It is also difficult to determine whether the objection is to the punishment or that it fulfills Trump’s campaign promise.
The constant refrain that pro-Palestinian (they don’t admit to being pro-terrorist) voices are being stifled is easily disproven by their ubiquity. Some universities are finally suspending Students for Justice in Palestine groups (they should be expelling the members), and yet they find other ways to express their views. The annual anti-Israel hate weeks featuring speakers and films were held on many campuses over the last month without any interference.
Many of those complaining the loudest about freedom of speech support the boycott of Israel; that is, suppressing the speech of academics and students who wish to engage with Israel. Many professors are willing to defend the “academic freedom” of colleagues to use their classrooms to advance anti-Israel agendas. Jewish professors are rarely willing to speak out.
Even though the U.S. government and dozens of countries around the world have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, faculty, often led by Jewish professors, fight against its use on campus, speciously claiming it stifles free speech. However, the refusal to define antisemitism ensures that no behavior can be deemed a violation. Without boundaries, there can be no enforcement, and impunity has thrived.
One group of Jews came up with the Nexus definition of antisemitism, which professor Cary Nelson described as an effort to “exonerate anti-Zionism by any means necessary.” Now, the Nexus Project is objecting to Trump’s crackdown on students and universities, and presenting an alternative strategy that, predictably, protects the antisemites by opposing the deportation or labeling of antisemites and defending diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their recommendations focus less on defending Jews than on challenging the administration’s authority and pushing unrelated policy goals, such as ending the war in Gaza and promoting a Palestinian state.
Let’s be honest: When we learn about antisemites coming to campus or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of principled Jewish voices defending their right to speak. But do we want to give them a platform? Shouldn’t neo-Nazis, Islamists, white supremacists, Hamas supporters and other antisemites be canceled, condemned and marginalized without apology?
Germany is a democracy that still has laws against hate speech. Denying the Holocaust, for example, is prohibited. Social media is the most dangerous medium for spreading antisemitism. In this instance, Trump’s defense of an unregulated digital marketplace fails the Jews. Germany, by contrast, holds platforms accountable for the hate they amplify. American Jews are equivocal. Some are free-speech absolutists, while others call for moderated online posts. What did the Jews who met Elon Musk say? Did they tell him—free speech be damned—keep the antisemites off X? Or did they simply grumble that they wish there weren’t so many of them?
Free speech is a core Jewish value, but so is the defense of Jewish life. The era of ambivalence must end. We cannot allow our principles to be used to undermine our safety. History has shown where that leads.
The post Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The ‘Egg-Sodus’ from Egypt
Sunny-side up eggs and carrots with parmesan and cream. Photo: Isabelle Hurbain-Palatin via Wikicommons.
JNS.org – At Passover seders around the world, one of the items on the seder plate will be a simple hard-boiled egg. I would like to spend a moment on what we learn from this egg, how it truly encapsulates what Passover is all about, and one of the messages that it has for us today.
One of the reasons we have the egg at the seder is that it symbolizes the beginning of life, and Passover marks the beginning of our national existence. But it’s more exact than that. The egg reflects the precise position of the Jewish people at the time of the Exodus from Egypt.
Let’s look at the journey of our egg. The egg is first inside the hen. It is then laid and thereby freed from the constraints previously imposed upon it. But has the egg been hatched? Has a little chick emerged from the shell? The answer is no. The egg, you see, is only the potential of life. It is not yet a living being. One day, please God, a chick will emerge, and the cycle of life will continue.
When the Jewish people left Egypt, they were like an unhatched egg. They were free from the prison of Egypt and the constraints of slavery, but they weren’t quite fully born. It would take seven weeks for them to stand at the foot of Mount Sinai and experience the great revelation of God and receive the Torah. Only when they were given a way of life did the Jewish people receive purpose. Until Sinai, we were all dressed up with nowhere to go. On Passover, we emerged from the confines of Egypt like the egg that drops out of the hen. But only at Sinai were we hatched and born.
What is the message for us? Political freedom without spiritual freedom is an unhatched egg; it is incomplete. We may be free and unfettered, but we are still spiritually lost and morally confused.
Where I live in South Africa, we understand this message very well. We have, thank God, achieved political freedom in our beloved country. We’ve now had more than three decades of democracy with free and fair national elections. Everyone has a chance to cast their vote; still, most of the population remains as impoverished as they were before. Yes, many more now have access to water, electricity and housing, but for the majority of the majority, their lives have been unaffected. A government full of former freedom fighters has, sadly, proven itself to be incompetent and corrupt at the highest levels.
Worse still, new freedoms bring new cultures, new lifestyles, and, unfortunately, new decadence. Gone are the old tribal values; replaced by empty, materialistic Western worship of all that is new and glitzy.
We may be free from the oppression of the past, but we haven’t yet been provided with a coherent, wholesome infrastructure to help direct our aspirations.
So, freedom itself is only half the story. What we do with our freedom remains the big question. We need a purpose in life. And we need a moral, spiritual infrastructure, a map and a moral compass to help guide us in life. Otherwise, we wander aimlessly through the wilderness, and our freedom remains nothing more than undeveloped potential.
Let’s not be unhatched eggs. Let us use our freedom wisely and achieve all our aspirations. Let us realize that Passover is just the beginning. We must consult the Torah to discover how to take maximum advantage of that freedom so we may live meaningful, purposeful lives and teach our children and grandchildren to do the same.
The post The ‘Egg-Sodus’ from Egypt first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Against Racism, for Antisemitism: The Message of a March in Paris
Youths take part in the occupation of a street in front of the building of the Sciences Po University in support of Palestinians in Gaza, during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Paris, France, April 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes
JNS.org – Thousands of people marched through Paris at the end of March in what was billed as a protest against racism. It was another display of the long-standing alliance between the far left and Islamist groups, exemplified by the numerous Palestinian flags dotted alongside the red banners deployed by the organizers.
The march illustrated how the term “racism” has been appropriated by parts of the left to describe measures aimed at combating the spread of Islamism. Many of the demonstrators lashed out at Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, for his allegedly racist statements about Algeria, a French colony until its independence in 1962, and his support for a ban on the wearing of the Islamic veil—a rule that is imposed on women alone—in French institutions of higher education.
Yet closer inspection of both issues reveals that Retailleau has not uttered racist comments on either. On Algeria, Retailleau’s complaint is that the authorities in Algiers have consistently refused to accept Algerian nationals slated for deportation by France, including one man who carried out a deadly terrorist attack in the city of Mulhouse in February, leading him to warn that a 1968 agreement facilitating Algerian immigration to France would be reviewed unless that position is reversed. On the veil, he has eschewed bigoted language about “Islam” and “foreigners,” arguing instead that the “veil is not merely a piece of fabric; it is a banner for Islamism and a symbol of the subjugation of women to men.”
Once upon a time, that was an assertion made by the left.
But perhaps the most egregious aspect of the demonstration was its contemptuous approach to the problem of antisemitism, which has risen precipitously in France, as elsewhere in Europe, in the 18 months that have elapsed since the Hamas mass atrocities in Israel. There were no banners, no chants, no signs condemning the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust and its consequent unleashing of antisemitic rhetoric and violence against Jewish communities across the globe.
Indeed, the entire event suggested that in order to combat racism, the French far left—a large bloc that won 182 parliamentary seats in last year’s legislative elections—has embraced Jew-hatred as a strategy. A poster publicizing the march urged attendees to “fight the extreme right, its ideas and its networks.” To accentuate its point, the poster was dominated by an image of Cyril Hanouna, a right-wing pundit of Tunisian Jewish origin.
Hanouna was displayed in extreme close-up with his eyes narrowed in hostility and a curving, beak-like nose protruding over a snarling mouth. You don’t have to be an antisemitism expert to trace the lineage of an image like this one. In the French context, it is painfully reminiscent of the crude propaganda aimed at Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish army officer falsely convicted of espionage in 1894 amid a wave of bestial antisemitic violence.
It also brought to mind the Nazi demonization of the Jews and, more recently, social media memes like the “Happy Merchant,” an antisemitic caricature much loved by semi-literate, far-right delinquents like the American Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.
The offending image of Hanouna was eventually withdrawn but not before the guilty party here—the far-left “La France Insoumise” (“France Rising”)—angrily voiced its outrage at the accusation of antisemitism (a routine tactic whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that the far left is hostile to Jews qua Jews.) The party’s leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, visibly lost his temper when asked about the image during a television interview, bellowing the words “Enough is Enough!” at news anchor Francis Letellier.
Yet for all of Mélenchon’s protestations, this is exactly what we have come to expect from him. Mélenchon has ventured into antisemitism several times in his career. Random highlights include his 2013 statement accusing the then-Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who is Jewish, of no longer “thinking in French but thinking in the language of international finance.” More recently, he leapt to the defense of his comrade Jeremy Corbyn, the antisemitic former leader of the British Labour Party, declaring that “Corbyn had to endure without help the crude accusation of antisemitism from the chief rabbi of England and the various Likud networks of influence.” He then added that Corbyn, “instead of fighting back, spent his time apologizing and giving pledges. (…) I will never give in to it for my part.”
Along with the various Islamist associations present in France, La France Insoumise has been a key transmitter of antisemitism in the wake of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, at the same time dismissing outright, much as Corbyn did in Britain, the concerns of the Jewish community. French President Emmanuel Macron alluded to this in a speech on April 2, when he presented an award on behalf of LICRA, a long-established French organization that combats racism and antisemitism. “The antisemitic poison consists of only one ingredient, hatred … a hatred born on the far right, which has prospered on the far right and has managed to spread beyond the far right,” Macron stated. “Today, unfortunately, it has reached certain ranks of the far left and the left, for whom anti-Zionism serves as an alibi for the expression of antisemitism.”
While these sentiments are laudable, the historical record shows that the far left has often trafficked in the hatred of Jews with the same enthusiasm as the Nazis and ultranationalists on the facing side of the horseshoe. As I wrote last year, anti-Zionism in our time has undergone a process of Nazification to the point where, in my view, we should remove the hyphen from this term to underline that what is presented as political opposition to the Zionist movement is more properly understood as a full-blown antisemitic conspiracy theory with the State of Israel at its core.
The unmistakable message delivered by the Paris march against racism, along with satellite marches in other French cities, was this: Jews are not allies; Jews fabricate claims of bigotry and discrimination against them; and Jews are guilty of perpetrating a “genocide” against Palestinians rooted in “Zionist ideology.” In the ultimate irony, the implication here is that to be a good anti-racist, it helps if you are an antisemite.
The post Against Racism, for Antisemitism: The Message of a March in Paris first appeared on Algemeiner.com.