A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Daniel Schifrin On Orthodoxy, Satire And Sociology

In a column in the current issue of The Jewish Week, Daniel Schifrin writes that "the uniformly negative response to Wendy Shalit's" Times Book Review column is missing "an acknowledgement of the partial correctness of her claim: That by and large, Orthodox Judaism is more often the focus of wicked satire than fulsome praise."

Schifrin then bashes Shalit for purportedly assuming that readers of Jewish fiction are "superficial" and says that Shalit fails to see that some of the anti-Orthodox material is "meant to be satirical" as well as their "sociological point."

I doubt that most readers of Jewish fiction (especially the chic lit books that were among Shalit's targets) are as sophisticated in their reading of these books as Schifrin thinks they are. This doesn't mean that they are "superficial" but I doubt that they are looking for some deep "sociological point" while reading Tova Mirvis. My wife - who spends much of her reading time pouring through pediatric journals - has read some of the books Shalit was critical of, and sees them, essentially, as a quick diversion. My guess is that most readers of these books are similar.

Further, one wonders whether Schifrin feels that all Jews should be satired for "sociological" purposes, or only the Orthodox. As Shalit asked in her response to critics: "Suppose there is a new genre in American Jewish literature, in which Reform Jews are vilified regularly... a gay Reform rabbi who seduces younger male congregants... idealistic college coeds who want to escape Reform life, but are daunted by the prospect of learning Hebrew, so they are trapped and pose for Playboy instead... And suppose further that these novels are a bit short on character development, that they are primarily driven by page after page of weirdo Reform characters... How would we feel about such novels?"

Would Schifrin write that while indeed anti-Reform, these novels should not be taken "superficially", that the absurdity of the characters is mere "satire" needed to offer a "sociological point?" I don't know, and it's all speculation, but would be interested in his response.
posted on 2/27/2005