I Married a Communist is the story of the rise and fall of Ira Ringold, a big American roughneck who begins life as a teenage ditch-digger in 1930s Newark, becomes a big-time 1940s radio star, and is destroyed, as both a performer and a man, in the McCarthy witchhunt of the 1950s.
In his heyday as a star—and as a zealous, bullying supporter of "progressive" political causes—Ira marries Hollywood's beloved silent-film star, Eve Frame. Their glamorous honeymoon in her Manhattan townhouse is shortlived, however, and it is the publication of Eve's scandalous bestselling exposé that identifies him as "an American taking his orders from Moscow."
In this story of cruelty, betrayal, and revenge spilling over into the public arena from their origins in Ira's turbulent personal life, Philip Roth—who Commonweal calls the "master chronicler of the American twentieth century—has written a brilliant fictional protrayal of that treacherous postwar epoch when the anti-Communist fever not only infected national politics but traumatized the intimate, innermost lives of friends and families, husbands and wives, parents and children.
About the Author
In 1997 Philip Roth won the Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral. In 1998 he received the National Medal of Arts at the White House and in 2002 the highest award of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Gold Medal in Fiction. He twice won the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award. He won the PEN/Faulkner Award three times. In 2005 The Plot Against America received the Society of American Historians’ Prize for “the outstanding historical novel on an American theme for 2003–2004.” Roth received PEN’s two most prestigious awards: in 2006 the PEN/Nabokov Award and in 2007 the PEN/Bellow Award for achievement in American fiction. In 2011 he received the National Humanities Medal at the White House, and was later named the fourth recipient of the Man Booker International Prize. He died in 2018.
Date of Birth:March 19, 1933
Place of Birth:Newark, New Jersey
Education:B.A. in English, Bucknell University, 1954; M.A. in English, University of Chicago, 1955
Read an Excerpt
Ira Ringold's older brother, Murray, was my first high school English teacher, and it was through him that I hooked up with Ira. In 1946 Murray was just back from the army, where he'd served with the 17th Airborne Division at the Battle of the Bulge; in March 1945, he'd made the famous jump across the Rhine that signaled the beginning of the end of the European war. He was, in those days, a crusty, brash, baldheaded guy, not as tall as Ira but rangy and athletic, who hovered over our heads in a perpetual state of awareness. He was altogether natural in his manner and posture while in his speech verbally copious and intellectually almost menacing. His passion was to explain, to clarify, to make us understand, with the result that every last subject we talked about he broke down into its principal elements no less meticulously than he diagrammed sentences on the blackboard. His special talent was for dramatizing inquiry, for casting a strong narrative spell even when he was being strictly analytic and scrutinizing aloud, in his clearcut way, what we read and wrote.
Along with the brawn and the conspicuous braininess, Mr. Ringold brought with him into the classroom a charge of visceral spontaneity that was a revelation to tamed, respectablized kids who were yet to comprehend that obeying a teacher's rules of decorum had nothing to do with mental development. There was more importance than perhaps even he imagined in his winning predilection for heaving a blackboard eraser in your direction when the answer you gave didn't hit the mark. Or maybe there wasn't. Maybe Mr. Ringold knew very well that what boys like me needed to learn was not only how to express themselves with precision and acquire a more discerning response to words, but how to be rambunctious without being stupid, how not to be too well concealed or too well behaved, how to begin to release the masculine intensities from the institutional rectitude that intimidated the bright kids the most.
You felt, in the sexual sense, the power of a male high school teacher like Murray Ringold-masculine authority uncorrected by piety-and you felt, in the priestly sense, the vocation of a male high school teacher like Murray Ringold, who wasn't lost in the amorphous American aspiration to make it big, who-unlike the school's women teachers-could have chosen to be almost anything else and chose instead, for his life's work, to be ours. All he wanted all day long was to deal with young people he could influence, and his biggest kick in life he got from their response.
Not that the impression his bold classroom style left on my sense of freedom was apparent at the time; no kid thought that way about school or teachers or himself. An incipient craving for social independence, however, had to have been nourished somewhat by Murray's example, and I told him this when, in July 1997, for the first time since I graduated from high school in 1950, I ran into Murray, now ninety years old but in every discernible way still the teacher whose task is realistically, without self-parody or inflating dramatics, to personify for his students the maverick dictum "I don't give a good goddamn," to teach them that you don't have to be Al Capone to transgress-you just have to think. "In human society," Mr. Ringold taught us, "thinking's the greatest transgression of all." "Cri-ti-cal think-ing," Mr. Ringold said, using his knuckles to rap out each of the syllables on his desktop, "-there is the ultimate subversion." I told Murray that hearing this early on from a manly guy like him-seeing it demonstrated by him-provided the most valuable clue to growing up that I had clutched at, albeit half comprehendingly, as a provincial, protected, high-minded high school kid yearning to be rational and of consequence and free.
Murray, in turn, told me everything that, as a youngster, I didn't know and couldn't have known about his brother's private life, a grave misfortune replete with farce over which Murray would sometimes find himself brooding even though Ira was dead now more than thirty years. "Thousands and thousands of Americans destroyed in those years, political casualties, historical casualties, because of their beliefs," Murray said. "But I don't remember anybody else being brought down quite the way that Ira was. It wasn't on the great American battlefield he would himself have chosen for his destruction. Maybe, despite ideology, politics, and history, a genuine catastrophe is always personal bathos at the core. Life can't be impugned for any failure to trivialize people. You have to take your hat off to life for the techniques at its disposal to strip a man of his significance and empty him totally of his pride."
Murray also told me, when I asked, how he had been stripped of his significance. I knew the general story but little of the details because I began my own army stint-and wasn't around Newark again for years-after I graduated college in 1954, and Murray's political ordeal didn't get under way until May 1955. We started with Murray's story, and it was only at the end of the afternoon, when I asked if he'd like to stay for dinner, that he seemed to feel, in unison with me, that our relations had shifted to a more intimate plane and that it wouldn't be incorrect if he went on to speak openly about his brother's.
Out near where I live in western New England, a small college called Athena runs a series of weeklong summer programs for elderly people, and Murray was enrolled as a student, at ninety, for the course grandly entitled "Shakespeare at the Millennium." That's how I'd run into him in town on the Sunday he arrived-having failed to recognize him, I was fortunate that he recognized me-and how we came to spend our six evenings together. That's how the past turned up this time, in the shape of a very old man whose talent was to give his troubles not one second more thought than they warranted and who still couldn't waste his time talking other than to a serious point. A palpable obstinacy lent his personality its flinty fullness, and this despite time's radical pruning of his old athletic physique. Looking at Murray while he spoke in that familiarly unhidden, scrupulous way of his, I thought, There it is-human life. There is endurance.
In '55, almost four years after Ira was blacklisted from radio for being a Communist, Murray had been dismissed from his teaching job by the Board of Education for refusing to I cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee when it had come through Newark for four days of hearings. He was reinstated, but only after a six-year legal struggle that ended in a 5-4 decision by the state supreme court, reinstated with back pay, minus the amount of money he had earned supporting his family those six years as a vacuum salesman.
"When you don't know what else to do," Murray said with a smile, "you sell vacuum cleaners. Door to door. Kirby vacuum cleaners. You spill a full ashtray onto the carpet and then you vacuum it up for them. You vacuum the house for them. That's how you sell the thing. Vacuumed half the houses in New Jersey in my day. Look, I had a lot of well-wishers, Nathan. I had a wife whose medical expenses were constant, and we had a child, but I was getting a pretty good amount of business and I sold a lot of people vacuum cleaners. And despite her scoliosis problems, Doris went back to work. She went back to the lab at the hospital. Did the blood work. Eventually ran the lab. In those days there was no separation between the technical stuff and the medical arts, and Doris did it all: drew the blood, stained the slides. Very patient, very thorough with a microscope. Well trained. Observant. Accurate. Knowledgeable. She used to come home from the Beth Israel, just across the street from us, and cook dinner in her lab coat. Ours was the only family I ever knew of whose salad dressing was served in laboratory flasks. The Erlenmeyer flask. We stirred our coffee with pipettes. All our glassware was from the lab. When we were on our uppers, Doris made ends meet. Together we were able to tackle it."
"And they came after you because you were Ira's brother?" I asked. "That's what I always assumed."
"I can't say for sure. Ira thought so. Maybe they came after me because I never behaved the way a teacher was supposed to behave. Maybe they would have come after me even without Ira. I started out as a firebrand, Nathan. I burned with zeal to establish the dignity of my profession. That may be what rankled them more than anything else. The personal indignity that you had to undergo as a teacher when I first started teaching-you wouldn't believe it. Being treated like children. Whatever the superiors told you, that was law. Unquestioned. You will get here at this time, you will sign the time book on time. You will spend so many hours in school. And you will be called on for afternoon and evening assignments, even though that wasn't part of your contract. All kinds of chicken-shit stuff. You felt denigrated.
"I threw myself into organizing our union. I moved quickly into committee leadership, executive board positions. I was outspoken-at times, I admit, pretty glib. I thought I knew all the answers. But I was interested in teachers' getting respect-respect, and proper emoluments for their labors, and so forth. Teachers had problems with pay, working conditions, benefits . . .
"The superintendent of schools was no friend of mine. I had been prominent in the move to deny him promotion to the superintendency. I supported another man, and he lost. So because I made no bones about my opposition to this son of a bitch, he hated my guts, and in '55 the ax fell and I was called downtown to the Federal Building, to a meeting of the House Un-American Activities Committee. To testify. Chairman was a Representative Walter. Two more members of the committee came with him. Three of them up from Washington, with their lawyer. They were investigating Communist influence in everything in the city of Newark but primarily investigating what they called 'the infiltration of the party' into labor and education. There had been a sweep of these hearings throughout the country-Detroit, Chicago. We knew it was coming. It was inevitable. They knocked us teachers off in one day, the last day, a Thursday in May.
"I testified for five minutes. 'Have you now or have you ever been . . .? 'I refused to answer. Well, why won't you? they said. You got nothing to hide. Why don't you come clean? We just want information. That's all we're here for. We write legislation. We're not a punitive body. And so forth. But as I understood the Bill of Rights, my political beliefs were none of their business, and that's what I told them-'It's none of your business.'
"Earlier in the week they'd gone after the United Electrical Workers, Ira's old union back in Chicago. On Monday evening, a thousand UE members came over on chartered buses from New York to picket the Robert Treat Hotel, where the committee staff members were staying. The Star-Ledger described the picketers' appearance as 'an invasion of forces hostile to the congressional inquiry.' Not a legal demonstration as guaranteed by rights laid down in the Constitution but an invasion, like Hitler's of Poland and Czechoslovakia. One of the committee congressmen pointed out to the press-and without a trace of embarrassment at the un-Americanness lurking in his observation-that a lot of the demonstrators were chanting in Spanish, evidence to him that they didn't know the meaning of the signs they were carrying, that they were ignorant 'dupes' of the Communist Party. He took heart from the fact that they had been kept under surveillance by the 'subversives squad' of the Newark police. After the bus caravan passed through Hudson County on the way back to New York, some big cop there was quoted as saying, 'If I knew they were Reds, I'd of locked all thousand of them up.' That was the local atmosphere, and that was what had been appearing in the press, by the time I got to be questioned, the first to be called up on Thursday.
"Near the end of my five minutes, in the face of my refusal to cooperate, the chairman said that he was disappointed that a man of my education and understanding should be unwilling to help the security of this country by telling the committee what it wanted to know. I took that silently. The only hostile remark I made was when one of those bastards closed off by telling me, 'Sir, I question your loyalty.' I told him, 'And I question yours.' And the chairman told me that if I continued to 'slur' any member of the committee, he would have me ejected. 'We don't have to sit here,' he told me, I and take your bunk and listen to your slurs.' 'Neither do I,' I said, 'have to sit here and listen to your slurs, Mr. Chairman.' That was as bad as it got. My lawyer whispered to me to cut it out, and that was the end of my appearance. I was excused.
"But as I got up to leave my chair, one of the congressmen called after me, I suppose to provoke me into contempt-'How can you be paid by the taxpayers' money when you are obligated by your damnable Communist oath to teach the Soviet line? How in God's name can you be a free agent and teach what the Communists dictate? Why don't you get out of the party and reverse your tracks? I plead with you-return to the American way of life!'
"But I didn't take the bait, didn't tell him that what I taught had nothing to do with the dictates of anything other than composition and literature, though, in the end, it didn't seem to matter what I said or didn't say: that evening, in the Sports Final edition, there was my kisser on the front page of the Newark News, over the caption 'Red Probe Witness Balky' and the line "'Won't take your bunk," HUAC tells Newark teacher.'
"Now, one of the committee members was a congressman from New York State, Bryden Grant. You remember the Grants, Bryden and Katrina. Americans everywhere remember the Grants. Well, the Ringolds were the Rosenbergs to the Grants. This society pretty boy, this vicious nothing, all but destroyed our family. And did you ever know why? Because one night Grant and his wife were at a party that Ira and Eve were giving on West Eleventh Street and Ira went after Grant the way only Ira could go after somebody. Grant was a pal of Wernher von Braun's, or Ira thought so, and Ira laid into him but good. Grant was-to the naked eye, that is-an effete upper-class guy of the sort who set Ira's teeth on edge. The wife wrote those popular romances that the ladies devoured and Grant was then still a columnist for the Journal-American. To Ira, Grant was the incarnation of pampered privilege. He couldn't stand him. Grant's every gesture made him sick and his politics he abhorred.
What People are Saying About This
"A bitter, often funny, always engrossing story that wonderfully evokes a time and place in our common past.... The idealisms and hypocrisies of the postwar period [are] brilliantly resurrected." —Robert Stone, The New York Review of Books
"A remarkable work—remarkable in its stringent observation of American life...remarkable in its wisdom. Mr. Roth has the frantic politics of this frantic time—the McCarthy era—in exact pitch." —Arthur Schlesinger, The New York Observer
"As social history it bbreathes life. In Ira Ringold, Roth has created one of his singularly ripe, vigorous characters. Ira's dizzying rise and fall out of and back into the working class trace the trajectory of twenty years of American history." —Todd Gitlin, Chicago Tribune
"Philip Roth is an amazing writer.... I Married a Communist may very well become his classic work; perhaps a classic for all time."The Plain Dealer
"Gripping.... A masterly, often unnerving, blend of tenderness, harshness, insight and wit."The New York Times Book Review
"I Married a Communist is filled with passages as fine and sharp as anything Roth has ever written (which is to say, as fine and sharp as anything in contemporary American literature)."The Village Voice Literary Supplement
"I Married a Communist leaves youboth dumbfounded and in awe."Chicago Sun-Times
"[S]eals [Roth's] reputation as a writer at the very top of his game."The Philadelphia Inquirer
Reading Group Guide
The questions, discussion topics and suggested reading list that follow are intended to enhance your group's reading of Philip Roth's I Married a Communist. We hope they will provide you with many new ways of approaching this powerful novel of private rage, public betrayal, and historical reflection by one of America's greatest writers.
1. As Nathan's high school English teacher, Murray Ringold tells him that "In human society, thinking's the greatest transgression of all" [p. 2]. Do the events of his life, and his brother's, bear out this opinion?
2. Murray describes Ira's private life as "a grave misfortune replete with farce" [p. 3]. Would this describe his public life as well? Which aspects of his public life were tragic, which merely farcical? How are Ira's private and public lives inextricably linked? What about Eve's? How does Roth link private betrayal with the public variety?
3. Ira becomes famous by impersonating Abraham Lincoln; he dies, eventually, from the same rare disease Lincoln suffered from. Why does Roth stress similarities and parallels between Ira and Lincoln? What things does he imply about Ira by making the comparison? Does Ira have any justification in likening himself to American revolutionaries like Lincoln, Paine and Jefferson?
4. The young Nathan, enthusiastic about the Progressive Party, sees his father as someone who has made fatal compromises, and Ira as uncompromising. What compromises has Ira, in fact, made? Does the author imply that compromise is inevitable, even good and necessary? If so, do you agree with him?
5. Nathan is attracted by Ira's early orphaning, by his social and familial unrootedness, largely because he himself is so very rooted in his own family and culture. What effect does a father, or the lack of a father, have on a young man's life? What purpose do surrogate fathers serve? Is Nathan correct to define manhood as "the orphanhood that is total" [p. 217]?
6. "As a Communist," says Murray, "[Ira] should be irritated by her from the first second. So what explains this marriage with her and not with a comrade?" [p. 82]. What does explain it? Does the fact that Ira sees Eve as a "challenge" [p. 83] provide reason enough, or is the situation more complex than that?
7. Is Sylphid presented as a villain, or as someone to be pitied? How much sympathy do you have for her? How much sympathy do Nathan and Murray have for her? Who is most to blame in the self-destructive mother-daughter relationship, Eve or Sylphid, and how has Eve contributed to making Sylphid what she is? In what ways are mother and daughter similar?
8. Ira presents himself as a searingly honest man, and seems actually to believe that this is so. Yet he consistently lies about the two vital facts of his life: that he is a Communist, and that he is a murderer. Does your knowledge of these lies imply, to you, that he is dishonest about other things? That he is in fact dishonest by nature?
9. Several characters give blistering summaries of Ira as they perceive him. Katrina van Tassel calls him "an ignorant man, and a naive man, and a rude man, a bullying, simple-minded, arrogant man" [p. 149]; his former friend Goldstine says "Mankind at its stupidest doesn't come any stupider. I've always been scared of you. You're a wild man" [p. 97]; Johnny O'Day says "He wasn't a revolutionary, he wasn't a Lincoln, he wasn't anything. He wasn't a man" [p. 288]. Are these characterizations correct? Or are they too ruthless in their assessments? What valuable qualities does Ira possess, if any? Is he in fact, as Murray believes, "by and large," "virtuous" [p. 181]?
10. How did Ira's childhood experiences turn him toward violence and murder? How, afterward, did his murder of Strollo shape the rest of his life? Murray says that Ira's "whole life had been looking for a way not to kill somebody" [p. 292]. Into what other arenas does Ira deflect his violent impulses? At what times is his violent nature most in evidence?
11. Do you agree with Nathan that both Ira and Murray are "historical casualties" [p. 318]? What does he mean by that term? How might their lives have unfolded if they had lived in more peaceful times?
12. "I believe I have made the least harmful choice," Nathan says about his chosen way of life [p. 71]. Harmful to what, and to whom? Are there any clues in I Married a Communist, or in Roth's other novels, to indicate why Nathan lives in such a monastic fashion?
13. Iron RinnIra Ringold was the teenaged Nathan's hero. What does this imply about our youthful ideas of heroes? Who, if anyone, might be the real hero of this story? Of the historical era?
14. If you have read American Pastoral, the novel that preceded I Married a Communist, how would you compare the two "heroes," Swede Levov and Ira Ringold? Are the two men similar, and if so, in what ways? How innocent is each of them, and how guilty? To what degree are both utopianists, and how realistic are their utopias?
15. What does I Married a Communist tell us about ourselves as Americans: about specifically American mores, values, fantasies, and character? In what ways were HUAC and the MacCarthy crisis characteristically American phenomena, possible only in this country?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
There is almost as much going on between the lines of Philip Roth¿s I Married a Communist as there is in the story the novel tells. Most obviously of course, the book is another chapter in the life of Roth¿s alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman. This chapter of Nathan¿s story, concentrating on his teen-age years and his flirtation with Communism as it does, is a key portion of the Nathan Zuckerman saga. And then there is Roth¿s use of the book as payback to his ex-wife, Claire Bloom, for her overwhelmingly critical memoir (Leaving a Doll¿s House, 1996), the book with which she did her best to destroy Roth¿s reputation. The good news about all of this is that, although several of the 1998 book¿s key characters are certainly based on Bloom, her daughter by a previous marriage, and some of her friends, I Married a Communist is more than just a means of retaliation on Roth¿s part. It is also a powerful indictment of the McCarthy-era witch-hunt that needlessly ruined so many lives in its determination to snuff out American Communism. Key characters include: Nathan Zuckerman, a high school student being drawn toward Communism by his best friend and mentor; Murray Ringold, Nathan¿s much admired English teacher; Ira Ringold, war veteran, radio actor, and active Communist to whom Nathan is particularly drawn; Eve Frame, silent movie star and radio actress who marries Ira; and, Sylphid, Eve Frame¿s adult daughter. Ira¿s story is recounted over several evenings of conversation between the now 90-year-old Murray Ringold and Nathan after a chance meeting between the two men provides them with the opportunity to do some long overdue catching up. All of the key players in the story, other than Murray and Nathan, are long dead, and Murray holds nothing back as he shares his memories of his brother. Murray is the last person alive who knows the whole story, and he believes that Nathan is the only one left who cares enough to listen to it. As the two share memories of the past, Nathan reflects upon his own involvement in the events of those years and how his choices affected his relationship with his parents.I Married a Communist is the second book in Roth¿s ¿American Trilogy,¿ a series that also includes American Pastoral (an alternate history of America) and The Human Stain (about the goings on at a small New England college). The trilogy is largely an indictment of the American Dream and a study of the social changes that shaped American thought during the second half of the twentieth century. This second book, as are the other two in the series, is a reminder of just how easily those with the best of intentions can ruin innocent lives.Rated at: 4.0
'I married a communist' is Philip Roth's look back in time to the period of time known as the Red Scare. Irving Ringold (the communist in question) and a radio drama star is as much a dogmatist in his own way as the right wing conservation patrioctic hacks who are determined to bury him in order to further their own political ambitions. In as much as the deluded Irving may deserve something of what eventually comes to him his older brother Murray--a somewhat unorthodox high school teacher--is much more of the innocent victim guilty by association--or just being Irving's brother but the reality goes a little further to a schoolboard wanting to eliminate a thorn in its side because of Murray's prominence in the teacher's union.What brings the whole house of cards down is Irving's misalliance of a celebrity marraige to the film star Eva Frame (a woman determined to deny her jewishness) and the complete and utter rejection of Irving as stepfather by Eva's daughter Sylphid. Coinciding with the political buildup behind the scare with the breakdown of the marraige manipulated by Sylphid--the angry breakup is then supplemented by a tell all book published by Eva but actually ghostwritten by a husband-wife team (friends of Eva) with political ambitions. This book destroys Irving's career and in the long run destroys Eva's as well in the backlash she is shunned by all her friends.Roth IMO is a great writer--mixing brilliant dialogue, in depth psychologoical analysis and intriguing plotlines. His prose has the uncanny ability to seem to whisper in his reader's ears. Like the best and greatest writers he seems in search of a logic in a chaotic universe--something that doubtfully can ever be reached but all the same is well worth the trying not only for a writer but for all of us as well.
Anyone who's paid any attention whatsoever to my reading habits knows that Philip Roth is far and away my favorite author. I've made it through about half of his books now and while I Married a Communist didn't quite earn the title of my favorite Roth book, it is easily in the top 5. Many of the novels I've enjoyed by Roth I would hesitate to recommend to someone who's never experienced him before. Often times they build on one another, or I think it's necessary to know certain things about his life or his philosophy to get what you need to from his books. However, I Married a Communist certainly stands on its own and makes an excellent starting point for someone who's never experienced him before. There were many reasons I loved this book, not the least of which was the total saturation with McCarthy-era politics. The characters were rich, the book was complete. With other authors I'll often read a book and be left wondering what happened after it was over, or I'll be curious about details regarding what happened before the story began. Roth manages to start right in the midst of the story and yet the novel is 100% complete. Though I loved the book I did not feel like it needed a single additional word, nor were any of the words superfluous.As always, there were many little sentences that proved Roth's understanding of the human condition. ¿I'd say to Doris, 'Why doesn't he leave? Why can't he leave?' And do you know what Doris would answer? 'Because he's like everybody ¿ you only realize things when they're over.¿or ¿I headed down the stairs with the seething self-disgust of someone young enough to think that you had to mean everything you said.¿My politics are about as left as you can get and this book certainly focuses on left-wing politics, which is certainly a bonus for me. However, there were several sections regarding the inability of a writer/artist/etc. to be political, and while I generally disagree with that point of view...well, I was a bit swayed.¿Politics is the great generalizer,¿ Leo told me, ¿and literature the great particularizer, and not only are they in an inverse relationship to each other ¿ they are also in an antagonistic relationship. To politics, literature is decadent, soft, irrelevant, boring, wrongheaded, dull, something that makes no sense and that really oughtn't to be. Why? Because the particularizing impulse is literature. How can you be a politician and allow the nuance? As an artist the nuance is your task. Your task is not to simplify. Even should you choose to write in the simplest way, a la Hemingway, the task remains to impart the nuance, to elucidate the complication, not to deny the contradiction, but to see where, within the contradiction, lies the tormented human being. To allow the chaos. To let it in. You must let it in.¿Overall, this book reminded me that Roth is the most awarded living author for a reason. Every word he writes is there for a purpose and he rarely oversteps his reach. I would recommend this book to anyone who's interested in literary fiction.
I really wanted to like this book. But it wasn¿t going to happen. This is the story of a radio star who gets caught up by McCarthyism, eventually leading to his downfall. (The fact that he was pretty darn close to a Communist really has no bearing.) But it also tells the story of his brother, a teacher who winds up caught in the same hearings ¿ primarily because he is a free thinker and he refuses to cooperate. But it is also the story a boy who gets to know them both ¿ as a student of the teacher and a friend of the radio star. It is all told from the boy¿s point of view ¿ years later, as he learns the real story behind his teacher and mentor.And, if it was just this story, told in this interesting way, there might have been a good book here. However, page after page is made up of the various individuals going on about their beliefs about politics and deeper considerations. Yes, this fleshes the people out ¿ makes them real. But it also bogs down the entire book and makes reading it a chore.Every once in a while it tries to soar. But about that time another discussion or speech begins, and it all comes crashing to the ground.
People complain that Americans lack a political memory, but we can thank our lucky stars that the narrative of the Red Scare is pretty well-established in our popular imagination. It would probably have been easy for Philip Roth to write a novel that conformed to that familiar narrative, in which a well-meaning, largely innocent American is unjustly removed from his or her job after a villainous public inquisitor draws some spurious link between them and a largely imaginary Red Menace and capitalizes on public hysteria. While there is a brief courtroom scene in the first section of "I Married a Communist," I'm glad to say that Philip Roth did not choose to go down this too-familiar path. In fact, Roth doesn't seem to be particularly interested in the general American public's reaction to the communist threat or their Antisemitism, which plays a far greater role in "The Plot Against America." His real subject here is fanaticism and ideological narrow-mindedness, which could be said to be prescient, since this novel was published before the attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the focus of American discourse, perhaps for good. "I Married a Communist," like so many other good novels, could be read as a tool of resistance to all-encompassing ideologies like communism and an impassioned argument in favor of critical thinking. To reduce it to a mere civics lesson would ignore its human element, which Roth, as per usual, handles masterfully. The character at the center of this novel, Ira Ringold, is both a classically Rothian protagonist who struggles, largely unsuccessfully, in this case, to synthesize his American and Jewish identities and an unrepentant communist. As a victim, he's not particularly sympathetic, either; he uses his political ideology to stifle his most violent impulses and seems to lack the intellectual capacity to fully understand the philosophy he espouses. These shortcomings make "I Married a Communist" an occasionally harrowing read; Roth seems to want to impress upon his readers the inner and turmoil and emotional violence that it takes to create a genuine fanatic. As Roth's longtime narrator and authorial stand-in Nathan Zuckerman and Murray Ringold, Ira's brother, try to patch together a serviceable narrative that can make sense Ira's chaotic life, they are also seeking to examine the emotional scars that this sort of absolutist thinking leaves upon the psyches of its practitioners. Ira, for example, seeks to achieve a sort of impersonal dedication to communism but seems unable to gain the necessary emotional distance to do so. And this novel is brimming with misdirected emotional energy. Characters in this novel fall in and out of love with each other, with their illusions, and with various political philosophies with typically messy, painful results. The tense triangle that Roth describes between Ira, Eve Frame, his co-star and sometime wife, and her emotionally damaged daughter is a fascinating picture of familial dysfunction. His portrait of Johnny O'Day, Ira's mentor, is a similarly spellbinding account of a character alienated from everything but his own ideas. One suspects that the only genuine personal growth in this novel occurs when Nathan Zuckerman rejects the lure of communism, chooses to dedicate his life to literature, and escapes Ira's circle. As for Roth's prose: what's left to say? To say that he flawlessly mimics the speech pattens of his characters wouldn't be quite correct: Few people are able to speak as elegantly as Roth writes. When he gets going, Roth's writing reminds me of nothing so much as the calming sound of the waves gently and ceaselessly crashing upon a beach. Whatever his subject, Roth's prose finds and mines a poetic vein that most writers strain to imagine, let alone commit to paper. To watch as he patiently unspools his characters' stories is to watch a master fully in control of his medium. "I Married a Communist," like "American Pastoral" and "The Pl
Not as expansive as American Pastoral, but searching, incisive, brilliant, and quite the page-turner. While I found Roth's last, Exit Ghost, to be an anemic excuse for Roth's long literary rants, this one is a living breathing story on its own. Ira Ringold, the Communist in the title, is a tragic figure who uses ideology, and marriage, as a desperate protection against his own dark side. His wife, the aptly-named Eve Frame, betrays Ira to the red-baiting journalists of the time by participating in a libelous book that gives the novel its title. Indeed, betrayal, of self and of others, is one of the larger themes of a book that ruminates on what it what it means to be human. Can we as humans not betray? This is ultimately a story of human relationships and the mess we make of them, rather than a grand discourse on the politics of the time, and it is all the more interesting for that. (Oh, and the gossip? I don't care about that, and it surprised me how often it turned up in reviews).
Philip Roth is such a good writer that even his less than best is pretty good. I enjoyed the book but it had a similar feel to other Roth books on the same subject. I really did not connect with the main character. He was deeply flawed and not really worthy of the deep consideration given to his life by Nathan Zuckerman. The book also did not really give you the sense of how widespread the McCarthy era blacklist was and how it impacted so many people. I just didn't feel it. I would recommend other Roth books to initial Roth readers.
After having read Roth's "The Human Stain" and "American Pastoral", "I Married a Communist" was definitely right on top of my wishlist. It gives a lot of insight into what shook America in the McCarthy era. As all of those three books, Roth - again - did it. He achieved to write a compelling story that grips its readers not so much for what is being told but rather for how its being told. A little less action, a little more thought. Insightful, American, a typical Roth. 4 stars.
An interesting novel in which the author portrays very clearly the ethos of a time and place. Some good stuff, but this is too rambling and disjointed. The central character is a victim of McCarthyism, but is a deeply unsympathetic, pathologically angry, violent individual. Indeed, McCarthyism is almost incidental to the book, which is more about one man's struggle to come to terms with his own nature.
This book is not considered one of Roth's strongest - but I found it readable, though provoking, and a great story.
Saying this isn't Roth's greatest achievement is like saying Macbeth isn't Shakespeare's best play: probably true, but almost meaningless because it remains an untouchable literary achievement. The novel focuses on the story of Ira Ringold, a card-carrying Communist from Newark who befriended Nathan Zuckerman in 1948 while Zuckerman was still in high school, as told by Ira's older brother and Zuckerman's former English teacher, Murray. One of Roth's greatest tragedies, the prose in I Married a Communist is among the best written by any author in the English language. Stick with the novel until the end: the final few pages contain perhaps Roth's most poignant concluding sentences, some of the most powerfully elegiac sentences you will ever read.
I greatly enjoy Phillip Roth's writing style, and strongly recommend 'Portnoy's Complaint' and 'American Pastoral', both available in audiotape versions. Mr. Roth's writing style is again evident in 'I married a communist' with excellent word choice and an ability to recreate the feelings behind his characters words. Ron Silver's reading helps too. No complaints about the reading, I liked it fine. This novel is narrated from the piont of view of Nathan Zuckerman, but is about some obscure character named Ira, and his brother, wife, stepdaughter, army buddies, etc. Poor Ira suffers from Marfans syndrome, an affliction that makes him loook like Abe Lincoln, and requires that he get a special kind of massage three times a week. But I had a real hard time making out a storyline or plot throughout most of the work. The timeline shifts back and forth, but for no apparent reason. Maybe it would have made more sense if Mr. Roth stuck to chronological order, but that would not be his style. I got the sense that I came in on the middle of an evolving story, and by the time I thought I had a handle on who was who and what was going on, the novel was over. And it's a long novel. I had a hard time enjoying it, and it got boring. I hate to have to say that, because Phillip Roth is far and away my favorite author. I will buy his next work anyway, I am sure, if there is one. Can't highly recommend this one, though.