Vanity Fair‘s “New Yiddishists”?
Mama-Loshn has definitely taken some heavy blows in the last century. The blandishments of America led millions to abandon it for English, while in Russia, Yiddish itself was used a medium of anti-Jewish cultural propaganda until economic dislocation and the promise of a bright, new future as Soviet citizens did much of the same (and the Black Years didn’t help). Hitler took care of most of those who were left in Eastern Europe. And, lehovdil, Israel did a number on the language itself. Those people for whom it remains a vernacular (e.g., Hasidim) are ignored or reviled by its scholars, and even many Jews are unaware that Yiddish is actually a language and not merely a pastiche of comical sounding words that allegedly add both hilarity and ethnic street cred to any humorous banter.
Through all this, however, Yiddish had its literature, a corpus as rich and diverse as any of the great national canons to arise out of the 19th century. Even if Yiddish were to disappear, or at the very least, continued in such a way as to ignore secular works, the status of the great Yiddishists—stretching from Sholom Aleichem to Chaim Grade—would be unchanging. Indeed, the very fact that actual Yiddish literature is so moribund today should suggest that the pantheon should remain unchallenged. But now, adding insult to a century of injury, is a particularly moronic bit of doggerel from Vanity Fair praising the works of the "New Yiddishists."
Now, Jewdar is not here to criticize Michael Chabon or Nathan Englander or any of the others mentioned in the piece. Some of their work we’ve liked, some—like Kavalier and Klay—we’ve absosmurfly loved. But liking it or not, these writers are not Yiddishists. "Yiddishists," pretty much by definition, are writers whose work is, you know, in Yiddish, or at least concerned with Yiddish. Even by the most liberal interpretation, there has to be some greater comittment to Yiddish language and culture than Jonathan Safran Foer mentioning "tuches" half a dozen times in Everything is Illuminated(we actually liked the book quite a lot, but the parts we liked were actually the ones with the Ukrainian sheygetz; the Jewish—sorry "Yiddishist" parts were gornisht mit gornisht.)
To our mind, the real problem is that Jewish culture has been so devalued by bad literary and art critics that a word like Yiddishist no longer has any value. For years, the word "talmudic" has been used to describe any Jewish artist’s work in order to lend it some veneer of Jewishness when it has none. "His paintings have a real talmudic quality to them…" Meaningless, but there it is. The problem is that if a writer with no Jewish content is "talmudic," what can we say about one whose—English language—work is laden with Jewishness? Apparently, they are "Yiddishists."
The whole article reads like the author came up with an idea, and then noodged a bunch of people—many of whom should know better—to say something about the "New Yiddishists." And what pearls of wisdom were dropped? Apparently, the New Yiddishists aren’t angry at Jewish culture, they’re asking "what does it mean to be a Jew in the modern world," and they are "reluctant to see themselves as a cohesive group." Are we nuts, or is their nothing that distinguishes "the New Yiddishists" from an 8th grade Hebrew school class? And is it possible that the reason why the writers profiled don’t see themselves as a cohesive group is because they aren’t? It doesn’t do much for the argument that one of the main writers cited—Jonathan Safran Foer—has actually only written one book involving a Jewish theme, and another’s most recent work is Civil War era historical fiction, which involves Jews, and is reasonably modern, but is that really what the above quote was addressing?
Of course we know, "Yiddish" just means "Jewish." But if that’s all you mean, then simply say "Jewish." The article would have been just as significant (or insignificant) had they simply been referred to as the "New Jewish writers." Instead, the piece’s author does nothing to enlighten the reader about these writers; all he does is further debase whatever currency Yiddish still has left. And we’re going to go out on a limb here and suggest that at least some of the authors mentioned in the piece have enough appreciation of Jewish culture to reject the term themselves.
We’ll be honest and confess that there’s a part of us that figures that we should jump on this bandwagon. After all, we’ve co-authored a pretty Jewish book (and one that uses various Yiddish words, though we made sure to leave out "tuchis."). We’ve studied Yiddish (though would never pretend to speak it), and we claim a certain amount of responsibility for Heeb’s language column (except for tushy-shtup; that was all Dreidel Hustler). Surely, we’ve got at least as much claim to being a "New Yiddishist" as Jonathan Safran Foer, whose second book wasn’t even about the Tribe (and we want to make clear we have no issue with him, and we hear he’s a lovely fellow, its just that his was one of the names mentioned). But tempting as it may be to get cards embossed with the words "Jewdar, New Yiddishist," we think we’ll follow the lead of UNC professor (and someone who actually has some claim to being a Yiddishist) Jonathan Boyarin, who, when we informed him of the Vanity Fair piece after shul on Pesach, responded completely untalmudically, "nebbich."
comments
submit a comment04.14.09 at 12:04 pm
Great article Jewdar, which leads me to ask you and all of us a question — what ARE we? — all of us doing New Jewish Stuff or is there a “we”? I know Melich Heeb probably doesn’t want to join ranks with the rest of “us”. However, I would argue “we” ARE something: ModernTribe (that’s me), Jewcy, JDub, Jewlicious, PopJudaica, Reboot, ROI, 6 Points Fellowship — name some others… And I struggle when I try to refer to “us” What do you think? I know you’ve got thoughts. Are they fit to publish?
04.14.09 at 12:04 pm
Let me add: we are beyond “Jewish hipster” which is def. not ModernTribe and, to me, signifies the most superficial (and passe) New Jewish Stuff.
04.17.09 at 8:04 am
JSF’s stuff has nothing to do with Yiddish, agreed, and I think the author’s macro point is a good one. But if you’ve read Dara Horn’s books, especially The World to Come, Yiddishist is an accurate appellation. I feel like this is one of those articles-in-response-to-an-article which is a vent for random opinions of the author, rather than anything based in actual fact.
04.17.09 at 2:04 pm
I haven’t read Dara Horn’s books—are they in Yiddish?
04.17.09 at 2:04 pm
This is actually an old debate. The history of Yiddish culture is full of people who were NOT born and raised with Yiddish as mameloshen (Yiddish for mother tongue) but leaned it and championed it. Besides, this topic has been thoroughly studied and argued by Jeff Shandler in his wonderful book “Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular Language and Literature.” This is exactly what the “New Yiddishists” are – post-vernacular phenomenon.
04.17.09 at 3:04 pm
This is not what that debate is about. I have no problem with someone who wasn’t born and raised speaking Yiddish learning it and championing it, but the writers portrayed in the article (at least most of them) don’t fall under that description. Certainly, Englander, Foer, and Chabon don’t. These aren’t Yivo-niks who are adopting a Yiddish identity like secular baalei-tshuva; those people can be called New Yiddishists, because they are immersing themselves in Yiddish (not just Jewish) culture. You can be a “New Romantic” without writing in German, or a “New Realist” without writing in French, but you can’t be a “New Yiddishist” without having at least something to do with Yiddish.
And just curious, according to the standards of the article, what would disqualify a Jewish writer from being a “New Yiddishist?” As noted in the blog post, Jewdar is a published writer on Jewish themes, has used Yiddish, satire, etc, etc. Is Jewdar a New Yiddishist?
04.17.09 at 4:04 pm
In fact, we’ll go further in agreeing with you, Spinsker, and note that one doesn’t even have to be a Jew to be a Yiddishist, precisely because of its cultural-linguistic signficance, and there have been a number of prominent non-Jewish Yiddishists, like Tom Bird and (I believe) Nina Warnke. What makes them Yiddishists, of course, is their commitment to the language and culture of Yiddish, which is the sine qua non of a Yiddishist, new or old.
04.18.09 at 10:04 pm
Well, yes – you don’t have to be a Jew do be a Yiddishist. At the same time, obviously Yiddishism is not only about the language (as your two slightly contradictory comments show). What makes Yiddish unique is this impossibility to disentangle the language from Jewishness, or more precisely East European Jewishness. After all, what is the motivation for the “post-vernacular” attachment to Yiddish? Surely not just a desire to help endangered language.
That said, I agree with you that the article lumps together people who don’t belong in this category. The exception is actually Dara Horn (I don’t know the others personally) who is exactly what you describe as “Yivo-nik,” and her novel is full of Yiddishism and Yiddish culture.
04.19.09 at 12:04 pm
Jewdar’s not sure what contradictory comments we made, and Jewdar has never read Dara Horn’s work, but being a “Yiddishist” is about more than using “Yiddishisms,” or being full of Yiddish culture. By that standard, Jewdar’s a Yiddishist. The entire Yeshivish and Hasidish communities are Yiddishists. A pretty good chunk of the American and Israeli Jewish populations are Yiddishists.
Now that we’ve read more about her, Jewdar is willing to say that Dara Horn can probably be called a Yiddishist, but not for the reasons you state. What makes Dara Horn a Yiddishist would be her scholarly work in the actual Yiddish language, not her English language novels. There were important Eastern and Central European writers in the 1930’s who actually lived in Poland or the old Dual Monarchy at the time that Yiddish flourished, and they didn’t write in Yiddish. Joseph Roth might have written about Yiddish speaking Jews in some of his work, but he did so in German. We’ve never seen anyone describe him, or Bruno Schulz, or any other non-Yiddish writer as a Yiddishist. It’s an absurdity. Yiddishists works in or with Yiddish, and that’s what defines them as Yiddishists.
As for the “post-vernacular” attachment to Yiddish, Jewdar doesn’t know the phrase, but is there any difference between that and symbolic ethnicity? Meaning, is there anything more signficant about calling it a “bagel and schmear” than about the act of eating a bagel and schmear? And is this much different than what the Irish or Italians or Poles do with their own symbolic uses of ethnicity beyond the immigrant generation? Is there a difference between a Jew saying “tuchis” and a Pole wearing a t-shirt saying “You Bet Your Dupa I’m Polish” (and note, Jewdar comes from Milwaukee, where such things are more common than one might imagine).
04.21.09 at 5:04 pm
I’m the aforementioned author (David Sax) of the VF piece , aka the “moronic bit of doggerel” you rip into with such bravado. It’s an honor to be torn asunder by one of my tribesman. Thank you. I feel like Roth at Yeshiva.
Couldn’t say that I didn’t see this coming. The second I set out to write about this topic, I knew there’s be a line drawn in the sand, and I was pretty sure it was this line that someone like Jewdar would pee on.
I could go point by point, but really I’m not going to, because truthfully, a lot of your arguments are valid. Are they right? Not necessarily, I think it’s a matter of opinion, but they aren’t insane. Hell, I even respect them.
What I take issue with is your need to box in the label of “Yiddishist” I use like it’s the 1930’s and we’re duking it out in some cafeteria on Ludlow, screaming over the blintzes about the ownership of Jewish fiction.
I used the term because it was what I thought best described the literary link between the works of these authors. No, they’re not Yiddish speakers or Yiddish writers (with the noted exception of Horn and Englander, who could write in Yiddish, if they wanted to). That distinction, while historically significant, isn’t relevant today. It was meant to separate the European born writers from those in America and the rest of the Diaspora, at a time when those distinctions were a cleaving force in Jewish America. There aren’t any new native born Yiddish speakers and writers today. That distinction’s irrelevant.
In the piece I was attempting to draw a line between the types of stories told by the original Yiddishists (yes, Jewdar, the ones speaking and writing in Yiddish), and the most prominent names in new Jewish American fiction, whose stories, narratives, and characters share a similar sensibility, voice, and style. In a way it has nothing to do with Yiddish as a language. It’s Yiddish as an ideal, Yiddish as a symbol of Jewish thought, or even better, a means to convey those thoughts. The language of Jewish Americans— our turns of phrase, way of speaking, and particular form of sarcasm —is to us like Yiddish was to those from Europe. It’s the voice we speak with (yes, Heeb, even you), but it’s by no means an iron-clad distinction.
My point? There’s more to Yiddish culture than the nuts and bolts language itself. I think you put it best in the comment above:
“By that standard, Jewdar’s a Yiddishist. The entire Yeshivish and Hasidish communities are Yiddishists. A pretty good chunk of the American and Israeli Jewish populations are Yiddishists.”
04.21.09 at 9:04 pm
savethedeli – well said…but please be careful not to be so silly and state that “There aren’t any new native born Yiddish speakers and writers today. That distinction’s irrelevant.” There are more than a handful of them in the hasidic world and outside it. And besides, does it matter if the Yiddish speakers are old or new? Almost everybody (including Horn and others like myself) who has studied Yiddish has done it with these native Yiddish speakers. We did it so we can appreciate the works of the “old Yiddishists” and the new ones as well.
And, please do me a favor both of you (Jewdar and savethedeli) and read Shandler’s book “Adventures in Yiddishland.” I promise you will enjoy it, and it will open your eyes regarding these questions.
04.21.09 at 10:04 pm
Spinsker, your point is well taken and I apologize for getting too silly with the above comment. There are indeed several Yiddish writers, including my friend Michael Wex, who are in the here and now. I wasn’t trying to insinuate that it was a “dead language” or anything of the like, just that the debate between Yiddish speakers and non in the present isn’t really as relevant as it was when they were evenly matched in the eyes of Jewish readers.
I’ll check out Shandler’s book. Sounds very interesting.
01.02.10 at 1:01 pm
On this site only people have to find very hot content about this post. Thanks to you the good sides of my dick don’t have a rash anymore. People know that after this used to be not hard to have professional gang bangs from custom essays writing corporation.
03.10.10 at 9:03 pm
ED Hardy Hoodies ED Hardy Hoodies
Ed Hardy Swimwear Ed Hardy Swimwear
ed hardy tops ed hardy tops
ed hardy shoes ed hardy shoes
ed hardy t shirt ed hardy t shirt
ed hardy shirts ed hardy shirts
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
Ed Hardy Sunglasses Ed Hardy Sunglasses
ED Hardy belts ED Hardy belts
ed hardy Bags ed hardy Bags
ed hardy purse ed hardy purse
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens d hardy womens
ed hardy mens shirts ed hardy mens shirts
ed hardy mens tops ed hardy mens tops
ed hardy mens hoodies d hardy mens hoodies
ed hardy mens swim trunks ed hardy mens swim trunks
ed hardy mens shoes ed hardy mens shoes
ed hardy womens swimwear ed hardy womens swimwear
ed hardy womens t shirt ed hardy womens t shirt
ed hardy womens tops ed hardy womens tops
ed hardy womens pants ed hardy womens pants
ed hardy womens hoodies ed hardy womens hoodies
ed hardy womens shoes ed hardy womens shoes
ed hardy womens clothing ed hardy womens clothing
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
cheap ed hardy cheap ed hardy
ed hardy uk ed hardy uk
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy clothes ed hardy clothes
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet