Take a photo of a barcode or cover
duffypratt 's review for:
My Name Is Asher Lev
by Chaim Potok
I remember teachers and librarians praising this book back when I was in Junior High. A weepy book about an orthodox Jewish boy who wants to be an artist, in which nothing much happens. Back then, no thanks.
Since then, it has gone from being a book recommended by the librarian to a part of the curriculum. And I can see why, though I also think its inclusion is a bit perverse. To fully understand this book (and I'm not claiming I do) you would have to know an awful lot about both Hassidic culture and about the history of modern art. These are not fields that are generally at the tops of the list of most high school kids.
For example, there is some detailed discussion about Guernica by Picasso and several other specific paintings. Knowing something about these paintings would add deeply to an appreciation of the book. But the kids I have talked to about the book have never even bothered to look up any of the paintings on the internet. I am dumbfounded by this lack of curiosity. Its now so easy to find out just about anything, and most people never even bother, even when it might make a difference in their academic performance.
The book is not particularly easy, in part because Asher is not a very likable character. He's more or less spoiled and self-absorbed, and I am hard pressed to remember any time in the book when he went out of his way to help anyone else. On top of that, he is pretty much a classic passive aggressive. He doesn't actually scheme to get his way, he just stubbornly refuses to speak or explain himself or let others have any influence on him. And yet, if his art is as good as everyone seems to think, then that would go a long way towards forgiving his personal failings.
Also, the book largely centers on Asher alienating himself from his community. This is supposed to be tragic, but his community is entirely insular and not a particularly pleasant place to be. They uniformly see the world outside of the Hasid community as a terrible place (justifiably so give the Holocaust and the problems in Stalin's Russia). But at the same time, the reality of Asher's world is that his community is a pretty inhospitable place, while basically all of his contacts outside of the community end up being benevolent.
Finally, there is a basic problem central to this book. Asher belongs to a school of art following in the traditions of Picasso and other moderns. His is not an empty formalism, but one where his art is supposed to expose, in some way, his inner self. In contrast to this, he derides both the intellectual approach of DuChamp and the types of earlier paintings that told stories. In both instances, what he loathes is the notion that the art can somehow be reduced to words. This very idea puts Potok in an awkward position. Asher's crucifixion paintings are the ones that catapult him to external fame, and to infamy in his community. The problem is, however, that these paintings seem to be the very sort of painting that Asher said he loathes. Ones where the idea of the painting can be conveyed in words. Convenient to the novelist of course, but built on an inconsistence of character. Moreover, this is not simply a device to help the novel, the ideas behind these paintings are crucial to the resolution of the book, and the final breaking of Asher from his family. I don't see how this problem could have been avoided, but its a problem nonetheless.
There is a lot to this book, and its not as easy in its lessons as it appears on the surface. That means that there is a lot to like in this book, even though most of its major characters are pretty unlikeable.
Since then, it has gone from being a book recommended by the librarian to a part of the curriculum. And I can see why, though I also think its inclusion is a bit perverse. To fully understand this book (and I'm not claiming I do) you would have to know an awful lot about both Hassidic culture and about the history of modern art. These are not fields that are generally at the tops of the list of most high school kids.
For example, there is some detailed discussion about Guernica by Picasso and several other specific paintings. Knowing something about these paintings would add deeply to an appreciation of the book. But the kids I have talked to about the book have never even bothered to look up any of the paintings on the internet. I am dumbfounded by this lack of curiosity. Its now so easy to find out just about anything, and most people never even bother, even when it might make a difference in their academic performance.
The book is not particularly easy, in part because Asher is not a very likable character. He's more or less spoiled and self-absorbed, and I am hard pressed to remember any time in the book when he went out of his way to help anyone else. On top of that, he is pretty much a classic passive aggressive. He doesn't actually scheme to get his way, he just stubbornly refuses to speak or explain himself or let others have any influence on him. And yet, if his art is as good as everyone seems to think, then that would go a long way towards forgiving his personal failings.
Also, the book largely centers on Asher alienating himself from his community. This is supposed to be tragic, but his community is entirely insular and not a particularly pleasant place to be. They uniformly see the world outside of the Hasid community as a terrible place (justifiably so give the Holocaust and the problems in Stalin's Russia). But at the same time, the reality of Asher's world is that his community is a pretty inhospitable place, while basically all of his contacts outside of the community end up being benevolent.
Finally, there is a basic problem central to this book. Asher belongs to a school of art following in the traditions of Picasso and other moderns. His is not an empty formalism, but one where his art is supposed to expose, in some way, his inner self. In contrast to this, he derides both the intellectual approach of DuChamp and the types of earlier paintings that told stories. In both instances, what he loathes is the notion that the art can somehow be reduced to words. This very idea puts Potok in an awkward position. Asher's crucifixion paintings are the ones that catapult him to external fame, and to infamy in his community. The problem is, however, that these paintings seem to be the very sort of painting that Asher said he loathes. Ones where the idea of the painting can be conveyed in words. Convenient to the novelist of course, but built on an inconsistence of character. Moreover, this is not simply a device to help the novel, the ideas behind these paintings are crucial to the resolution of the book, and the final breaking of Asher from his family. I don't see how this problem could have been avoided, but its a problem nonetheless.
There is a lot to this book, and its not as easy in its lessons as it appears on the surface. That means that there is a lot to like in this book, even though most of its major characters are pretty unlikeable.