treatment, and the final proof of
Mama's pudding is given by Mar–
jorie herself, who is shown eating
it in Mamaroneck with a silver
spoon. The significance of these
reflections on the Jews, as far as
I can see, is that we should all
head for the suburbs, but be sure
to pack along prayer shawls and
philacteries. I am sure this cannot
be
what Wouk meant to say, but
he says nothing else because he is
faking. He gives the story spe–
cious overtones of concern with
the Jewish "problem" and takes
a position right at Mrs. Morgen–
stern's side--not because she is
right (since we don't know the
questions, how can we judge her
answers?) but because it is such
a cute thing to do. In this day
and age, what more startling yet·
safer way is there to appear un–
conventional than by upholding
the conventions?
The ideological overtones are
just as phony. Wouk seems to come
out strong for religion, chastity,
the sanctity of marriage and the
home, and against free thought,
free love and Freudianism. But it
is like writing on a window pane-–
tum your back and it is gone. Re–
ligion has no place in the story
because no one is interested,
though some of his characters go
to synagogue. Noel Airman, who
is cast as the Atheist, covers the
subject, when he is not eating lob–
ster, by trying to talk Marjorie in–
to sleeping with him; and Mar–
jorie has even less thought for God,
567
perhaps because she is kept so busy
untwisting her arm. No one shows
the least sign of faith, and Mr.
Wouk, apparently, is content to let
the matter rest as an adjunct of
"adjustment" and doing what one's
neighbors do.
Chastity, one would think, is a
clearer notion, no two ways about
it, yet Wouk manages to fog this
up, too. Purity, as a concept of
soul or action, does not even get
honorable mention. Marjorie has
to be careful that the boys don't
consider her a prude, and so she
engages in necking. This seems to
meet with Wouk's approval; ac–
tivities the other side of the line
definitely do not. It would seem
rather dangerous for him to de–
pend on lines in this case, as he
is incapable of drawing anything
so drastic as a clear-cut division of
any other topic. But he does make
it plain that sex is of secondary
importance in the relation between
the sexes, who are better occupied
laying plans for a home.
The fictional conceptions are no
better. The main characters, Mar–
jorie and Noel, are rigged up to
represent opposite principles, but
here as elsewhere, Wouk's con–
fusion and his failure to under–
stand the issues he is pretending
to raise leave everything in a heavy
mess. Noel Airman, who winds up
in the waste basket, is no doubt
supposed to be the object lesson:
this is the price one must pay for
pursuit of the pleasure principle.
But Wouk puts him down so rap-
