In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

>> 201  Radical Conservatism Bashevis’s Dismissal of Modernism Joseph Sherman . In Warsaw in 1929, the publishing house of Boris Kletskin brought out a miscellany titled Amol in a yoyvl. Bearing the subtitle zamlbukh far beletristik , this volume contained a selection of poetry and prose by some of the leading Yiddish writers of the day, including Kadia Molodowsky, Rokhl Korn, Meylekh Ravitsh, and Yehoshue Perle. Also included was a short story titled “Shammai Vayts” by a twenty-five-year-old newcomer, Yitskhok Bashevis, whose work had already attracted some favorable comment. Though by no means the first of Bashevis’s stories to be published , this one was significant not only on account of the distinguished literary company it kept but also—and chiefly—because it put into skillful practice a theoretical commitment to literary realism, and hence a dismissal of experimental modernism, which Bashevis had outlined in a critical essay two years before. By the mid-1920s, Yiddish writers in eastern Europe had to decide what direction their continued work should take. The stimulating modernist innovations in European literature that a number of contemporary Yiddish writers were keen to follow had been initiated before World War I and continued even more vigorously in its aftermath.1 The problem with modernist experiments in Yiddish literature, however, was that outside the limited circles of an elite minority, there were few people to read and appreciate them. The radical new prose styles that had distinguished the work of David Bergelson and fellow members of the Kiev Group in the period before 1917 had been acclaimed almost 202 > 203 to retain its readership, it had to be broadly accessible, a consideration that inevitably led in the direction of realism. Against this background, in 1927 Yitskhok Bashevis published an essay in Warsaw’s preeminent Yiddish literary journal, Literarishe Bleter, titled “Verter oder bilder.”3 Though it does not directly engage in polemics with any opposing viewpoint, by defending realism as the mode in which fiction can best represent observed reality, this essay makes a subtle critique of the limitations of modernism by articulating an artistic credo that Bashevis practiced throughout his career. Drawing a distinction between “dos bild, der gesheener fakt” (the picture , the event that has taken place), which, he maintained, has always been the attribute of “der epishe-realer dertseylung” (the epic-realistic story), and words, which are all that are needed to express “dos gefil un gemit” (the feeling and mood) that dominates the lyric, he insisted that “der liriker reagirt oyf gesheenishn, ober der epiker-realist shtelt avek di gesheenishn gufe un lozt reagirn dem lezer” (the lyric poet reacts to events, but the epical realist lays bare the events themselves and lets the reader react; 663, col. 1). Unlike the lyric poet, who can deal in generalities , he argued, the realist is of necessity confined to particulars, because the more subtle the mood that he wishes to convey, the more he needs details and the less he can rely on impressions. For Bashevis, the writer can only convince the reader through the presentation of what he calls “facts,” data that can be apprehended by the five senses. The sole reality apprehended by the writer of the realistic story is the conduct —the actions—of the characters he describes; the only access the writer-observer can have to the interiority of his characters is their dialogue . Even here, Bashevis argues, dialogue serves an extremely limited function,4 since dialogue, like the thoughts and innermost experiences of characters, is justified only insofar as it contributes something necessary to the essential picture. When too much effort is made to explore interiority, he contends, “m’derfilt teykef az do iz bagangen gevorn a farbrekhn kegn der form fun dertseyln” (one immediately senses that there has been a disruption of the narrative form; 663, col. 1). Bashevis accepts that this narrow insistence on presenting only external details is limiting and that it renders the realistic writer incapable of expressing a great deal of human conduct, thought, and experience . The realistic artist, who is always obliged to paint pictures of the 204 > 205 I declare here once for all, I describe not Men, but Manners; not an Individual , but a Species. Perhaps it will be answered, Are not the Characters then taken from Life? To which I answer in the Affirmative; nay, I believe I might aver, that I have writ little more than I have seen. The Lawyer is not only alive, but hath been so...

Share