Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Herman Wouk’s Last Shot

With The Lawgiver, the best-selling novelist takes another stab at the kind of Hollywood fame he’s always coveted

Print Email
Herman Wouk, 1955. (Walter Sanders//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)
Related Content

Modern Times

Herman Wouk wrote a foundational text for American postwar Modern Orthodoxy, and for the emancipated Jewish literature in its wake

Marjorie Morningstar was published in 1955, on the heels of The Caine Mutiny, and it continued Wouk’s winning streak: It was the best-selling novel of that year and put Wouk on the cover of Time magazine. It is still in print and, as Tablet’s Alana Newhouse has written, still commands a hardy following, especially among women readers. The power of the novel comes from its deft use of a time-tested romantic plot: the virtuous young woman who loves yet resists a dashing cad. In this case, the lovers are not Southern aristocrats like Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler, but bourgeois Jews from the West Side of Manhattan: Marjorie Morgenstern, a Hunter College student who dreams of the stage, and Noel Airman, a charming songwriter and inveterate womanizer.

Wouk, as critic Laurence Mazzeno has shown in the only book-length study of his work, was opposed on principle to the difficult techniques of literary modernism. (When a character in The Caine Mutiny has a bookshelf filled with Eliot and Joyce, it is a sign that he is a weakling and a villain.) Wouk came to novel-writing from the background of radio comedy—during the Depression, he earned a princely salary writing gags for Fred Allen—and for him, literary success always meant big audiences. His ambition turned to fiction, he has said, when he was almost 30 years old and he happened to read Don Quixote for the first time. The realistic, picaresque novel—Wouk also loved Tom Jones—became the writer’s model, and not just for commercial reasons. Ideologically, he approved of solid characters, intricate plots, and moralistic resolutions.

In the 20th century, serious writers seldom wrote that kind of book—not out of simple perversity, as Wouk has often suggested, but for the good reason that the modern world largely lost the minute class distinctions and harsh sexual codes that drove the plot of the classic novel. Wouk’s stroke of genius was to realize that, in the New York Jewish bourgeoisie of the 1930s, he had found a small, self-contained world in which those kinds of rules still applied. From the moment we meet her as a teenager, Marjorie is destined for a particular segment of the marriage market. Just like Elizabeth Bennet’s, her parents are scheming for her to make a “good” match, with only a small number of likely grooms to choose from: The man has to be Jewish, has to have a good reputation, and ideally will be the heir to a prosperous business. This is a geographically and socially small world, where all the young people go to the same colleges and the same parties, and where a wrong sexual move could ruin a girl’s prospects for life.

The problem is that Marjorie has dreams of a bigger world and a more vivid life, which for her means a life on the stage. By translating her German last name to Morningstar, she creates a stage name that suits the glamorous existence she hopes for. It is also, as Noel Airman points out, less Jewish-sounding: “Those overtones of potato pancakes, Friday-night candles, gefilte fish—that’s what you don’t like,” he taunts. And Wouk portrays Marjorie’s dilemma partly in Jewish terms, as a choice between fidelity to tradition and assimilation to American ways. One of the running themes of the book is Marjorie’s reluctance to eat pork or lobster—a taboo that even most of her Jewish friends find obsolete but that is meant to signal to the reader that our lead character still feels the call of righteousness. Noel, typically, eats treyf with gusto: “They say hunger is the best cook, but they’re wrong. Prohibition is. There isn’t a living Christian who can enjoy ham and eggs the way a renegade Jew like me does.”

At the same time, Wouk insists that the essence of Marjorie’s problem is not just Jewish, but generally American. This is the weakening of traditional rules about sex and chastity, which leaves young girls, so Wouk believes, morally adrift. A certain amount of dating and “necking” is de rigeur, and Marjorie is constantly besieged by suitors; yet if she gives in to their demands and “goes too far,” it is she who will bear the social and psychological stigma. The problem comes into sharp focus when she falls helplessly in love with Noel Airman. Noel is a bohemian, promiscuous and hard-drinking, whose greatest fear is of being tied down by a woman. He, too, is Jewish—he was born Saul Ehrmann—but by changing his name, he took the fatal step away from tradition that Marjorie has yet to make. As “Airman”—a literal translation of the Yiddish word “luftmensch,” meaning a man who lives on air, an insubstantial drifter—he hopes to conquer the world. But his own laziness and moral weakness prevent him from ever achieving success in show business, or any other field.

Noel has a name for girls like Marjorie. They are “Shirleys,” the typical good Jewish matron in training: “The respectable girl, the mother of the next generation, all tricked out to appear gay and girlish and carefree, but with a terrible threatening solid dullness jutting through, like the gray rocks under the spring grass in Central Park. … Shirley is indestructible.” He insists, too, that Shirley is not just a Jewish phenomenon: “Shirley Jones has the same nature as Shirley Cohn and the same milieu, and is in the same jam.”

Inevitably, Noel tries to get Marjorie into bed; just as inevitably, she tries to get him to marry her. It is a dismal kind of struggle, and the main effect of reading Marjorie Morningstar today is to be deeply grateful for feminism and the sexual revolution, which largely freed us from this kind of thing. In the end, both parties end up winning, or losing: Marjorie does sacrifice her virginity to Noel; Noel does ask Marjorie to marry him. But at the crucial moment, she turns him down, deciding instead to marry one Milton Schwartz—a complete nonentity of a character who enters the book at the last minute solely for the purpose of giving Marjorie a respectable bourgeois mate.

Naturally, Wouk punishes Marjorie for not being a virgin at marriage: “He took her as she was, with her deformity, despite it. For that is what it amounted to in his eyes and in hers—a deformity: a deformity that could no longer be helped; a permanent crippling, like a crooked arm,” he writes ludicrously. But Wouk also rewards Marjorie with what is, for him, the best possible fate for a good Jewish girl: a house in the suburbs, full of children. And, of course, “she’s a regular synagogue goer, active in the Jewish organizations of the town; apparently that takes up a lot of her time. … They seem to be rather strictly observant; Marjorie has separate milk and meat dishes in the kitchen, and all that.”

1 2 3View as single page
Print Email
Victor Olefson says:

Wouk is highly underrated. I just reread ‘The Will to Live On’, sequel to’This Is My God’, and it is a powerful, moving record of a serious Jewish writer.

Boychic says:

Ah the joys or irony. Here is the writer predicting that Wouk’s writing will not last and then reviewing a novel by Wouk written six decades ago. Kirsch is a fine writer but a bit of a snobbish twit without much grace. He should have celebrated Wouk for his sheer creative endurance. One wonders what Kirsch will be writing when, hopefully, he hits the ripe old age of 97.

I was excited to read that Herman Wouk is still writing. Indeed, his books both fiction and non fiction are very good. I read the headline and thought well, Adam Kirsch probably didn’t write that cheap shot so I read through this long winding road of an article that is more a retrospective than a book review. I agree with “boychic” the first comment above. And I would add two points, first, Mr. Kirsch would do well to hire Wouk’s editor. Second, I think these quotes from Kirsch make the point:
1. “I don’t know if Roth ever said anything about Wouk—probably he thinks of Wouk’s novels as beneath or beyond criticism,which in some ways they are.”

2. “…….today, no one would, and few even read him (Wouk)”

3. “It is still in print and, as Tablet’s Alana Newhouse has written, still commands a hardy following, especially among women readers.”

Beneath criticism, few even read him, still commands a hardy following. And I won’t even go into the comment about American Jews eschewing the neurotic Roth stereotype for Wouk’s Jewish heroic and tragic figures.

Fred Campbell says:

As a goy, I have read many of Wouk’s books. Much of what I “know” of Jewish culture I learned from his writings.

I have deep respect for those who “live” their religion. Much of the respect that I have for for Judaism, as a religion and culture, I gained from Herman.

I also resent supercilious criticism of this man and his works. I am not a “writer” and do not understand the nuances that are used to judge writings such as his. I only know he has entranced me for many hours.

I am happy that he walked the earth and chose to share his insights into this rich culture (and religion). I am a better person because he walked the earth and chose to write.

May our mutual God bless and keep you, Mr. Wouk.

Jim Palmer says:

I’m also slightly bothered by the elitist thread running through this article. Mr. Wouk, though his style might leave a little to be desired, grapples with the same themes that Mr. Roth does–assimilation, alienation, the Jew’s place in the modern world–and while he may come from a different perspective and reach different conclusions, that doesn’t automatically relegate his work to the realms of the disposable.

Before dismissing Mr. Wouk’s work as too “popular” for serious consideration or criticism, he might wish to reflect on the work of one of our leading contemporary Jewish novelists, Michael Chabon, who gleefully shatters the boundaries of genre and the artificial delineations between highbrow/lowbrow and literary/popular. Just because it’s accessible doesn’t mean it sucks.

And, as Mr. Chabon also says, “I write to entertain. Period.”

fred capio says:

I enjoyed the article until I hit the sentence: “…and the main effect of reading Marjorie Morningstar today is to be deeply grateful for feminism and the sexual revolution…” Pure liberal cliche! It is true that feminism and sexual revolution changed the life of many (or maybe even all of us) but it has improved the life of none. Just follow the life of a teenager today and you will find problems much more serious than “a house full of children”

KaKa Khan says:

Touche’ ! Had comments like that been directed at something I had said I would have immediately found the nearest bridge and swan dived into oblivion…. Ouch indeed…

KaKa Khan says:

My first introduction to Herman Wouk was when I read his “The Lomokome Papers” The only science fiction work he ever wrote. A great read..

julis123 says:

To be honest I’ve read several books by the contemporary crop of Jewish writers that you mention and frankly due to their lack of substance I don’t remember much about them. Wouk’s books on the other hand, although not great literature stay with me to this day.

Andrew Marc Caplan says:

I’m actually surprised and rather beguiled by how affectionate Mr Kirsch’s review of Wouk’s new novel is. I don’t think Kirsch needs to apologize for his “highbrow” tastes–anymore than Wouk needs to apologize for having written best sellers–but it seems to me that he has rather enjoyed Wouk’s latest novel, probably more than he expected to!

Guilty pleasures, when all is said and done, still count as pleasures–and this is a lesson that both Kirsch’s review as well as Wouk’s more worldly characters are capable of affirming.

I’m happy that Herman Wouk is still around and writing at 97; for the record, I hope Kirsch will still be at it when he achieves the same age (in, what, 75 or 80 years?!). And while we’re hoping, I wouldn’t mind hitting the same milestone myself, given the available alternatives….

Robert Starkand says:

There is no need to compare Wouk with Roth. One is high brow and one is middle brow. You can bring up Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow as well. I enjoyed reading Wouk’s books. One lesser known novel by Wouk I read as a boy was “City Boy”, which not coincidentally was about a Jewish boy growing up in Brooklyn. I enjoyed it very much.

bobschwalbaum says:

“The Caine Mutiny” had a profound effect on me.. about a Jew serving as an officer aboard a naval ship.

It inspired me to do likewise.

I truly believe Wouk belongs in that category of vastly underrated novelists.,.. underrated mostly by intellectual snobs.

I read your article on herman wouk and it is interesting to compare him with phillip roth and woody allen for that matter, three artists who not only use their background, culture and religion to infuse their work with meaning, but are stories that anyone can pick up and read, and enjoy, since they can identify themselves in this story. That is the heart of why the jewish bible, their history and development with god, was taken up by all religions in the west, although they went elsewhere with it…Wouk from his early years was known as an orthodox jew, and what a grace it is to have the luxury of such a book from him at this ripe age. At the start in the first few pages he points out and gives a dedication of sorts to book readers, a vanishing breed..and thats unfortunate! Roth’s books for the most part deal with the outside Jew as he encounters the world Jews see themselves in the inward(having said that I have read all his books, and enjoy him and his books/novels on suffering and the person in society..I just see a difference)where a sWouk I see is showing the laws as they are inscribed as in lawgiver from the penteteuch(sic)..the laws as they are inscribed on our hearts…can a modern liberal match such religosity..or god centered awareness..although Roth certainly is amore polished psychologically astute writer

Natan79 says:

Excellent point. Take Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Everything is illuminated” – all the old scenes are pure garbage cliché showing the author knows nothing about Eastern European Jews, JSF sounds like he saw some musicals with Hasidim and few postcards too. JSF is dirt compared to Herman Wouk, and Adam Kirsch should know better.

brynababy says:

Oh my God, what a beautiful homage- and one I agree with wholeheartedly. I also had the joy of attending an intimate ‘lecture’ by Wouk at the National Library when I was working at a theatre in Washington, DC in 1979! I was transfixed by this handsome, articulate, elegant writer.

One might not know from reading Mark’s most interesting essay that Wouk had a good Jewish education, attended Orthodox synagogues in NY and DC and gave his kids a Jewish Day School education. I have clear memories of him chanting the haftara at New York’s Cong. Kehillath Jeshirun. One of his sons was my classmate at Ramaz.

jbirdme65 says:

Adam, do you dislike Herman Wouk?

CITY BOY sparked my entre to literature – I found myself in his pages as a Jewish kid in the Bronx in the depression years of the 30s

disqus_wefb6Xz2V7 says:

Adam, you were either too rough on Wouk or not honest enough with yourself. Your high-brow-ness felt like a screen against your guilty pleasure in daring to enjoy the “pedestrian” wouk.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Herman Wouk’s Last Shot

With The Lawgiver, the best-selling novelist takes another stab at the kind of Hollywood fame he’s always coveted