Eric Mustin

English 232
Professor Linda Selzer
May 5, 2009
Final Paper: A Criticism of Defender of The Faith
A story is judged by both literary merit and critical reception. In these regards, Defender

Of The Faith, by Philip Roth, can be considered an influential short story. Published in 1959, it

is one of six short stories contained in the book Goodbye Columbus, Roth’s first major

publication. Not only are the story’s style and language indicative of prose that, in later years,

will earn Roth a gamut of major literary awards, but the controversy stirred up in the Jewish

community by its themes are equally telling of Roth’s influence. Indeed, Roth himself describes

the novel as “about one man who uses his own religion, and another’s uncertain conscience, for

selfish ends”(Commentary, 1972). It is this misuse, if not abuse, of religious affiliation which

troubled so many rabbis in the climate of post world war two America, where Jewish families

were making an effort to assimilate into society, not alienate themselves from it. But these

criticisms are of secondary important to the story, which finds strength in the moral dilemmas

presented to the reader, and the lack of easy answers. Does religion come before country? At

the very core, this story allows the reader to question his own moral maturity without authorial

bias given to one side or the other.

There are multiple examples of what maturity and morality mean to Roth. The most

basic example is exhibited through the highest-ranking officer in the story, Captain Paul Barrett.

His thoughts on morality are quite simple. He states them in the first line of dialogue. “He is a

veteran of the European theater and consequently will take no shit”(2723). Barrett holds the

most power and so his decision making process must be the most precise. He judges “a man by
what he shows me on the field of battle”(2725). This is the most basic trait possible in the army,

combat. For Roth, as power increases, morality becomes a substitute for pragmatism. Clearly,

what Barrett lacks is a conscience, as even though he “prides myself…that I’ve got an open

mind”(2725), what he truly has is a closed one. His bragging that he’d “fight side by side with a

nigger if the fellow proved to me he was a man”(2725), implies that he does not typically

consider black men equal to him. This admission of racism is, I believe, an intentional act by

Roth to distinguish power from morality.

The next most senior officer, our protagonist First Sergeant Nathan Marx, is a decidedly

different blend of power and morality. His power is newfound, having just been transferred from

the battlefields of Europe to Camp Crowder, Missouri. But he still maintains an air of authority,

admired by Barrett for “the ribbons on your chest”(2725), and “pulls a little weight”(2726)

according to Private Sheldon Grossbart. What separates him from his commander officer,

however, is “a sense of his Jewishness”(2729). Not necessarily a religious devotion, as he does

not practice an orthodox or even conservative form of Judaism, and goes so far as to forget what

day Yom Kippur falls on. But he has an understanding of the non military bond he has with

other Jews. This understanding is one of camaraderie, knowing that “Jewish parents

worry”(2730), and that “It’s a hard thing to be a Jew”(2737).

More than just a shared cultural background though, he understands the implications of

representing a small minority. When Grossbart, furious that Marx has pulled strings to guarantee

his orders were for the Pacific just like everyone else, claims Marx is being anti-Semitic, Marx

explains that he wasn’t watching out for Grossbart, he was watching out “For all of us”(2743).

This ‘us’ is the cumulative Jewish people. “Together we’re the Messiah. Me a little bit, you a

little bit”(2734), each member of the community representative of the whole. If one member, in
this case Grossbart, shirks his duties and responsibilities, it casts a negative light upon the entire

religion. In this case, what at first glance appears to be the misuse of power for a personal

grudge, is in fact the use of power to achieve proper moral balance. He upholds his duty to the

Jewish people, and he maintains military authority. While he might not have as strong a belief in

what is right or wrong like Captain Barrett, he has a more keen awareness of his role in society,

both nationality and religion.

The final major example of morality, of what it means to exhibit a personal belief system

in everyday life, is Private Sheldon Grossbart. Grossbart is a Jew. This point Roth makes clear.

For Grossbart, what matters are the health, happiness, and dignity of his fellow Jews. Throughout

the story, he is representative of not just himself, but two other men, Private Fishbein and Private

Halpern, “The Jewish personnel”(2723). At first he is upset that they can’t go to Shul without

being ostracized, because Jewish prayer occurs at a different time than Church. Ostensibly, he

has a valid point, what Marx views as “a personal problem you’ll have to work out

yourself”(2724), Grossbart sees as “a matter of religion, sir”(2724). The core of the argument

though, aside from attending a religious service, is that where Grossbart sees an opportunity to

gain power through alternative channels of influence, Marx sees as religious persecution. When

he coalesces to Grossbart’s original religious demands, Grossbart only sees the chance to make

greater and greater grabs for power through the means of religion. He plagiarizes complaint

letters to receive preferential food, co-opts the earnest religious devotion of his friends into a way

to receive a weekend pass, and at the short story’s climax, he uses another Jewish military

member to get off the front lines, leaving his friends who he supposedly has “never felt for

anyone like I feel for him”(2740) to face the Pacific alone.

 This character is clearly the object of rabbinical criticism. To paint the picture of a single

Jew with such selfish morals is doing a disservice to the entire Jewish community, much the

same logic that our protagonist Marx employee when he re-assigns Grossbart to the front lines.

This contrast is particularly insightful into the mindset of Roth, who believes that in order to

portray morality accurately, it must be presented in all it’s forms, not just the type that shines a

good light on it’s practitioner.

This story finds strength in veracity. There is an unflinching willingness to present an

issue without bias and without one side given privilege. For Roth, truthfulness is essential to

presenting a strong human drama. He finds truth in the things he understands, the army that he

served in, the religion that he practices, the upbringing he was given, and the people he has

encountered. This story does not merely pose the question of nationality or religion; it seeks to

approach it from multiple perspectives. And the critics who condemn this approach are dosing

so because they fear the answers might not be so idyllic.