Cosmopolitanism and Tragic Silence 179a threatening and confrontational linguistic context and perhaps
reveal more about the attitudes and dispositions of the people who
make them rather than the actual ideologies being discussed, they
nonetheless serve as dramatic countervoices to the rigid utopian
narratives adhered to by the two protagonists. That both attacks
contain a kernel of truth not only proves once again that the two
novels “speak” to one another, but also suggests that they need to
be read in opposition to one another for their literary value to be
fully appreciated.
Again, this is a view pioneered by Shostak, who skillfully uti-
lizes Bakhtinian ideas to argue that in this way the novels practise
a “dialogical method” of oppositional storytelling.^97 I would add to
this that the tragic patterns of both (and all three) novels invite and
demand a similar act of oppositional or “juxtapositional” reading to
gain a fuller picture of what the trilogy achieves. As mentioned at
the outset and in other parts of this chapter, I contend that one of
these achievements is the provocation of what could be identified
as a critical cosmopolitan vision—one that is both sociohistorically
conscious as well as critical of the essentialist discourse that exac-
erbates social division along cultural or ethnic lines. However, the
task remains to explain the role I Married a Communist plays in this
procedure; and to do this it is necessary to elaborate further on the
peculiar circumstances and literary procedures that surround the
“fall” of the novel’s protagonist.
In the discussions of The Human Stain and American Pastoral , I
identify the importance of silence in the respective tragedies. Silence
also has a hand in the tragic downfall of Ira Ringold. Although
being forthcoming in voicing his political opinions, there are cer-
tain topics, ideas, and words that Ringold conspicuously avoids. On
numerous occasions, he tacitly admits to following Communist ide-
ology; however, when he is asked outright, in contexts of public for-
mality, he flatly denies the association (p. 104). When his ex-wife,
Eve, publishes his expos é , he similarly refuses to openly admit to
and express his Communist ideals (he is nonetheless blacklisted and
disgraced). A more dramatic instance of silence is revealed when we
learn, toward the end of the narrative, that Ringold was involved
in a murder—an event that also exposes the protagonist’s violent,