Introduction 19that appear to be, and indeed should be read as, inverted images of
each other. In Seymour Levov’s case, this hamartia seems to crystal-
lize the triumphalism of postwar American society. Once again, the
inclusive, egalitarian spirit of cosmopolitanism that appears to be
embedded within the mythical narrative of American culture (the
American dream) is contraposed to the iniquitous material realities
of modern American society. This mythical narrative comes to be
symbolized by the image of the American pastoral idyll, which is
eagerly adopted and celebrated by the novel’s protagonist. Referring
to seminal work by Raymond Williams and Leo Marx on the polit-
ical ramifications of the romantic pastoral construct, I argue that
Seymour Levov’s aspirations toward the American pastoral dream
signify a subscription to an ultimately deleterious cultural ideal that
silences the socio-material problems that ail the country and con-
found its progression toward the inclusive, cosmopolitan society it
purports to champion.
I n t h e c a s e o f I r a R i n g o l d , t h e t r a g i c h e r o o f I Married a Communist ,
the hamartia lies in his fanatical observation of Communist ideol-
ogy. In this portion of the analysis, I contend that Roth presents a
protagonist who conspicuously clashes with the cheerfully compla-
cent Levov. While tragedy appears to befall the latter because of his
lack of sociopolitical awareness and an unquestioning faith in the
American dream, Ringold’s life meets calamity because he invests
an excessive degree of passion and faith in Marxism as a framework
for interpreting his world. As in the previous chapter, the analysis
of these novels observes the deployment of estranging techniques,
which are used by Roth to promote self-reflexive forms of empathy.
However, unlike in the cases of Phillips and Coetzee, this effect is
brought about by overt attempts not only to provoke, but also to
infuriate and enrage the reader.
Taken as a whole, then, the chapters that follow trace a con-
tinuum of the material concerns that I contend undergird cos-
mopolitanism’s liberal humanitarian principles. The novels under
scrutiny foreground these concerns, but they do so using methods
that are not always straightforward or “realist” in style. Indeed, I
demonstrate that, although each writer engages with issues relating
to materiality and cosmopolitanism (and their complementarity),