Response 5

Philip Roth’s, The Plot Against America definitely functions as an antidote to common myth, and consensus in a number of ways. First of all, besides specific examples, the entire novel pretty much functions to go against the doxa of American society today. Because there is some truth to this novel and because he wrote it in a way which shows that these events could have happened, most of the event go against the consensus that we have today. Roth makes America seem like the worst place in the world for Jews, and makes the president an anti semitic scum bag. This goes completely against the doxa because America is considered by many, the land of opportunity and a place where people can be free and do what they want without being scrutinized because of their religious beliefs…at least for the most part. There is nothing about being free for the jews. The fact that these things could have really taken place, and that it is not too farfetched helps the novel function as an antidote because people aren’t taking it as just fiction and something that can never happen. It shows how easily a myth can be made about the jews and shows what would happen is more people  joined the consensus and thought like Lindberg. This situation is more of a real life example of going against the doxa. Another way in which this novel serves as an antidote to consensus is the fact that in the novel, the media portrays Linderg as sort of a savior and will help keep America out of war. Everyone believed this except the Roth family once Lindberg started running for presidency. The media is such a large part of today society because they have so much influence over what we say, do, and wear and even how we act. The media pretty much drives consensus, but the Roth family along with other Jews go against the doxa and know that what Lindberg is doing is completely wrong and immoral. The entire novel goes against todays idea of America, but at the same time, the historicity can be related to America today in a number a ways. This shows that when people follow the consensus, good may not come of it. 

Roth’s novel was hard to get through at first, but as I kept reading, it became more and more interesting, especially because it reminded me of Ragtime. He writes this novel of fiction, but adds events that have actually happened, or events that easily could have happened, to bring the reader in and get their attention. This helps to keep the reader interested and want to read on especially because some of the outcomes in this story could have happened in real life. This technique of combining the historicity with literal accounts helps make this novel as interesting as it is. Another technique that was sort of annoying for me at first was how he would write about an event of some sort that was taking place globally, but then he would bring everything down to a smaller scale and talk about a personal experience. He would keep switching back and forth and it was sort of hard to follow, but in the end, it was a pretty good technique because it slowed everything down and gave two views of the situation, a global one and a personal one.