The Book of Daniel is a spectacular post-modern novel that goes beyond and above most books I have read. Its dense philosophic message aligned with its rich experimental and original narrative, embodies Doctorow?s exceptional magnitude as a writer. In his rewriting of historical events with an insightful subjective approach, he touches upon central issues in the state of modern American culture and the postmodern age.
The Book of Daniel is a work of metafiction that interweaves the narrator’s imagination with factual events within the context established by the real political and social conditions in post-war America in the 1950s . The background for this work of fiction is the famous and controversial case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who in an age of McCarthyism were tried, convicted and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage against America. With this as the fixated point of reference, The Book of Daniel becomes a complex mixture of both subjectivity and objectivity, using the historical accounts of the Rosenberg case as its framework and fictitious imagination as its substance, its life.
The scope of this thesis is to come to terms with the novel?s projection of existentialism. I will do this by analysizing significant features that are relevant in a discussion of existentialism and hereby try to settle on Doctorow?s philosophy in life. Additionally, I will see how this principle suits with the American post-modern age and literary canon.
ANALYSIS
The Book of Daniel is a typical post-modern piece of work being experimental and revolutionary in its disobedience of form, coherence, and style. The overt outline of the novel seems very conventional though, consisting of 4 chapters with each chapter?s subdivision into minor thematic chapters, but within this adequate frame, the novel is split and complex. There is no chronological structure in the novel, and the reader is often in a state of temporary confusion because of the frequent violation of conventional writing patterns; changes of perspective from first to third person, complex flashbacks, choppy dialogues, spontaneous outbursts, lack of cohesion, starting new paragraphs with small letters, and lines consisting of mere capital letters. Two decades span the story: from the beginning of the 1930s, describing the narrator?s past by following him from his childhood with his parents, in the orphan institution with his sister, and with his foster parents, to the end of the 1960s, living his own family life with his wife and a son. Within the novel itself, there are varied genres: family stories, autobiographies, essays, letters, poetic descriptions, conflicting historical analyses, biblical quotations and the like.
Daniel Isaacson is the protagonist of The Book of Daniel. He is the grown son of the couple executed, the living hero who must struggle and deal with the events that have occurred. Daniel is obviously intelligent; a graduate student at the University of Columbia, but his character is certainly in question as he is presented as being somewhat perverse and even cruel in the way he treats his wife. It is obvious that something is crucially wrong with Daniel?s perception and consumption of life, and with lines such as: ?I live in constant and degrading relationship to the society that has destroyed my mother and father, we learn that Daniel suffers from alienation and disaffiliation from the society that has acted so fatally upon his family and hereby shaped the history of his life, too. Studying history at Columbia University and not being able to come up with a thesis for his Ph. D. dissertation, Daniel decides to investigate his parent?s trial and hereby confesses his intimate relationships through life, making his thesis a book of memories of his own past.
As Daniel writes his book, he deals with the subjectivity of his emotional attachment to his parents, his emotions regarding the events of the past and present, and the objectivity of the facts and accusations. He is in constant search for truth and reality of what happened to his parents, and tension is created through the subjectivity of Daniel’s inner feelings and emotions, and the objectivity of the objective facts as they are presented: As a writer, Daniel must be an onlooker to this piece of history, but as the son Daniel is a participant, and how to separate the two is a dilemma to him, because Daniel has two sets of lives, two separate but interconnecting experiences, two sets of parents and two sets of memories. He is caught between the two worlds, but feels at home in neither of them, and part of Daniel?s difficulty in writing his own story is the reconciling of his split ego. Daniel?s thesis becomes his therapy in that he faces the complexities and multiplicities in his momentary state of life in order to find a way to get on with life. On an overt level, Daniel is in constant search for the truth about his parents? fate, but on a subliminal level, Daniel is in search for truth about life! He is not a hero in the normal sense of the word because he does not save anyone, but he does exhibit great courage by confessing his own misdeeds, his own guilt, and his own cruelties.
Biblical Allusions:
Worth noticing are the abundant instances of biblical allusions appearing in the novel from beginning to end. The title of the book itself is a segment from the Jewish Bible and just as the biblical Daniel tries to read signs and dreams for King Nebuchadnezzar, our novel?s Daniel tries to analyze and interpret life. There are biblical codes within the book itself, too; the intertextuality of the book, beginning and ending with a quote from the bible, adequately frames the work, and the significant parallel between Daniel and Messiah are quite puzzling when the grandmother recognizes Daniel as having: the strength and innocence that will reclaim us all from defeat. That will exonerate our having lived and justify our living as well as the perplexed resemblance between Jesus and Daniel when Daniel goes on board the flight to Los Angeles to visit Linda Mindish and recapitulate his parents? past. Perhaps the most evident representation of biblical codes are the Isaacsons whom Daniel himself parallels with Jesus. As Prunier mentions: ?The Isaacsons become reminiscent of Christian martyrs , even Rochelle herself makes statements, such as: ??We shall bear the brunt and Daniel himself compares his mother?s devotion to communism as a devotion and commitment to Christianity. It is in all probability, as Paul Levine has remarked, not so important ??whether the accused are guilty or innocent?than that they have been selected as scapegoats in a ritual drama beyond their comprehension. The Isaacsons are scapegoats for communism just as Jesus was a scapegoat for Christianity. Like Jesus sacrificed himself for God, they sacrifice themselves for Communism, and identical to Jesus? death and his taking all humanity?s burden upon himself, the Isaacsons sacrifice themselves and take humanity?s burden upon them, thinking that they will assign a new contract between socialism and human kind that in the end will pass on a better world for their children. What is interesting to notice here, though, is that seen from a socialistic point of view, the deed of the Isaacsons to prophesise Communism and fight Capitalist American society is a deed in alignment to Jesus? prophesying Christianity, the great inventor and philanthropist of social justice and international peace. On the contrary, however, seen from a Capitalistic American point of view, the Isaacsons? deeds are sins. From this perspective, they are traitors to the flag of their own country and are being hunted down for their betrayal. From an objective American point of view, Paul and Rochelle Isaacson are Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden who are expelled out of paradise because they have sinned against the almighty God, the American society. This resemblance of Rochelle and Paul Isaacson is also noteworthy when Daniel?s Aunt Frieda speaks of her brother Paul, blaming Rochelle for our destiny: ??He could not help himself. I blame her. She is the one. She was his ruination. He was putty in her hands from the very beginning will never forgive her for what she has done to my Pauly. For what she has done to all of us. To all our lives. She is the one. No one else. Aunt Frieda is speaking of the American nation when she blames Rochelle for tempting her husband to become a Communist. In Aunt Frieda?s eyes, Rochelle is Eve who has tempted Adam to eat from the forbidden fruit, and she is the one who should be blamed for humanity?s destiny. It is quite puzzling, that even Rochelle thinks of herself as a biblical Eve bearing a heavier burden than her husband: Dear God, does he really look for justice? Dear God, grant him foresight. Make my terrible burden lighter.
The biblical codes within the novel illustrate the awareness of a higher metaphysical space, a transcendental place above human convention.
Tags: Book of Daniel dissertation, Book of Daniel essay, Book of Daniel paper writing, Book of Daniel papers, Book of Daniel research paper, Book of Daniel term paper, Book of Daniel thesis, essay on Book of Daniel, write Book of Daniel essay