As charming as they are, it is very hard to read the pieces in The Selected Stories of Sholom Aleichem as anything but elegies. The stories, which can be likeable or sly, amusing, or as instructive as fairytales, cannot help but leave one feeling more than a little dishonest. We the readers are forced to hold something back.
Perhaps it is because our relationship to them has been altered by “The Fiddler on the Roof” musical and the film adapted from it. On stage and screen they are stories of a triumphant people. Yes, odd, provincial, eccentric, poor, but also alive and almost too familiar. Jews in the audience of “Fiddler,” the least observant along with the most secular, watch with a sense of pride in their Jewishness. In terms of Identity Politics, Aleichem’s stories, reconfigured for these media, offer Jews a range of readings from a creation myth to a simple back-story.
“Fiddler” invites Jews, particularly those of Eastern European descent, especially those who can remember Grandparents or older relations speaking Yiddish, to indulge in a bittersweet dish of false nostalgia. Aleichem’s characters, meant to celebrate the human comedy, have today, in the person of TV Jews, been commodified into a wardrobe of stock characters. The men and women who populated Aleichem’s world were reanimated by the cast members of “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
The reality of shtetl life, largely poor and isolated, always menaced, although not without glimmers of wealth or even knowledge of the Rothschilds and even Jews in America, is never seriously addressed in these stories. These are tales, as Hollywood would tell us, based on true stories.
What Aleichem felt for his charactered was expressed beautifully by Nikki Giovanni when she wrote: “Black love is Black wealth.” Aleichem wrote about Jewish love. Love of a God who could not help but torture his chosen people. Love for neighbors who could not help but take pleasure in another’s misfortune. And, as Alfred Kazin pointed out, love of being Jewish.
It is a terrible shame that the stories cannot be read as Sholom Aleichem—the playful, punning pen name of Sholom Rabinowitz—intended. Aleichem must have known the characters who inhabited his stories were, in a sense, already ghosts, and the places they inhabited would soon be abandoned, and that he himself was reconstructing them out of a sentimental longing. I suspect Aleichem thought the modern world would absorb those his imagination brought to life. They would live to be modern Jews. What Aleichem could not have anticipated is Shoah.
I don’t know if these stories are read today. Or, if read, how they can be read for the simple pleasures they afford. How can we laugh with Tevye and his mishpocha, cry at the absurdity of their situation, at their superstitions, or feel their daily struggle for their daily bread, when we are all too aware that, almost to the one, the people who inspired Aleichem, as well as their children and their children’s children were destined to rot in mass graves outside their villages, or, as Tevye might have quipped, “won” a one-way ticket to Auschwitz.