Modern Library Novel Challenge #96
Sophie’s Choice
William Styron
ISBN-10: 0679736379


I first read Sophie’s Choice in a Bantam paperback 1979 edition. The cover montage featured a glamorous and pensive Sophie Zawistowska, before Meryl Streep’s role in Alan Pakula’s 1982 film became forever imprinted on the character. In those days, most of my reading was done in bed, which consisted of a mattress on the floor by the light of a drafting lamp clamped to the windowsill. I lived in San Francisco then, working part-time while I finished art school, and at the time the most pressing concern was — well, to be frank, there were no pressing concerns. It’s almost embarrassing now to admit how little weighed on my mind during the time I read that novel.

Then, when I read fiction, I tended to seek out the familiar, and knew nothing about Styron or his book, which I think my sister passed along saying it was “a good read.” Of course, Sophie’s Choice is number 96 on the Modern Library’s list of 100 Best Novels.

In 1979, I knew as much about the Holocaust as any other 20th-century-born, third generation, college educated, half-Jewish Unitarian. Which is to say, not much. Both my mother’s parents had relatives in Europe during the war, some of whom fled the States, but neither their escape or lives before were rarely spoken of to grandchildren. Still, as John Gardner wrote in his review, “guilt is everywhere,” a statement that is as true for our family as any in which there is unspoken grief, loss and shame. Sophie’s Choice puts these front and center, but I was a naive reader, raised with what amounts to a protective shield of silence, and I read those aspects of the novel at a remove, and instead, was drawn in by the intricate plot, the love story (or stories, to be more accurate), and the voice of the narrator, Stingo.

Gardner’s review of Sophie’s Choice is, to put it mildly, favorable. He called the book a “splendidly written, thrilling, philosophical novel on the most important subject of the 20th century.” The assertion, which appeared in his 1979 review in the New York Times, must have seemed radical at the time, for surely there were other events foremost in the collective memory — the Cold War? The Civil Rights marches? Vietnam? The assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King?

Here’s Gardner again:

[Styron] shows us how serious this novel is as not merely a story of other people’s troubles, but a piece of anguished Protestant soul-searching, an attempt to seize all the evil in the world — in his own heart first — crush it, and create a planet for God and man.

There’s a story that when Styron was writing The Confessions of Nat Turner, his friend James Baldwin caught a glimpse of the early drafts and said, “Bill’s going to catch it from both sides.”

That was a trend that would continue for Styron, as Sophie’s Choice brought controversy yet again. The thesis of the novel, that the evil of Nazi Germany threatened not only Jews but humanity as a whole, received sharp criticism. On the other side of the issue, Sophie’s Choice challenged prevailing opinion, which amounted largely to silence and an uncritical response to the Nazi atrocities. Thirty years in the past, the Holocaust was still on the periphery of American Jewish consciousness, but with the novel’s publication, Styron had a role in challenging prevailing thought, so much so that Sophie’s Choice came to be considered a revisionist view. Then, in 1978, NBC aired a four-part miniseries (which garnered both praise and controversy as a subject). That same year, Jimmy Carter established the Commission on the Holocaust, which would lead to the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Two years later, a shorn Vanessa Redgrave portrayed Fania Fénelon in the film Playing for Time, based on the memoirs of the French pianist and cabaret singer who survived Auschwitz by forming an orchestra to play for the SS. By the mid-1980s, the Holocaust discourse, as it’s called, would emerge as a distinct idea, differentiated as Peter Novick says, “from other Nazi atrocities and from previous Jewish persecutions, singular in its scope, its symbolism, and its world-historical significance.”

Styron based his novel on his memory of a real-life woman named Sophie, a survivor of Auschwitz he met during in his youth in Brooklyn. From that encounter, he constructed a character, not Jewish, but Polish Catholic, though the story is narrated not by Sophie, but the twenty-two-year-old Stingo, who has recently arrived in New York City from Virginia. A young and ambitious writer, he loathes his job as a manuscript reader at McGraw-Hill. The discontent manifests as a “work stoppage” that culminates in his letting loose a half-dozen balloons from his 20th-floor window at McGraw-Hill, a prank for which he is fired. Unsure of how long his funds will last, Stingo realizes he must finally write his novel, a point at which fate intervenes in the form of a letter from his father. Stingo turns out to be the recipient of a family inheritance based on the sale fifty years before of Artiste, a family slave:

Years later I thought that if I had tithed a good part of my proceeds of Artiste’s sale to the N.A.A.C.P. instead of keeping it, I might have shriven myself of my own guilt, besides being able to offer evidence that even as a young man I had enough concern for the plight of the Negro as to make a sacrifice. But in the end, I’m rather glad I kept it.

With the funding, Stingo goes to Brooklyn, rents a room in a Flatbush house to write his novel, and there encounters his neighbors Sophie and Nathan.

Styron’s sentences are rich, fluid and at times have a too-conclusive, overwritten quality. As a result, Sophie’s nightmarish account, recounted by Stingo in retrospective installments that alternate with present-time action, is both heightened and dampened by the florid style. Here, Stingo recounts her arrest in Krakow (for smuggling a contraband ham), a crime for which she and her children are sent to Auschwitz:

They found the four-kilo cut of ham almost immediately. Her stratagem — fastening the newspaper-wrapped package to her body beneath her dress in a way that would make her appear corpulently pregnant — was shopworn enough by now almost to call attention to itself rather than work as a ruse; she had tried it anyway, urged on by the farm woman who had sold her the precious meat.

‘They’ll surely catch you if they see you carrying it in the open. Also, you look and dress like an intellectual, not one of our country babas. That will help.’

But Sophie had not foreseen either the Iapanka or its thoroughness. And so the Gestapo goon, pressing Sophie up against a damp brick wall, made no effort to conceal his contempt for her doltish Polack dodge, extracting a penknife from the pocket of his jacket and inserting the blade with relaxed, almost informal delicacy into that bulgingly bogus placenta, leering as he did so. Sophie recalled the smell of cheese on the Nazi’s breath and this remark as the knife sank into the haunch of what had been, until recently, contented pig.

‘Can’t you say ouch, Liebchen?’ She was unable, in her terror, to utter anything more than some desperate commonplace, but for her small pains, received a compliment on the felicity of her German.

The scene is both terrifying and cleverly written, the language ornate and weirdly sexual, a feature of course of Stingo’s point of view. From his first encounter with Sophie, he obsesses about her, his thoughts simultaneously idealizing and degrading her. In the decades since the novel’s publication, this has I think worked against the novel, for the obvious reason that for a reader, there is something uncomfortably complicit about the portrayal of a concentration camp survivor as a point of sexual desire (spoiler alert: Sharon Oster, in her essay “The Erotics of Auschwitz,” reminds the reader that at the time Stingo tells the story, Sophie is already dead). Embarrassing as it is to admit, that point eluded me on my first read — maybe I’d yet to crack that art theory chapter on identity politics — but at any rate, I was clueless about feminist thought beyond the photos of burning bras I’d seen in Life magazine a decade or so before. (This aspect of the novel is well covered by Ed Champion here.)

On this second read, however, Sophie’s portrayal reminded me of one of those plastic covers you see on sofas; the actual experience of the sofa is there, but it’s hampered by something else, something that’s not like a sofa at all. Sophie’s story — life before the war, her role in the Polish resistance, her arrest and imprisonment and subsequent life in Brooklyn with the charming and dangerously bipolar Nathan — they are all there, and depicted carefully, but in the end, altered by Stingo’s obsessive desire. At this point, I think again of Gardner and the “Protestant soul-searching” he declares essential to Styron’s vision and the larger sphere of the story. Within a decade after the novel’s publication, identity politics and literary theory would bring about a consciousness for “other people’s troubles” to be told by those people themselves. To a contemporary reader accustomed to diversity and ownership of those narratives, Sophie’s Choice will likely feel a bit off, as Sophie’s view is appropriated in the classic sense of the word. But these are the terms of the novel, and in the end, still worth reading through.

In fact, the novel endures, and the title has become a familiar figure of  speech — used to stress the impossible decisions no one wants to make, a Sophie’s choice. On that point, this read proved more difficult for me, since I have a daughter now, and contemplating any sort of forced separation from her was frightening enough to make me dread what was coming. As I moved through the chapters — the scene in question comes near the end of the novel, the first of three high dramatic moments that take place in the last 40 pages — I felt a sickening fear, a testament itself to the power of the Styron’s book.

On my first read, that crucial moment Sophie faces was of course the most affecting, the kind of scene that, as Gardner says, continually comes back “with astonishing vividness — perhaps the most obvious mark of a masterpiece.” And that scene was surely the one that caused the novel to enter my consciousness, took me out of that easy life and made me uncomfortable. That is, after all, what novels do: they make the reader see things she didn’t see before. But at the time, limited reader that I was, I don’t think I reflected much about it. When I finished the book, I returned it to my sister. “Whoa,” I might have said, “good book.”

That summer, we would pack up our few pieces of furniture, and give notice on the flat on Clement Street. My sister and Ben rented a flat in North Beach, on Stockton Street, and I was rootless for the summer.  In those years my life was insular, happy and without upheaval, the kind of the life my grandparents wanted me, and all their grandchildren, to have. And soon enough, I forgot about Styron’s book. But that summer, in need of something to read, I scanned my grandmother’s bookshelves and pulled out a thick novel. I think it was The Thorn Birds.

5 thoughts on “Modern Library Novel Challenge #96: SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron”

  1. This is great. I haven't been through Sophie's Choice…but having read Nat Turner and some of the responses to that novel, it does seem undeniable that Styron tended to "catch it from both sides." He even caught it from beyond the grave, in his daughter's memoir…bad parenting, incredible prose.

  2. I remember reading this book so many years ago. And, I do recall how beautifully written it was and, of course, the searing moment when Sophie's choice was revealed. I remember reading and re-reading that section, unable (or unwilling) to take in the enormity of the horror. I was not yet a parent…but, "what would I have done," rolled in and out of my consciousness many times and for many days.

  3. Lauren, I really enjoyed your thoughts on Sophie's Choice, my all-time favorite novel. I too, like TravelerGal, wondered "What would I have done?" I'd like to share my conclusion, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Sidebar: I found authentic the passage in SC about being imprisoned with one of Jehovah's Witnesses and how the person never worried about getting cheated when they received their combined daily meal ration because the Witness would never, no matter how hungry, take more than her half.) I ruminated on how tormented Sophie was about her choice to save her son at the expense of her daughter, because as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, the answer would have been very clear: I would never have made such a choice, no matter what I was threatened with and no matter the outcome, for the reason that, like many Witnesses in the concentration camps back then, I would not commit such an act in violation of my dedication to obey my God, Jehovah, first and foremost, before any man. Put simply, I would not choose because, as Sophie eventually found out, that is a choice one cannot live with. Not choosing, and living with the consequences, while excruciatingly painful, is a choice I could live with. Of course, I could live with it only because of my very strong belief that my child, or children, would be resurrected as the Bible promises. I have many times remembered the lessons learned in SC and have found that having this clearly decided on beforehand has helped me in knowing what to do, not only in many situations I have faced since, but also some I anticipate facing in the future.

    Your thoughts?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.