{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026597856292179436, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01071853910281858, 'mean_word_length': 4.929411764705883, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Naomi Seidman. The Marriage Plot: Or, How Jews Fell in Love with Love, and with Literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016. 386 pp.

had been published earlier, Suleiman moves to open up yet another chapter in her multigenerational tableau of French Jewish life. Reviewing major markers, thinkers, and groups that accompanied and impacted the development of Jewish life in post-Vichy France (paying proper homage, for example, to RichardMarienstras’s Cercle Gaston Crémieux), Suleiman concludes by offering a final look at the generation of the children of Némirovsky’s grandchildren, rounding out a narrative of acculturation whose beginnings she traces back to the debates between Israélites and Juifs in the 1920s and 1930s. It is in this grand scheme that Suleiman portrays in minute detail the genesis of Némirovsky’s life and works, while presenting, at the same time, a theoretical discussion concerning the reading of antisemitic notions in literary fiction, for which she draws examples from a wide canon of texts and films, to arrive at the following reflection: “Why do I count myself among Némirovsky’s defenders rather than among her attackers when it comes to her portrayal of Jews? Do I never wince when I read in one of her novels a description of Jews that sounds like a negative stereotype? Yes, I do wince at some moments” (154). Suleiman goes on to offer what she sees as a resolution to the dilemma in which she finds herself as a reader of Jewish figures in whom she does not discern a general statement by Némirovsky about “an idea or an ideology, either about Jews or about anyone else.” Suggesting that Némirovsky “does not pit Jews against non-Jews as the negative or harmful other against the positive same” (154), Suleiman turns to reading the Jewish protagonists in David Golder as well as in some much lesser-known texts by Némirovsky. The clichés and topoi of Jewish characters that Suleiman judges to be “quite distasteful” (172) should challenge the reader. Suleiman concludes one of the strongest chapters of her book with one of the underarticulated formulations in a book that will remain the gold standard of Némirovsky scholarship for decades to come: “Negative stereotypes must be examined not in isolation but in terms of their function in the work as a whole. This means not only comparing Némirovsky’s portrayal of Jews to those of others, ranging from Jewish writers to ideological antisemites, but also giving her works the careful reading they deserve” (172).