Philip Roth has died
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I started with Portnoy's Complaint and enjoyed it, but I wasn't blown away or anything. More recently I've been reading a novelette + 5 short stories in a single volume (named after the novelette) titled, "Goodbye, Columbus"—and I've been seriously impressed. I finished the novelette and 2.5 of the short stories; both short stories were astounding (IMO), and the novelette was damn good.
My understanding is that the themes of being Jewish in the U.S. and male sexuality are solidly mainstays in his writing, which at first seemed like would limit the material's interest to me, since I'm not Jewish at all—but if you read descriptions of his novels across the years you'll find a very interesting (bordering on bizarre at times) range. I'm looking forward to reading more.
I think Philip Roth's stories have just the right mix of American life, Jewishness and simply universal middle class life experiences, which is why I -- a non-practicing, atheist Jew not in touch with his heritage, and who's not from the US -- can enjoy them.
Also, as with a lot of (maybe all?) fiction/art, you can't disregard the context in which it was published. Some critics might disagree with this. But when you consider the socio-cultural situation, especially of Jewish Americans, Roth's work -- especially Portnoy -- was radical, earnest, and subversive. For many years, the American Jewish community regarded him with disdain.
He also often got labeled as a misogynist, which I always found strange. Although his writing is overtly sexual, it was also in attempt to make a point about sexuality. Not to glorify it.
I freely admit that this is my personal biased opinion, but if your goal is to write better, you could do no better than study Bellow and Updike.
It is a reference edition in France of the complete works of classic authors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioth%C3%A8que_de_la_Pl%C3%...
So as a smart person, either you are some sort of “schizophrenic” or you ignore some facts and possible interpretations and stick firmly to one side of the coin. Both is difficult
F. Scott Fitzgerald
The first time I came across the notion that there might be a downside to keeping everything 'hypothetical' was in reading William James (I think it was in his Pragmatism lectures). He points out the opposition between 'thought' and 'action'. There is a tradeoff in continuing to think about certain subjects in that your ability to act on things related to the subject is impaired. If there is nothing left to question in relation to some domain in which you'd like to act, then the actions you take will carry force and generally be more effective.
A more concrete example: let's say you're a tennis player and working on improving yourself. You can keep on questioning whether a certain technique for swinging is the best one or not, and if you keep questioning for a longer time, you have a better chance of finding the best technique. But, you're ability to execute that technique is another thing entirely, and if you're still questioning it while playing a game, you will perform worse than if you acted with conviction.
In life, perhaps unfortunately, we don't get the clear distinction between when it's a 'game' vs. 'practice', and force of habit is a thing, so how to handle this for optimal results is not such an easy problem.
Why? To understand what is actually going on one doesn't have to be in the "dissonant" state. What's needed is just the understanding that simplifications we use to "model" the surroundings are just that, and be aware of the cases when our models are too wrong to even be the right simplification in the given context.
In short, in some contexts, a "spherical cow" is approximate enough, in some others, it isn't. And both the "model" and what is "enough" can be checked for validity of the assumption.
The same should be done for the sources of your information: are they biased by design? Do they have an agenda? Can you directly confirm that the information they present is valid? Sometimes even a lot of "information" hides some basic facts that, when considered, would invalidate the whole premise of the specific "presentation."
Politically, you don't have to believe in everything the "messenger" stands for to check and accept that some specific information is true. An example, one thinker noted:
- The effective political definition in the USA media of the "peace process" is simply "whatever option the USA wants in the moment." Therefore, it's by definition impossible that the USA is "against the peace process" and such news you will never read, even if the USA actively supports the war for years.
This claim can be verified. And if true, it gives you a different perspective of the news you read. Orwellian, in 1984 sense? Sure. People always think that such works of fiction are "simply a fiction." In fact, they are very much based on the real-life experiences of the author in his world in the time he lived. The ways humans interact doesn't change fast, the same patterns can be traced through the centuries.
Another example: I've found out that Tom Lehrer sung "The Wild West Is Where I Want to Be" in 1953. (Knowing the lyrics is needed to be able to follow). Not knowing enough, I didn't understand that he was able to make such a song then. But checking his biography (on the internet) it seems that he as a mathematician before he wrote the song worked for the NSA (or whatever the equivalent was called then) in the places where actual atomic bomb tests were prepared. He personally seems to confirm that in some of his recorded appearances cheerfully saying something like "I was in the West working as the spy." Understand that gives you a new view to his lyrics.
The third example, real life actually has enough "movie like" stories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
And a decision to stick to one side is, in my opinion, a little lazy. No insult meant, it’s just that you seem unwilling to do the work and exert the extra mental effort, which is the dictionary definition. It seems like you have deemed dealing with complexity impossible so as to give yourself an excuse to remain biased. It’s not so difficult to enjoy being skeptical of both sides, and to prevent yourself from blindly accepting the narrative of one coin. And I feel like the world would be a great deal better if we all stopped preferring one side of the coin and appreciating both.
Often the expected value of committing to one side, even if it is not the optimal choice, exceeds the probable value of the optimal choice delayed for additional evaluation.
But there is a human tendency to increasingly feel that one's choice is more obviously correct than it really was, leading to discounting contrary evidence and even demonizing those who make the opposite choice.
Sabbath's Theatre I enjoyed much more. I think he was always best when he was focused on the personal.
Reactions [1]:
"No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable, and it can hardly be supposed that the Republic was in much danger"
"At their core, the accusations probably consisted of a mixture of actual attempts at influence peddling by a small core of financiers with ties to veterans organizations and the self-serving accusations of Butler against the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#Later_reactions
Of course, if you compare Butler's handler to the strange cast of characters in the history of widely-known American political plots (Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.), truth is often stranger than fiction.
[1] William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, in a letter to FDR (from the same link above):
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. ... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."
His stated strategy to the coming war was that Hitler would eventually turn on Russia (he was right) and that Germany and Russia would grind each other down (also true: the total destruction of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad (now Volgograd) is one example).
After both countries were very weak, then American armies could swoop in and mop up after both armies had exhausted themselves, with minimal losses to the American side.
No odder than any of the billions of cases of people who hadn't just learned about him and ordered their first book of his last night, though.
Edit: this is the same fallacy behind a good portion of claims of "miracles" and "supernatural" phenomena, and other apparent coincidences. If no one bought his book on the night before he died, that would be odd. Not sure why all the hate.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/23/at-each-book-i...
SPOILER
Only here, the protagonist vomits violently after learning he's been treated (by his weirdo girlfriend) to some actual real meat from, yuck... a killed animal... not your regular vat-grown meat that every civilized person eats.
Oh, the power of childhood programming/imprinting...
http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-ph...
I believe the term has to do with age, and not race.
It's a post-war (WW2) term that's been used for decades to describe Roth and certain other writers, such as Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Salinger, Bellow, Updike and others. It's a term to describe a group of certain authors that wrote about certain themes, similar to the Hollywood term "Brat Pack".
David Foster Wallace (1997)
http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-ph...
> Mr. Roth was the last of the great white males: the triumvirate of writers — Saul Bellow and John Updike were the others — who towered over American letters in the second half of the 20th century.
Seems that "great white males" refers to a specific trio of writers -- all white men -- who were seen as the giants of American literature in a specific era in history.
What's your specific objection?
https://www.dfwsociety.org/2017/12/02/call-for-papers-great-...
He specifically substituted 'narcissist' with 'white male' as if he's using it as a synonym.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/donotmigrate/3562536/Joh...
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/08/28/michiko-k...
Moby-Dick is both a template for the Great American Novel and a convenient metaphor for authors who chase it. It's an old-fashioned way of thinking about the novel.
And this may be a contentious statement, but: It's probably not a coincidence that the traditional contenders for "Great American Novelist" have tended to be white males. Roth, Bellow, Updike, but also Hemingway, Pynchon, Gaddis, etc.
That doesn't detract from those authors' accomplishments. I think it says more about how the canon has evolved.
But one is allowed to pick favorites, so here they go: Operation Shylock, I married a communist, and The plot against America.
Otherwise, the above 3 books are really great!