The article called Roth "one of the last great white males". I had to read that five times to make sure that phrase was actually used. wtf. How is this okay on any level?
> 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...
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".
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.
David Foster Wallace (1997)
http://observer.com/1997/10/john-updike-champion-literary-ph...