Philip Roth R.I.P.

Roth has passed away at age 85. A New York Times obit is here.

The NYTimes did a good job with their coverage. I'm glad they linked to the '84 "Paris Review" interview. Great discussion about writing. And some of his thoughts about the process -- not to mention just a lot of his oeuvre -- make him seem like a kindred soul to PK Dick (sorry typing with a busted finger).

SABBATH'S THEATER
THE ZUCKERMAN BOOKS
THE COUNTERLIFE
AMERICAN PASTORAL
I MARRIED A COMMUNIST
THE HUMAN STAIN
PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT
THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA
...and the flurry of novellas
written later in his life...

Too bad the Nobel committee was (in the past several decades) run
by misogynist knuckleheads with blinders on.

Roth's body of work was definitely worthy.
Glad that LOA recognized his literary value.

>2 Truett: While I'm not too thrilled by some of the more recent selections of the Nobel committee and think Roth deserved a Nobel prize in literature, misogynist? What about Elfriede Jelinek, Doris Lessing, Herta Mueller, Alice Munro, Svetlana Alexandrovna Alexievich?

Edited to correct reference per LolaWalser

>3 kdweber:

(Ummm, I think there's a double misunderstanding going on, one with your post reference--I think you meant #2--and another with what the poster of #2 actually meant to write.)

This probably won't be of much consolation to any Roth fans who feel he's been shortchanged for not winning the Nobel, but a few reminders might soothe the hurt...

Practically everyone who is an authentic (i.e. not a prank) candidate for the Nobel prize in literature deserves it in some way or another, but the value it recognises is relative, entirely dependent on context (time, place, the interests and goals of the committee...)

Roth's time for the prize was sometimes in the seventies to mid-eighties; but Bellow got it instead. That's fine. Had it been Roth and not Bellow, that would have been fine too. And personally, I'd rather have had Malamud get it than either of the other two--but still it's fine. Did they all "deserve" it? Yes. Should they all have got it? No. There are more deserving writers in the world than American writers, or Jewish American writers, or Jewish American male writers etc.

If we recall that Alfred Nobel's original wish for the prize (in all fields) was to be conferred on those who work to the greatest benefit of humanity, then it's legitimate to demand that the prize, at least in such a democratic field as literature, be representative and diverse. Clearly this hasn't been the case--the literature prize for most of its history has been very much a white man's prize--but there's no reason why it should continue like that, and certainly no expectation that it will.

And statistically, it's worth noting that American Jewish writers have fared much better than any other Jewish writers. They are the highest represented among Jewish literature Nobels, with (according to Wikipedia) four prizes so far--the latest being 2016 (Bob Dylan). All have been male too. UK and France follow with two Jewish literature Nobels each; then six countries with one each.

Taking in account how many factors interact every time the prize is awarded--fashion, political moment, proximity (only taken in account relatively recently, maybe in the last 15-20 years) to other winners of the same or similar makeup, I really don't think it's particularly surprising nor demeaning that Roth lost out.

Lolawasser: Saying Roth's "time" for getting -- deserving?" -- the Nobel belies the fact that you don't understand Roth's achievement late in life. It's been said that if you "stick around long enough" you can have a third act. But few people -- few writers -- have had such a remarkable third act. Roth's first and second acts included GOODBYE COLUMBUS, PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT, THE ZUCKERMAN novels, THE COUNTERLIFE, SABBATH'S THEATER, AMERICAN PASTORAL, I MARRIED A COMMUNIST and THE HUMAN STAIN. Then, when most artists justifiably sit back and take it easy and/or find themselves too weary to create something worthy of note, Roth -- in his 70s -- wrote THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA, INDIGNATION, and EVERYMAN .

Bellow was -- and still is -- a remarkable writer, but in his latter years he did not have the same fecundity as did Roth. THE DEAN'S DECEMBER was his last good, interesting piece of literature. That said, he DID deserve the Nobel. So did Roth. Unfortunately, the Nobel committee (in the last 10 years or so) has been run by idiots who feel that ignoring fine writers in the USA is a good way to punish the country for questionable acts (and crimes).

kdweber: Educate yourself. Read about the Nobel Committee. LEARN why they have suspended awarding the prize for two years. Or, to use more popular entertainment to make the point: A film company half-owned by Morgan Freeman has made a point of producing films that feature strong female characters. That didn't stop Freeman from sexually harassing nearly every woman in his sight. (Awarding the Nobel Prize to women writers doesn't mean misogyny isn't present in many, many other ways).

P.S. Regarding Roth, the New York Times has done a terrific job with retrospectives and such. For anyone interested, they just ran an article wherein various authors -- Joyce Carol Oates, Stephen King, etc. -- and critics offer their opinions on what his best novel was. For me, the fact that Michiko Kakutani (a woman who too often seems to have taken Harold Bloom seriously) chose AMERICAN PASTORAL only validates my belief that SABBATH'S THEATER was, in fact, his masterpiece (in truth, it would be tough for anyone to name a Roth novel that wasn't pretty damn good, and head shoulders above the rest of the crowd -- when she was working, Kakutani was just one of those critics that irritated the hell out of me). :)

The title of that article is, natch, "Philip Roth's Best Book"