Philip Roth

[anchomal]

50% of winners have come from the continent of North America, so it might be international but I'm not sure it's diverse.
Still, we wouldn't want quotas instituted, and there can't be much denying that all four winners have been pretty good writers. Roth seems to be a writer who polarises opinion, but I've always found him very readable. So, a reasonably good choice, I'd say.

[Bjorn]

Indeed, it is still quite international:
2011 Roth
2009 Munro
2007 Achebe
2005 Kadare

Very true. Slight overreaction on my part, perhaps. (I guess I should have taken a page out of the Nobel handbook and claimed to never have heard of Roth instead if I needed something to complain about... which I don't, really, I have yet to read something by Roth I didn't like. )

[Daniel del Real]

Indeed, it is still quite international:
2011 Roth
2009 Munro
2007 Achebe
2005 Kadare

It is not, 3 out of 4 have English as their writing language. It's international concerning countries, but not about languages.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

It is not, 3 out of 4 have English as their writing language. It's international concerning countries, but not about languages.

Well, since it is given to a writer for fiction written in English or at least available in English translation, such a bias is neither suprising nor avoidable, no?

[Daniel del Real]

Well, since it is given to a writer for fiction written in English or at least available in English translation, such a bias is neither suprising nor avoidable, no?

And don't you think there are a lot more good titles translated to English?

[Rumpelstilzchen]

And don't you think there are a lot more good titles translated to English?

Sure. But would you call any of these four writers not worthy of the highest literary prizes? And literary works necessarily suffer even during the best translation, so be realistic... apparently they decide this solely on basis of the English versions... there must be a bias...

[Daniel del Real]

Sure. But would you call any of these four writers not worthy of the highest literary prizes? And literary works necessarily suffer even during the best translation, so be realistic... apparently they decide this solely on basis of the English versions... there must be a bias...

I agree, there are important names there. I think Roth is also good, not complaining about him winning this award, I'm just looking for more diversity regarding languages, same think I always comment for the Nobel Prize.

[Mirabell]

I need to pick up Indignation

no you don't. you might try the last one though.

[Bjorn]

no you don't. you might try the last one though.

Actually I do need to since I've promised to review it. But either way it won't be the last Roth I read. I thought I might try the entire Zuckerman series next year.

[Eric]

All this talk about Roth suggests that someone's maybe leaked the fact that the whole Nobel committee is avidly reading all his books over the summer as he's maybe gonna be the next Nobel in October. I do hope the Swedish Academy looks a little further afield. If Azerbaijan can win the Eurovision (the musical equivalent of the Nobel) then surely some poet from Guatemala or Burkino Faso, Liechtenstein or San Marino, Tibet or South Ossetia could be found as a winner.

But it may well be Roth this year. It's easier to read American novels in English than plough through translations of obscure poets.

(By the way, since when has Azerbaijan been in Europe?)

[Daniel del Real]

During the absence of the forum, Philip Roth was awarded with the Premio Príncipe de Asturias de las Letras 2012. I know there's a few fans of Roth at the forum, but I just can't understand why they keep awarding him with so many different prizes. I mean, the guy is not a bad writer, but there's a galaxy of great great writers out there that IMHO deserve it more than Roth. Besides, this is giving more tools to the US critics to keep moaning and crying why his amazing "American" writer hasn't received the Nobel yet. It seems like they want to sue the Swedish Academy for daring not to pay tribute to Roth. Not the author's fault, but I think the critics from his country play an annoying role that make some of us not want him to get the Nobel ever.

[Liam]

I tried to read The Humbling, which I picked up on sale recently for exactly $1, and couldn't make it past page 7. Awkward, clunky prose; no new insight(s) into the human condition whatsoever; but yeah, I would classify him as good-not-great, and easily forgettable.

People don't read Zola for the same reason anymore: too dark, too hopeless, too mundane. Give it a few decades, and the same fate shall await Roth, Philip.

Also not his fault, but looking at a recent picture of his, he looks like he's about to kill somebody, .

[JTolle]

But Liam, all I've read indicates that The Humbling is a mediocre work in his oeuvre! Sabbath's Theatre, American Pastoral, and (my opinion) The Ghostwriter are the novels by which Roth lives or dies. Having read only the latter of those three, I think there's a fighting chance for him (it's a terrifying jaunt in some ways, but tender and incisive too). But there's even scenes and images from his short-story collection Goodbye, Columbus that return to me with regularity - haunting fragments.

[Liam]

OK, I'll give him another chance, in ten years or so.

[Daniel del Real]

People don't read Zola for the same reason anymore: too dark, too hopeless, too mundane. Give it a few decades, and the same fate shall await Roth, Philip.

I really like Zola, and he is still widely read around the world, although I have to accept that some of his novels are uneven; or they're just too good or simply tremendously boring.

But Liam, all I've read indicates that The Humbling is a mediocre work in his oeuvre! Sabbath's Theatre, American Pastoral, and (my opinion) The Ghostwriter are the novels by which Roth lives or dies. Having read only the latter of those three, I think there's a fighting chance for him (it's a terrifying jaunt in some ways, but tender and incisive too). But there's even scenes and images from his short-story collection Goodbye, Columbus that return to me with regularity - haunting fragments.

I've read three of his books so far. Everyone speaks of The Human Stain as a modern classic of the United States history and when I read it, I kept remembering the words of former Swedish Academy secretary Horace Engdahl; found it too insular, not universal in the problematic it portrays and frankly ridiculous in lots of its statements. Situation of a man not able to tell he has black roots and that he has trouble for a misunderstanding of being politically incorrect it's just so vain and superficial to make it a decent novel. Besides I don't find his prose really outstanding, pretty standard with nothing to really highlight in his technique or word choice.

[Liam]

and he is still widely read around the world

And of course you have traveled the whole wide world to know that this is so, .

I was going by my syllabi at school. I once asked a French Lit Prof which "big" authors were not widely read anymore and he came up with Zola and the Goncourt Bros.

Balzac is still read. Ditto Hugo and Maupassant. And Proust too, thank god.

[Daniel del Real]

Balzac is still read.

Can't believe it was read even in the XIX century. He is terribly dull and tedious.

[Liam]

I agree; not a huge fan myself of French Lit in general (even the medieval variety sucks ass in comparison with British/Norse/Irish/Italian); but perhaps you chose the wrong books to start with? I think Pere Goriot, Cousin Bette and The Unknown Masterpiece would serve as excellent introductions. But yeah, I feel half-hearted about Balzac myself; but that doesn't change the fact that he's still read, and widely.

[Heteronym]

It seems like they want to sue the Swedish Academy for daring not to pay tribute to Roth. Not the author's fault, but I think the critics from his country play an annoying role that make some of us not want him to get the Nobel ever.

Is this serious? If anyone were stupid enough to do this, most likely no US writer would ever win the Nobel Prize again

I'm glad for Roth receiving another award; for me he's one of the giants of contemporary literature. I've read almost twenty novels and only found one truly disappointing. I'm especially fond of his irreverent novels - Portnoy's Complaint, Our Gang, The Great American Novel, Zuckerman Unbound, Operation Shylock. I think his recent serious novels are just ploys to get the Nobel, but they don't represent his great talent for satire and comedy.

Still, I've written it before, if a US writer deserves the Nobel Prize, it's Edward Albee.

[Daniel del Real]

I actually read Pere Goriot as an introduction a few years back and found it tedious, purposeless and monotone. Found Goriot's main character, the father, as a a man that goes beyond sacrifice and touches the edges of stupidity; Goriot follows this path through all the novel and this way the character gets diluted slowly into dullness. I found it also extremely descriptive without purpose, listing and enumerating just for the pleasure of doing it without further justification to the novel.
I know one work is far from enough to judge and make an opinion of an author, but got so disappointed and bored after reading Goriot it hasn't pulled me back to read another book.

Is this serious? If anyone were stupid enough to do this, most likely no US writer would ever win the Nobel Prize again

I'm glad for Roth receiving another award; for me he's one of the giants of contemporary literature. I've read almost twenty novels and only found one truly disappointing. I'm especially fond of his irreverent novels - Portnoy's Complaint, Our Gang, The Great American Novel, Zuckerman Unbound, Operation Shylock. I think his recent serious novels are just ploys to get the Nobel, but they don't represent his great talent for satire and comedy.

Still, I've written it before, if a US writer deserves the Nobel Prize, it's Edward Albee.

I'm glad you enjoy so much Philip Roth Heteronym. It's very interesting how can we both love so much Saramago but disagree about Roth; this is what makes interesting this forum. Perhaps I haven't read the right novel, so what I need from you right now is to answer me two questions:

- Have you read the Human Stain? What did you think of it and where would you set it in terms of quality compared with the rest of Roth's works?

- If I had to read another Roth novel, just one, which one would you recommend?