Sunday, May 22, 2011

Why does Philip Roth provoke such strong reaction?

Man Booker judge Carmen Callil quit in protest after the decision to award the veteran novelist the international prize. What makes him so divisive?

William Skidelsky: That there's been a hoo-ha over the decision to award Philip Roth the Man Booker international prize (with one of the judges, Carmen Callil, resigning in protest) is in many ways entirely predictable. Roth has always been a divisive writer, starting with his first book, Goodbye Columbus (1959), which upset some American Jews and led to Roth being labelled, not for the last time, self-hating. Roth is an extremist. He loves to shock, to go beyond the limits of acceptability. That's why he's so funny. But it's also why he's not to everyone's taste.

Yet I sense that in recent years a slightly different critique of Roth has come into play. Where once the problem was that people found his work shocking, now the problem is more that they think he's a bit of a sad old letch who should put his, er, pen away. When you're in your 30s, and write about a character masturbating into a piece of liver (Portnoy's Complaint), that's funny. When you're in your 70s, and write about a threesome involving an ageing man, an inebriated young woman and a green strap-on dildo (The Humbling), that's arguably straying into much dodgier territory.

In short, the main thrust of the anti-Roth case nowadays (although Callil has made it clear that this wasn't her case) is that he's unreconstructed, doesn't think much of women and hasn't moved with the times. I think there's some truth to this, but I'm not sure exactly what it's got to do with how good a writer he is. I think he's still one of our best novelists, and the Booker award is a fitting recognition of this.

Alex Clark: I think we can both agree without risking too much contradiction that the green strap-on dildo was not Roth's finest hour. It's one thing to �pater la bourgeoisie, another to hit your readers over the head with a sex toy (why green? That seemed the killer detail) until they beg for mercy. I found The Humbling bewildering: sketchily imagined and clunkily executed; not merely unrealistic, which isn't necessarily the death-knell for a novel, but psychologically crude and conceptually simplistic. But a disappointing novel is noticeable precisely because he sets the standard so high. And it also points to a writer who is never going to be happy unless he's testing the limits.

You're probably right that all this sex stuff comes under greater scrutiny as a writer ages (and not just if you're a man; I'm thinking about Doris Lessing's novel of late-life romance, Love, Again). I also think that Roth is in a no-win situation. One of the tasks he has set himself is the unflinching examination of masculinity and sexuality; but how to probe that without then being labelled at best as out of touch, at worst as a misogynist? Perhaps the real problem here is the way we think about fiction and its practitioners. Writing isn't supposed to be about producing something safe and easily digestible. Its point is to unsettle and disturb.

WS: I agree. It's odd to expect novelists to mirror our own moral prejudices. One of the jobs of writing is indeed to unsettle. And because works of fiction are invariably about individuals, one thing they can do very well is explore the ways in which ideological doctrines, or any systems of belief, clash with individual freedom. In Roth's work this is a constant theme, and one of the "systems" that sometimes gets it in the neck is feminism. I'm thinking, for example, of the savage portrait of the disapproving classics professor Delphine Roux in The Human Stain. So yes, I think we can say that Roth is anti-feminist (just as he's anti-politically correct, and anti-moral conservative). But does this mean that no woman should read him? Besides, the idea that Roth, being a masculine writer, must therefore also be sexist and misogynist ? I'm not sure I get it. True, his books are always written from the male perspective. But I don't detect any generalised hostility to women in them (of the kind, for instance, you can often glimpse in Saul Bellow's work). There are some extremely sympathetic women characters in his novels ? such as Dawn Dwyer, the "Swede"'s wife in American Pastoral. Or what about Drenka, who inspires Mickey Sabbath to such heights of lust in Sabbath's Theater? Granted, she's no feminist role model, but you can't say it's not an affectionate portrait!

AC: Well, in the interests of balance we should be clear that there are those who do regard Roth's writing as misogynist ? filled with caricature women, hostile men and a pretty bleak take on the possibilities for sexual or romantic harmony between the genders; and if that's your opinion then the line between a novel's subject matter and its author's worldview can become blurred. And there is always the issue of lubriciousness: when does the discussion of sexual mores and identity veer away from frank exploration and towards a little bit of fantasy? You might have been alluding to this when you mention Drenka: the "heights of lust" you refer to involve Sabbath ? among others ? masturbating on her grave. The poor woman can't even rest in peace without a line of guys forming to jerk off over her!

But it's worth stating very firmly that sex is only one of Roth's themes ? Jewish-American life, the intersection of the political and the personal, paranoia, exile and return, mothers and sons all churn through his novels. Whatever reservations one might have about Roth ? another, I would suggest, is a certain impenetrability and deliberate rebarbativeness ? one can't question his ambition or his commitment. And I really think it would be a shame if women readers were to miss out on that to avoid running the risk of being offended or riled. Women are not children and we don't need to be protected from provocative views!

WS: Yes, there's so much in his books besides sex. That's where I disagree with Callil, who described his reach as being "narrow", because of his self-involvement. He always uses himself (or a version of himself) as a starting point, but what's so impressive is how far he ranges from that point. Even if he's not a universalist he still manages to cover a lot of ground.

All this affair shows, really, is that tastes differ wildly. Very few writers appeal to everyone. Which is one of the glories of literature ? and why the awarding of prizes is always somewhat arbitrary.

AC: Ah, prizes! What one wouldn't give to see the CCTV footage from the final judging meeting! But I parted company with Callil the minute she said she didn't rate Roth as a writer "at all" ? that seemed simply silly. And ditto that his books are too similar to one another ? quite wrong, in my view. I'm sure we could have a whole other conversation about the creation of monolithic literary reputations ? something that does seem to happen to more male writers than female, especially American ones ? but I don't think it's a fair charge to level against Roth. His place in the pantheon might not be guaranteed, but I'd say he's well on the way.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/philip-roth-carmen-callil-booker

Lil Wayne Movie Trailers Lady Gaga Jay Z

No comments:

Post a Comment