|
Written by Rino Breebaart
|
|
Page 2 of 2
The Human Stain (2000)
Roth excels at splicing comedy and rage. An especially sexual splicing — which from the start had me in mind of Sabbath's Theatre. But then again he's also one of the finest channelers of articulate rage operating in fiction today. And when he's not writing full comedy, also one of the sharpest craftsmen of psychological realism. A serious one. A rare technician of prose joining pain and surprise, the ruthless and the defenceless, the sincere and the performed.
The power of human chaos is entered through the minds and language of characters, with staggering fullness. To reveal all the self-preservations of ego, the smarts of pain and broken love, the shards of identity — in the lawyer, Faunia, Delphine Roux, Farley — whose nightmare is rendered with amazing justification and Hemingway jolts of prose.
I loved the youth and energy of the boxing-related chapters (tangential topic: the love of writers for boxing), how the sport ignites Coleman's dormant hate of race/colour consciousness. The cutting portrait of pride-afflicted Delphine with her Continental vocab and polished complexities, the complex phoney.
"She seemed to herself to have subverted herself in the altogether admirable effort to make herself" (p272) in contrast to Coleman. Was her undoing a little too blunt? I loved the early (narrative-late) seed of appropriateness/correctness in the home visit with Steena, the struggle for formality. I love Roth's concern with genealogy and full family backgrounding — not so much a Jewish concern as a biblical mode — how shall we tell our story: in the language of our forefathers etc. I especially like — now that I know how to look for them — Roth's little parallels of character-thought and writing method, his particular focus and devotion to the art: "The task, nothing but the task. At one with the task. Nothing else allowed in." (p121) And of always using characters to express your deepest criticisms of society: "…their shallowness they call lovingness, and the ruthlessness is camouflaged as lost self esteem. The hyperdramatization of the pettiest emotions." (p147) "All that we don't know is astonishing." (p209) "The fantasy of purity is appalling. It's insane. What is the quest to purify, if not more impurity?" (p242)
And of course there's Roth the prosemeister, from the super first page to the sustained ambivalent closure of the ending. "To become a new being. To bifurcate. The drama that underlies America's story, the high drama that is upping and leaving — and the energy and cruelty that rapturous drive demands." (p342). The book is littered with simple-word/complex-idea expressions. "He didn't so much laugh aloud as nibble at the bait of an out-loud laugh, work up to and around the laugh without quite sinking his teeth in. Close to the hook of dangerous merriment, but not close enough to swallow it." (p357).
It's not the easiest on the eyes, but certainly deeply rewarding to read — a pleasure that mixes cerebrality with visceral urge. The book does sag in the middle, and occasionally he lays on too many questions, labouring the reader with "By the time I met him, was the secret merely the tincture barely tinting the coloration of the man's total being or was the totality of his being nothing but a tincture in the shoreless sea of a lifelong secret?" Almost purple, that. Brave, but purplish.
Still, a great prose picture of America. A great American novel.
The Plot Against America (2004)
Firstly, this is Roth in political-novel mode, meaning there's barely a whiff or issue of sex here; and meaning also that we miss one of Roth's major field-talents (I've had to balance my reading of The Plot with Millet's Sexual Life of Catherine M.). This is purely Roth the Literary Monk; one of the quietly active custodians of the novel form, working steadily away in his personal cell of the soul, his small but essential window on the world. Everyone's been banging away in reviews about the Lindbergh scenario's parallel with the George Milhous Bush administration, even though that's doing Lindy a slight disservice. Everyone wants this novel to represent our current politics (or, the Politics Against America) which of course skews the broad valence and weight of the novel unfairly; as though we need further cultural affirmation of what is already bleedingly apparent — the incompetent idiocy and smallness of the Bush junta — or indicative of some latent guilt and conscience-issues regarding his reign. This book, although small in terms of rage and scope, is still larger than Bush. will ever be. That is hope enough.
The subject of much of American politics is contained in the nutshell 'We the People' — and Roth aims in the same direction. He plays beautifully on the American faith in proffered beliefs and ideals; in the ability of Americans to believe their own propaganda and myths, and hence the US system of bamboozlement that feeds it — not so much through direct doublespeak but political sophistry and duplicity. Perfidy, false patriotic piety, dissembling cant and overt misrepresentation (all things in line with the Bush junta). To exploit traits or characteristics (in this case Jewish temperament, persecution complex, congregation etc) as the defining cause of violence against them; to inflame prejudice whilst actually serving an extremist agenda. That is, explicit self-propagandising — an American political specialty. Here, the asserted right or privilege to speak for We the People with finality and racial superiority — and hence Roth's emphasis on US citizenship and pride over racial distinctions and the politics thereof. His family always considers itself American first, Jewish later. And hence the classical-novel mode of politics entering and poisoning the family as pseudo-symbolic of the country at large, poisoning itself.
The point of the novel methinks is not to wilfully parallel the Bush junta and its own particular cult of fear and propaganda, but to show how easily and close the US of the early 40s came (by fictive extension) to fascism and institutional anti-Semitism. This is one of the disturbing by-products of the corrective notes at the end, especially regarding Wheeler, Ford etc. The seeds were all there but the mélange of events grew a different fruit. This narrative force of 'what if' is married to the growth of fear in a single Jewish family; and by the child's entrance into maturity through confronting and absorbing the essential unpredictability of modern life. The valence and cohesive relevance of family (gained by increased awareness) in the face of growing chaos, violence, paranoia. Hence, it's a cautionary tale.
But as always with Roth, all is achieved by a rich panoply of characters — the focus of centrality shifts subtly from Sandy, Alvin, the father and then to the mother, with all the minor characters in between and the political players in the contextual-mingled background. The eager energy of the father always contrasted with the eager gullibility of Americans adopting fascist sympathy. The fall-ins and fallouts with the government; the eager betrayal of his people by Bengelsdorf; the power (and guilt) of political bling and nearness to myth (the white god descending from the skies in his plane/chariot is a pure Hitlerian fantasy (contrasted in turn with the deliberate veracity-ambiguity of the Nazi causality in the plot resolution)).
One of the finest achievements of the novel is the blend of child's POV with fully adult prose finesse. Roth never descends to childlike babble and prattle — the prose remains fully intelligent yet encased within a child's world and concern. I didn't realise how effective this was until many pages in. It's the most sustained trope of the book — and a writer's difficulty executed effortlessly. Sterling adult prose told honestly, personally.
I like the idea of Philip Roth as Literary Monk, because it provides a gold-standard model for serious literati in these seriously warped times. A model of ageing defiantly, in truth to one's cause (the novel) and with consistent grace (say over his previous four novels). Roth doesn't descend (if that's the right phrase) to op-ed forays of journalistic reactionism or smarmy Jeremiads, yet neither is he aloof enough to completely lose relevance or cease engaging artistically with the times at hand. As far as longevity goes, Roth is quietly assuring his own greatness over flies like Bush by presenting the human, personal and above all the particular view of innocence matured (another myth strongly interred in the US mind) as a frame for political and social awareness. Roth the Writer should be the one who comes to mind when we think of Representative Americans.
As always, on the level of the prose (and in addition to his supreme ease with the novel medium), I particularly like Roth because you can feel the mechanics of literature connect and mesh with the broader society that spawns it, even down to its deep conscience. He's becoming more and more a Newark man as he's becoming a greater American.
Key quotes in prose:A new life began for me. I'd watched my father fall apart, and I would never return to the same childhood… the father… [was] crying like both a baby abandoned and a man being tortured — because he was powerless to stop the unforeseen. And as Lindbergh's election couldn't have made clearer to me, the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything… The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic. (p113-114)
…every day I ask myself the same question: how can this be happening in America? How can people like these be in charge of our country? If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I'd think I was having a hallucination. (p196)
What it came down to for the child who was watching her [his mother] being battered about by the most anguishing confusion (and who was himself quaking with fear) was the discovery that one could do nothing right without also doing something wrong, so wrong, in fact, that especially where chaos reigned and everything was at stake, one might be better off to wait and do nothing — except that to do nothing was also to do something… in such circumstances to do nothing was to do quite a lot — and that even for the mother who preformed each day in methodical opposition to life's unruly flux, there was no system for managing so sinister a mess. (p340-341)
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
|
|
|
Welcome to the Slow Review, the home of perspectives on the unpromoted life. We filter the hype and trash so you don't have to. A quality review of film, music, books, art & living, with nothing under six months old. Without the rush and guff.
The ManifestoSlow is more! Write for SlowGot an idea for an article? Read our guide and submit it! New writers welcome. Contact
|
