Talk:Philip Roth

Wrong Link

The link to "Letting go" is to a wrong page.

Revert

Just to explain my revert. The last edits by anonymous User:69.210.106.253 amounted to removing all of the links in the article with no substantive additions. --Polynova 18:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hysterical Realism

I'm removing the association between Roth and Hysterical Realism because his writing is definitely not an example of that genre of literary fiction. As someone who's read most of James Wood's essays over the last several years (including the one in which he coined the term hysterical realism), I know for a fact that Wood is a Roth admirer, and so it is highly unlikely he would include him in a category of fiction he was seeking to demolish.

Less subjectively, Roth's novels do not display any of the characteristics of hysterical realism, such as use of a plethora of subplots and minor characters, ostentatious display of encyclopedic knowledge on the part of the author, "multi-cultural" characters composed out of nothing but a collection of quirks and unlikely coincidences, etc. Roth is a pretty conventional practitioner of naturalism/literary realism who has added strong elements of meta-fiction to his work in the last half of his career.

Jewish-American?

Must Wikipedia refer to American Jews as "Jewish-American"? Most Jews I know reject this phrase, not wanting to compromise or express any sort of ambivalence about their Americanness, and not wanting to contribute to the ethnic balkanization that some on the far left and right would foist on us (see esp. David Hollinger, Postethnic America, rev. 2000). -- Mark Satin, Washington DC USA

I agree, but I only see a reference to "Jewish-American" in the second section, which I've changed slightly. I believe that it needs to be noted that Roth is Jewish as so many of his books revolve around Jewish themes, but I agree that "Jewish-American" is an awkward phrase. See the change I made. Moncrief 04:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• "Jewish-American" is no more awkward than "African-American," "Irish-American," "German-American," or "Native-American," and they are ALL commonly used phrases -- it seems that Jews love to celebrate their unique cultural heritage and ethnic separateness among themselves yet don't like to actually talk about it in public. Bring it out into the open; I'm doing my part and putting it back in. --64.12.116.196 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)*

I also agree. The term African-American is appropriate because originally their roots come from Africa. Irish-Americans came from Ireland. Native-American are native to America. Jewish-American gives me the indication that there would be a country that "Jewish-Americans" came from. Since Jews have been scattered throughout the world for so long I find it rather foolish to call them Jewish-Americans. Cptnspoon19 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it back out. How often do you hear of a Jewish-French or a Jewish-German author?I'll do my part, whenever I see it I'm taking it out. I think it is appropriate to mention his ethnicity (not "religion," because he is obviously secular) - in the first paragraph of the biography. Philip Roth is, first and foremost, an American author. The idea that all of his novels center around Zionism, infra, is similarly banal, but I won't remove the content. What about The Plot against America? (this explanation not signed)

May 18th, 2006: added it back in -- "Jewish-American" is certainly not awkward as it is used in academia and elsewhere all of the time; here are a few books (largely written and/or compiled by American Jews in and outside of academia) that prove this:

[NOTE: copied/pasted from Wiki-page Jewish American literature]:

• Chametzsky, Jules, et al. Jewish American Literature: A Norton Anthology. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. ISBN 0-393-04809-8
• Fried, Lewis, Ed. Handbook of American-Jewish Literature: An Analytical Guide to Topics, Themes, and Sources. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. ISBN 0-313-24593-2
• Kramer, Michael P. and Hana Wirth-Nesher. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish American Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-521-79293-2

So, I say it should remain and will continue to switch it back, especially given that nearly all of Roth's books involve Jews and his peculiar brand of "American Jewishness." --205.188.117.10 02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Non Believer

In an interview on the October 3, 2010 episode of CBS Sunday Morning, Roth said, "I don't have a religious bone in my body," and in response to the question "Do you feel there's a god out there?" he answered "I'm afraid there isn't, no." He also said, "when the whole world doesn't believe in god, it'll be a great place." I'm sorry I don't know how to cite this or if it's worth using. Thanks. 71.193.165.73 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Martinson the Monkey?

I'm very skeptical about this assertion, currently at the end of the second paragraph of Roth's 'Life and Career':

Specifically, Martinson is the inspiration for female characters in several of Roth's novels, including Mary Jane Reed (aka "the Monkey") in Portnoy's Complaint.

I have never seen Margaret Martinson mentioned as a model for The Monkey, and I'd be very surprised if she was. We do know that she was the model for Maureen Tarnopol, the wife of protagonist Peter Tarnopol in My Life as a Man, a fact long assumed, and then confirmed in Roth's memoir The Facts. This character, with her solid build, tree-trunk legs, and lack of interest in sex, more closely resembles Portnoy's Pumpkin, Kay Campbell, than The Monkey, who is sexually voracious, and has a "hard little handful of a model's ass."

Of course, I'd be very intrigued to see a source which states otherwise.

-David Gooblar (August 30, 2005)

"confirmed in Roth's memoir The Facts" - I'm not 100% sure that this is a memoir; it may instead be a pseudo roman a clef. Same goes for Patrimony: A True Story. The claim to factuality in the title/subtitle may be deception. Does anyone know? Perhaps the two books would therefore be most comfortable under the "Roth novels" heading.

Philip Roth is arguably the most decorated American writer of his era

That seems like a subjective, unsupportable statement to me. Is he more "decorated" than John Updike? I don't think so. A more neutral "Roth has won numerous prestigious awards" would be more appropriate, in my opinion. 207.69.139.7 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're somewhat right about that statement. It is true that it is arguable as he's about neck and neck with Updike when it comes to decorations. I think it can be stated however that he is ONE of the most decorated American writers of his era. There's no doubt he is highly decorated and it can be substantiated that there are not many other writers than have been lauded as highly as Roth. Cptnspoon19 08:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, the sentance is both objective and supported. No other author has received a Pulitzer Prize AND two National Book Awards AND a WH Smith Literary Award AND received designation from the Library of America. In addition, Roth is the only author to win three PEN/Faulkner Awards. Moreover, in the New York Times survey described in the article, Roth was, by a wide margin, the author with the most novels mentioned, and the author with the most mentions over all. By any standard, this supports the statement that Roth is "arguably the most decorated American writer of his era." Indeed, it would be accurate to drop the word "arguably" from that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "one of the most acclaimed writers in modern literary history" from the lede. The "arguably most decorated" epithet should suffice, as it is more easily proven and less POV. "Most acclaimed" is vacuous, as is some reference to "modern literary history," whatever that could mean. Grunge6910 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I restructured the first paragraph. It was too much of an understatement, reading like "George Washington was an American politician." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Not sure how far back the two line "criticism" section goes, but it seems rather silly to me atm. General languange ("Some have criticized Roth heavily") currently reads as though this is somehow a common view, but then cites one critic; the article then segues awkwardly into awards and honors section. Obviously, any major novelist is going to have critics on both sides of the fence, but Roth is a case where praise has been nearly universal. IMO the article would be better if the Crit and A&H sections were merged into something like "Critical Reception", and the prose was NPOV tempered a bit better to show that Roth, while heavily praised (by X, Y, etc. for reasons X, Y) has also had his detractors (X, Y, for reasons A, B) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.239.166 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

where's the criticism section? i know the above comment claims that roth is "universally" praised, but that is certainly not true and i'm guessing it was written by a fan of roth's. there has been much criticism of his work as juvenile, solipsistic, pedantic, and shock for shock value. i am a fan of his work, but this article makes it seem like he is not a polarizing figure, which anyone in the literary world knows to be untrue. please expand the criticism section if this article is to be able to be used as a resource for students of his work.99.135.92.240 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"American Jews of Ukrainian descent"

Does Philip Roth belong in this category? At the time his ancestors left Europe, they would have been living in Austria-Hungary, not Ukraine which wasn't an independent nation at the time. There's no evidence that the Roths were ethnically Ukrainian either. In what sense is he "of Ukrainian descent"? —D. Monack ^talk 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the category from this article. —D. Monack ^talk 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Philip Roth.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philip Roth.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)