What do you think?
Rate this book
The American Trilogy #3
La Tache by Philip Roth
It is 1998, the year in which America is whipped into a frenzy of prurience by the impeachment of a president, and in a small New England town an aging Classics professor, Coleman Silk, is forced to retire when his colleagues decree that he is a racist. The charge is a lie, but the real truth about Silk would astonish even his most virulent accuser.Coleman Silk has a secret, one which has been kept for fifty years from his wife, his four children, his colleagues, and his friends, including the writer Nathan Zuckerman. It is Zuckerman who stumbles upon Silk's secret and sets out to reconstruct the unknown biography of this eminent, upright man, esteemed as an educator for nearly all his life, and to understand how this ingeniously contrived life came unraveled. And to understand also how Silk's astonishing private history is, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, "magnificently" interwoven with "the larger public history of modern America."
Paperback
First published May 10, 2000
2220 people are currently reading
44231 people want to read
About the author
Philip Roth
254 books7,335 followersPhilip Milton Roth was an American novelist and short-story writer. Roth's fiction—often set in his birthplace of Newark, New Jersey—is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its "sensual, ingenious style" and for its provocative explorations of American identity. He first gained attention with the 1959 short story collection Goodbye, Columbus, which won the U.S. National Book Award for Fiction. Ten years later, he published the bestseller Portnoy's Complaint. Nathan Zuckerman, Roth's literary alter ego, narrates several of his books. A fictionalized Philip Roth narrates some of his others, such as the alternate history The Plot Against America.
Roth was one of the most honored American writers of his generation. He received the National Book Critics Circle award for The Counterlife, the PEN/Faulkner Award for Operation Shylock, The Human Stain, and Everyman, a second National Book Award for Sabbath's Theater, and the Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral. In 2005, the Library of America began publishing his complete works, making him the second author so anthologized while still living, after Eudora Welty. Harold Bloom named him one of the four greatest American novelists of his day, along with Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo. In 2001, Roth received the inaugural Franz Kafka Prize in Prague.
Roth was one of the most honored American writers of his generation. He received the National Book Critics Circle award for The Counterlife, the PEN/Faulkner Award for Operation Shylock, The Human Stain, and Everyman, a second National Book Award for Sabbath's Theater, and the Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral. In 2005, the Library of America began publishing his complete works, making him the second author so anthologized while still living, after Eudora Welty. Harold Bloom named him one of the four greatest American novelists of his day, along with Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo. In 2001, Roth received the inaugural Franz Kafka Prize in Prague.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,275 reviews
October 13, 2019
Here's what I know: if a book features some old dude fucking some younger lady, check the author's age. 100% of the time, he's the same age as the old dude.
The younger woman will be vulnerable. She will be attracted to the older man's security and wisdom. There is a power imbalance, and it's basically the same thing as when Tarzan saves Jane from the lion. It's embarrassing, immature wish-fulfillment. And even when it's written very well, it's boring.
This book is occasionally written very well, but it also has the young lady dancing naked for like 20 pages while she babbles about free love. "Oh, I see you, Coleman. I could give you away my whole life and still have you. Just by dancing." Good luck getting through that bullshit. It suuuucks.
And you've heard this story before. Old guys complain that no one wants to read old guy authors. It's not because we're "politically correct." It's because old men can't shut up about their penises, and it's boring. The entire canon, as it was agreed on at some point by a bunch of old guys and their boring penises, is full of stories like this.
Coleman Silk, in The Human Stain, is one of those old guys. He's the worst kind of college professor: the kind who tells you how to read a book. "Fossilized pedagogy," as a character we're not supposed to agree with calls it. Fuck you, it's my fucking book, I'll decide how to read it. If I decide to take "a feminist perspective on Euripides," then that's what happens. Euripides can take care of himself.
Silk is also of African-American descent; he's been "passing" as white his entire life. Ironically, he's disgraced by an unfortunately timed use of the word "spook." This is the one-sentence plot of the book: guy accused of racism is secretly black. It sounds interesting, but the problem is that Philip Roth thinks it's a metaphor for himself.
He thinks it's a metaphor because he keeps getting accused of being an asshole. All his life, people have called Philip Roth all sorts of names. Misogynist, even anti-Semite. (Roth is Jewish.) He keeps getting accused of believing what his characters say. It's not me, he complains. "The thought of the novelist lies not in the remarks of his characters or even in their introspection," he insists, "but in the plight he has invented for his characters."
Well, quite. The plight he has invented here is a young lady's vagina. Of course Philip Roth isn't Coleman Silk. He's his pimp.
The younger woman will be vulnerable. She will be attracted to the older man's security and wisdom. There is a power imbalance, and it's basically the same thing as when Tarzan saves Jane from the lion. It's embarrassing, immature wish-fulfillment. And even when it's written very well, it's boring.
This book is occasionally written very well, but it also has the young lady dancing naked for like 20 pages while she babbles about free love. "Oh, I see you, Coleman. I could give you away my whole life and still have you. Just by dancing." Good luck getting through that bullshit. It suuuucks.
And you've heard this story before. Old guys complain that no one wants to read old guy authors. It's not because we're "politically correct." It's because old men can't shut up about their penises, and it's boring. The entire canon, as it was agreed on at some point by a bunch of old guys and their boring penises, is full of stories like this.
Coleman Silk, in The Human Stain, is one of those old guys. He's the worst kind of college professor: the kind who tells you how to read a book. "Fossilized pedagogy," as a character we're not supposed to agree with calls it. Fuck you, it's my fucking book, I'll decide how to read it. If I decide to take "a feminist perspective on Euripides," then that's what happens. Euripides can take care of himself.
Silk is also of African-American descent; he's been "passing" as white his entire life. Ironically, he's disgraced by an unfortunately timed use of the word "spook." This is the one-sentence plot of the book: guy accused of racism is secretly black. It sounds interesting, but the problem is that Philip Roth thinks it's a metaphor for himself.
He thinks it's a metaphor because he keeps getting accused of being an asshole. All his life, people have called Philip Roth all sorts of names. Misogynist, even anti-Semite. (Roth is Jewish.) He keeps getting accused of believing what his characters say. It's not me, he complains. "The thought of the novelist lies not in the remarks of his characters or even in their introspection," he insists, "but in the plight he has invented for his characters."
Well, quite. The plight he has invented here is a young lady's vagina. Of course Philip Roth isn't Coleman Silk. He's his pimp.
May 24, 2018
”All he’d ever wanted, from earliest childhood on, as to be free: not black, not even white--just on his own and free. He meant no insult to no one by his choice, nor was he trying to irritate anyone whom he took to be his superior, nor was he staging some sort of protest against his race or hers. He recognized that to conventional people for whom everything was ready-made and rigidly unalterable what he was doing would never look correct. But to dare to be nothing more than correct had never been his aim. The objective was for his fate to be determined not by the ignorant, hate-filled intentions of a hostile world but, to whatever degree humanly possible, by his own resolve. Why accept a life on any other terms?”
Coleman Silk went into the Navy as a Caucasian because his pigment allowed him to do so. After a perceptive whore (they are bona fide experts on the male anatomy) in a brothel noticed something about his physique that gave him away as black he was hurled from the establishment. His girlfriend in college who thought he was white met his parents only to learn differently. She, after a moment of hysterics, dumped him. It wasn’t hard to understand that life provided more opportunities if the world perceived him as white. The timely death of his father, who would have put a kibosh on the whole thing, gave him the freedom to choose. His mother, his brother, and his sister were simply people that had to be carefully cut out of his life.
”You don’t have to murder your father. The world will do that for you. There are plenty of forces out to get your father. The world will take care of him, as it had indeed taken care of Mr. Silk.”
Silk married and landed a job at Athena College. He advanced to the position of Dean of Faculty. He was respected, but as happens with most successful people he made enemies. He also along the way had four kids which is four times that he was sitting in a waiting room offering up prayers to whatever deity would hear them with his fingers, toes, and everything else crossed hoping the baby would be...white.
He dodged every bullet, but as some wise man said there is always a bullet with your name on it. Maybe it was just that he was old and didn’t move as fast as he used to, but the bullet that caught him and cost him his job was bordering on ridiculous. Where was the man that intimidated his kids with words?
”The father who never lost his temper. The father who had another way to beating you down. With words. With speech. With what he called ‘the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens.’ With the English language that no one could ever take away from you and that Mr. Silk richly sounded, always with great fullness and clarity and bravado, as though even in ordinary conversation he were reciting Marc Antony’s speech over the body of Caesar.”
I don’t think he took it seriously. How could anyone? He was calling roll call for a class and noticed that two people were gone again and had been gone since the beginning of the quarter. ”Does anyone know these people? Do they exist or are they spooks?”
They were both black students.
Silk is charged with racism and dismissed.
I’ve never really understood the derogatory connotations of using the word Spook in regard to a black person. Wouldn’t it make more sense for black people to call white people spooks? I believe the term came into usage as a way to scare white children (a ghost that would get them) who had never seen a black person. Regardless, it does exist and any reasonable well educated person knows the word as a derogatory term when referring to people of color. The problem with this charge of racism is intent. If Silk had known the students were black would he have used the term? To me it was just a moment of levity out of frustration about students that weren’t attending class.
The problem is when your life is words you must select them carefully.
The irony of course is that he can’t reveal his most important secret even for the defense of his career. Although that does beg the question can’t a black person make a racist comment against another black person? It can get rather confusion about who is capable of being guilty of what especially when race is indeterminate.
Silk’s wife dies and he believes the scandal killed her. He goes off the rails, accusing practically everyone he knows as being part of a grand conspiracy against him. I sympathize because most of the time I feel the same way, but I know they will slap a strait jacket on me and throw me into the nearest rubber room if I give them proper opportunity.
He actually finds a much more fun way to put the final nail in the coffin of his reputation. He (seventy-two) starts having sex with a thirty-four year old, illiterate janitor, and part time milk maid at the local dairy. He requires the help of the “miracle drug of the 20th century”.
”Thanks to Viagra I’ve come to understand Zeus’s amorous transformations. That’s what they should have called Viagra. They should have called it Zeus.”
Silk is falling in love with Faunia, but she sets him straight.
”He’d said to her, ‘This is more than sex,’ and flatly she replied, ‘ no, it’s not. You just forgot what sex is. This is sex. All by itself. Don’t fuck it up by pretending it’s something else.’”
All is going well, well that’s not true. His kids are not speaking to him and he is receiving rebuking letters from his former colleagues, most by the way who he had hired as Dean of Faculty.
His biggest problem is Fauna’s ex-husband, Les Farley, a Vietnam vet who is as stable as nitroglycerin. He is less than thrilled that his ex-wife is blowing a seventy-two year old man. The war warped him in a way that can never be planed straight. After the government trained him to be a killer and allowed him to embrace all his worst impulses by giving him the authority to shoot anything that moves with a machine gun from a helicopter, they gave him two hundred dollars and a pat on the back for his service to his country. See ya Les. Good luck back in the real world.
Back in the real world he can’t eat at a Chinese restaurant without wanting to kill the waiter.
This story is set against the backdrop of the Clinton impeachment and Roth is able to worm into the text the opinions of various people about Slick Willie and Monica Lewinsky. Silk’s own perceived indiscretion becomes magnified for the community already reeling from a President who nearly went down because the Essence of Bill was discovered on a navy blue dress. At thirty-four Fauna had been around the block a few times. For anyone to think that Silk was taking advantage of her was ludicrous. At what age does someone pass over the barrier of being able to be taken advantage of by someone older than themselves? Aren’t people close in age as capable of taking advantage (whatever that entails) as someone twenty, thirty, forty years older? There are so many great discussion points in this book. You might even find the needle has moved on something you think of as a core belief. I'm always questioning why I believe something and books like this put hockey puck ideas in my mind that bounce, carom, and sometimes hit the net proving that nothing is as firm a belief as I think it is.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
Coleman Silk went into the Navy as a Caucasian because his pigment allowed him to do so. After a perceptive whore (they are bona fide experts on the male anatomy) in a brothel noticed something about his physique that gave him away as black he was hurled from the establishment. His girlfriend in college who thought he was white met his parents only to learn differently. She, after a moment of hysterics, dumped him. It wasn’t hard to understand that life provided more opportunities if the world perceived him as white. The timely death of his father, who would have put a kibosh on the whole thing, gave him the freedom to choose. His mother, his brother, and his sister were simply people that had to be carefully cut out of his life.
”You don’t have to murder your father. The world will do that for you. There are plenty of forces out to get your father. The world will take care of him, as it had indeed taken care of Mr. Silk.”
Silk married and landed a job at Athena College. He advanced to the position of Dean of Faculty. He was respected, but as happens with most successful people he made enemies. He also along the way had four kids which is four times that he was sitting in a waiting room offering up prayers to whatever deity would hear them with his fingers, toes, and everything else crossed hoping the baby would be...white.
He dodged every bullet, but as some wise man said there is always a bullet with your name on it. Maybe it was just that he was old and didn’t move as fast as he used to, but the bullet that caught him and cost him his job was bordering on ridiculous. Where was the man that intimidated his kids with words?
”The father who never lost his temper. The father who had another way to beating you down. With words. With speech. With what he called ‘the language of Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Dickens.’ With the English language that no one could ever take away from you and that Mr. Silk richly sounded, always with great fullness and clarity and bravado, as though even in ordinary conversation he were reciting Marc Antony’s speech over the body of Caesar.”
I don’t think he took it seriously. How could anyone? He was calling roll call for a class and noticed that two people were gone again and had been gone since the beginning of the quarter. ”Does anyone know these people? Do they exist or are they spooks?”
They were both black students.
Silk is charged with racism and dismissed.
I’ve never really understood the derogatory connotations of using the word Spook in regard to a black person. Wouldn’t it make more sense for black people to call white people spooks? I believe the term came into usage as a way to scare white children (a ghost that would get them) who had never seen a black person. Regardless, it does exist and any reasonable well educated person knows the word as a derogatory term when referring to people of color. The problem with this charge of racism is intent. If Silk had known the students were black would he have used the term? To me it was just a moment of levity out of frustration about students that weren’t attending class.
The problem is when your life is words you must select them carefully.
The irony of course is that he can’t reveal his most important secret even for the defense of his career. Although that does beg the question can’t a black person make a racist comment against another black person? It can get rather confusion about who is capable of being guilty of what especially when race is indeterminate.
Silk’s wife dies and he believes the scandal killed her. He goes off the rails, accusing practically everyone he knows as being part of a grand conspiracy against him. I sympathize because most of the time I feel the same way, but I know they will slap a strait jacket on me and throw me into the nearest rubber room if I give them proper opportunity.
He actually finds a much more fun way to put the final nail in the coffin of his reputation. He (seventy-two) starts having sex with a thirty-four year old, illiterate janitor, and part time milk maid at the local dairy. He requires the help of the “miracle drug of the 20th century”.
”Thanks to Viagra I’ve come to understand Zeus’s amorous transformations. That’s what they should have called Viagra. They should have called it Zeus.”
Silk is falling in love with Faunia, but she sets him straight.
”He’d said to her, ‘This is more than sex,’ and flatly she replied, ‘ no, it’s not. You just forgot what sex is. This is sex. All by itself. Don’t fuck it up by pretending it’s something else.’”
All is going well, well that’s not true. His kids are not speaking to him and he is receiving rebuking letters from his former colleagues, most by the way who he had hired as Dean of Faculty.
His biggest problem is Fauna’s ex-husband, Les Farley, a Vietnam vet who is as stable as nitroglycerin. He is less than thrilled that his ex-wife is blowing a seventy-two year old man. The war warped him in a way that can never be planed straight. After the government trained him to be a killer and allowed him to embrace all his worst impulses by giving him the authority to shoot anything that moves with a machine gun from a helicopter, they gave him two hundred dollars and a pat on the back for his service to his country. See ya Les. Good luck back in the real world.
Back in the real world he can’t eat at a Chinese restaurant without wanting to kill the waiter.
This story is set against the backdrop of the Clinton impeachment and Roth is able to worm into the text the opinions of various people about Slick Willie and Monica Lewinsky. Silk’s own perceived indiscretion becomes magnified for the community already reeling from a President who nearly went down because the Essence of Bill was discovered on a navy blue dress. At thirty-four Fauna had been around the block a few times. For anyone to think that Silk was taking advantage of her was ludicrous. At what age does someone pass over the barrier of being able to be taken advantage of by someone older than themselves? Aren’t people close in age as capable of taking advantage (whatever that entails) as someone twenty, thirty, forty years older? There are so many great discussion points in this book. You might even find the needle has moved on something you think of as a core belief. I'm always questioning why I believe something and books like this put hockey puck ideas in my mind that bounce, carom, and sometimes hit the net proving that nothing is as firm a belief as I think it is.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
July 8, 2024
Intricate and Lingering
This story reminds me of the time my law school got sued. Details may be slightly off because this was a hot minute ago.
After my first year in law school, my grades were sufficient to transfer to any law school of my choosing. However, my current school gave out a sheet of paper with their employment statistics: average employment rate of 80% and an average starting salary of $65,000.
Thinking that was workable, I stuck to my current path, graduating in the top 10% of my class and passing the Bar on the first try.
I sent out 2,000 resumes, and I didn’t get a single offer of full-time employment.
Then, I heard about the lawsuit.
Apparently, everything on that sheet of paper was a lie. If a graduate was working a non-legal job, that counted as employed. That 80% employment statistic included legal graduates who were working at Starbucks, pushing carts at Wal-Mart, or working part-time as substitute teachers. The true employment rate was closer to 30%.
That $65,000 average starting salary? Again. Lies. The school only considered the two or three people who wrote down their salaries.
How did the court case, our good old legal system, the beacon of justice, turn out?
Well, the law school made representations. These representations were false. Yes, the Court found that the school intentionally misled or lied. Students relied on the misrepresentations, and there were damages.
Win, right?
Wrong.
The students were denied relief.
But why?
Oh! Now for the good part!
The Court found that the students’ reliance was not reasonable. Yes, the student who entered law school at the tender age of 21, the naïve, destitute law student was supposed to know that the school was lying. I mean students have unfettered access to alumni, can call up every single person in their free time, ask about career prospects and current earnings. The alumni who are certainly not disgruntled for having been cheated will always cheerfully answer promptly and honestly. The unemployed alumni aren’t exactly sleeping on the campus steps.
And to top it all off….student loans are not generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. And this was the year before income-based repayment plans.
The entire reason that I went to law school was that I HAD to earn a living wage. My parents could not support me, and I didn’t have the privilege of shaking my fist at the injustice. I had to pivot and fast. I ended up taking some accounting classes and becoming a CPA. While I was able to put food on the table, I spent the next decade crippled by student loans based on lies.
In The Human Stain, it is the summer of 1998, and Coleman Silk is the Dean at a small college when a false allegation of racism rocks his world.
Coleman has been dealt a blow by the world, an injustice. Now, most books would either fade to black, paint the protagonist in a sympathetic light (Oliver Twist – ‘oh the poor starving orphan’), or go down the classic vengeance plot (The Count of Monte Cristo). But Roth, refreshingly, takes readers in an entirely different direction.
“He remained unable to gauge what was and wasn’t in his long-term interest.”– The Human Stain
Something bad happened to Coleman, but should he make it his entire life? Is he served by being bitter and shaking his fist at the injustice?
The Human Stain has many layers, and there is a splendid feast for consideration, a great deal to consider. This book is a classic – a book you will get something new upon every reread. There is a lot about identity, thrown in the mix with complex characters asking deep questions. One of my favorite characters is Professor Delphine Roux.
“You really think that this is important stuff in the world? It’s not that important. It’s not important at all.” - The Human Stain
Interestingly, Philip Roth got into it with Wikipedia over the page for The Human Stain.Someone with a keyboard A Wikipedia contributor asserted that Roth based the Coleman Silk character off of Anatole Broyard.
However, Roth himself denied this. He said that he barely knew Broyard, and Coleman was based off of a friend of his who was teaching at Princeton in 1985.
Wikipedia told Roth, he “was not a credible source.”
Now, Roth, are you going to shake your fist at the injustice or do something about it? LOL!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – $25.75 from eBay (First edition, First print)
Softcover Text – $11.94 from Blackwell’s
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta
This story reminds me of the time my law school got sued. Details may be slightly off because this was a hot minute ago.
After my first year in law school, my grades were sufficient to transfer to any law school of my choosing. However, my current school gave out a sheet of paper with their employment statistics: average employment rate of 80% and an average starting salary of $65,000.
Thinking that was workable, I stuck to my current path, graduating in the top 10% of my class and passing the Bar on the first try.
I sent out 2,000 resumes, and I didn’t get a single offer of full-time employment.
Then, I heard about the lawsuit.
Apparently, everything on that sheet of paper was a lie. If a graduate was working a non-legal job, that counted as employed. That 80% employment statistic included legal graduates who were working at Starbucks, pushing carts at Wal-Mart, or working part-time as substitute teachers. The true employment rate was closer to 30%.
That $65,000 average starting salary? Again. Lies. The school only considered the two or three people who wrote down their salaries.
How did the court case, our good old legal system, the beacon of justice, turn out?
Well, the law school made representations. These representations were false. Yes, the Court found that the school intentionally misled or lied. Students relied on the misrepresentations, and there were damages.
Win, right?
Wrong.
The students were denied relief.
But why?
Oh! Now for the good part!
The Court found that the students’ reliance was not reasonable. Yes, the student who entered law school at the tender age of 21, the naïve, destitute law student was supposed to know that the school was lying. I mean students have unfettered access to alumni, can call up every single person in their free time, ask about career prospects and current earnings. The alumni who are certainly not disgruntled for having been cheated will always cheerfully answer promptly and honestly. The unemployed alumni aren’t exactly sleeping on the campus steps.
And to top it all off….student loans are not generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. And this was the year before income-based repayment plans.
The entire reason that I went to law school was that I HAD to earn a living wage. My parents could not support me, and I didn’t have the privilege of shaking my fist at the injustice. I had to pivot and fast. I ended up taking some accounting classes and becoming a CPA. While I was able to put food on the table, I spent the next decade crippled by student loans based on lies.
In The Human Stain, it is the summer of 1998, and Coleman Silk is the Dean at a small college when a false allegation of racism rocks his world.
Coleman has been dealt a blow by the world, an injustice. Now, most books would either fade to black, paint the protagonist in a sympathetic light (Oliver Twist – ‘oh the poor starving orphan’), or go down the classic vengeance plot (The Count of Monte Cristo). But Roth, refreshingly, takes readers in an entirely different direction.
“He remained unable to gauge what was and wasn’t in his long-term interest.”– The Human Stain
Something bad happened to Coleman, but should he make it his entire life? Is he served by being bitter and shaking his fist at the injustice?
The Human Stain has many layers, and there is a splendid feast for consideration, a great deal to consider. This book is a classic – a book you will get something new upon every reread. There is a lot about identity, thrown in the mix with complex characters asking deep questions. One of my favorite characters is Professor Delphine Roux.
“You really think that this is important stuff in the world? It’s not that important. It’s not important at all.” - The Human Stain
Interestingly, Philip Roth got into it with Wikipedia over the page for The Human Stain.
However, Roth himself denied this. He said that he barely knew Broyard, and Coleman was based off of a friend of his who was teaching at Princeton in 1985.
Wikipedia told Roth, he “was not a credible source.”
Now, Roth, are you going to shake your fist at the injustice or do something about it? LOL!
The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Hardcover Text – $25.75 from eBay (First edition, First print)
Softcover Text – $11.94 from Blackwell’s
Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta
September 26, 2025
Un roman excelent, e păcat să nu-l citiți...
Profesorul de studii clasice, Coleman Silk, fost decan al colegiului Athena, este acuzat de rasism (tocmai el, care e negru), pentru că a folosit (fără intenție peiorativă) termenul „spook” (fantomă, stafie) cu privire la două studente de culoare. Refuză să-și ceară scuze (nici nu avea de ce) și demisionează. Coleman are o legătură cu mult mai tînăra Faunia Farley. Cei doi mor într-un accident de mașină de care nu e străin, probabil, Lester Farley, fostul soț al Fauniei, veteran al războiului din Vietnam, bolnav de ceea ce medicii au numit „stres post-traumatic”. În mare, cam asta e acțiunea romanului, e bine să mă opresc aici...
Deși povestitorul întîmplărilor e, și de această dată, Nathan Zuckerman, el pare a ști mult mai mult decît e permis unui narator particular să știe despre celelalte personaje. La Philip Roth, naratorul particular devine adeseori omniscient. Iată explicația acestei științe: „De unde știu? Nu știu. Nici asta nu știu. Nu am de unde să știu. Iar acum că amîndoi sînt morți, nu mai poate ști nimeni. Poate este bine, poate nu, dar nu pot să fac decît ceea ce face orice om care crede că știe. Îmi închipui. Sînt silit să îmi închipui. Și, întîmplător, din asta îmi cîștig traiul. Este slujba mea. Este tot ceea ce mai fac acum” (p.279).
Omnisciența lui Nathan Zuckerman (sau virtuțile imaginației sale) ne oferă cîteva monologuri interioare ieșite din comun. Cel mai dramatic e, desigur, monologul lui Lester Farley. A fost în Vietnam, a văzut cruzimi de nedescris, s-a întors acasă și a constatat că e privit ca un om de prisos. Stă prin spitale, e îndopat cu medicamente, foștii colegi încearcă să-l ajute. Nu e ușor să judeci un astfel de personaj. Nu trezește indignarea cititorului. De altfel, toate personajele lui Philip Roth sînt greu, imposibil de judecat. Poți s-o condamni pe ambițioasa profesoară Delphine Roux, cea care îl determină pe Coleman să demisioneze, doar pentru faptul că-i cere să prezinte la cursuri o analiză feministă a tragediilor grecești? Sigur că nu...
Era firesc ca acest roman să nu placă „ideologilor”. Philip Roth a fost acuzat încă o dată de nesocotire a nobilelor idealuri ale corectitudinii politice. Dar interzicînd cuvintele ori înlocuindu-le cu sintagme barbare nu dregi realitatea. Rămîi la nivelul unei gîndiri magice.
Pata umană e o descriere acidă a ipocriziei și lașității omenești.
P. S. În pofida unei distribuții prestigioase (Nicole Kidman, Anthony Hopkins), filmul care s-a făcut după acest roman rămîne, din păcate, o melodramă. Romanul lui Roth e mult mai bun...
Profesorul de studii clasice, Coleman Silk, fost decan al colegiului Athena, este acuzat de rasism (tocmai el, care e negru), pentru că a folosit (fără intenție peiorativă) termenul „spook” (fantomă, stafie) cu privire la două studente de culoare. Refuză să-și ceară scuze (nici nu avea de ce) și demisionează. Coleman are o legătură cu mult mai tînăra Faunia Farley. Cei doi mor într-un accident de mașină de care nu e străin, probabil, Lester Farley, fostul soț al Fauniei, veteran al războiului din Vietnam, bolnav de ceea ce medicii au numit „stres post-traumatic”. În mare, cam asta e acțiunea romanului, e bine să mă opresc aici...
Deși povestitorul întîmplărilor e, și de această dată, Nathan Zuckerman, el pare a ști mult mai mult decît e permis unui narator particular să știe despre celelalte personaje. La Philip Roth, naratorul particular devine adeseori omniscient. Iată explicația acestei științe: „De unde știu? Nu știu. Nici asta nu știu. Nu am de unde să știu. Iar acum că amîndoi sînt morți, nu mai poate ști nimeni. Poate este bine, poate nu, dar nu pot să fac decît ceea ce face orice om care crede că știe. Îmi închipui. Sînt silit să îmi închipui. Și, întîmplător, din asta îmi cîștig traiul. Este slujba mea. Este tot ceea ce mai fac acum” (p.279).
Omnisciența lui Nathan Zuckerman (sau virtuțile imaginației sale) ne oferă cîteva monologuri interioare ieșite din comun. Cel mai dramatic e, desigur, monologul lui Lester Farley. A fost în Vietnam, a văzut cruzimi de nedescris, s-a întors acasă și a constatat că e privit ca un om de prisos. Stă prin spitale, e îndopat cu medicamente, foștii colegi încearcă să-l ajute. Nu e ușor să judeci un astfel de personaj. Nu trezește indignarea cititorului. De altfel, toate personajele lui Philip Roth sînt greu, imposibil de judecat. Poți s-o condamni pe ambițioasa profesoară Delphine Roux, cea care îl determină pe Coleman să demisioneze, doar pentru faptul că-i cere să prezinte la cursuri o analiză feministă a tragediilor grecești? Sigur că nu...
Era firesc ca acest roman să nu placă „ideologilor”. Philip Roth a fost acuzat încă o dată de nesocotire a nobilelor idealuri ale corectitudinii politice. Dar interzicînd cuvintele ori înlocuindu-le cu sintagme barbare nu dregi realitatea. Rămîi la nivelul unei gîndiri magice.
Pata umană e o descriere acidă a ipocriziei și lașității omenești.
P. S. În pofida unei distribuții prestigioase (Nicole Kidman, Anthony Hopkins), filmul care s-a făcut după acest roman rămîne, din păcate, o melodramă. Romanul lui Roth e mult mai bun...
November 22, 2017
"Αυτά παθαίνεις άμα μεγαλώνεις με ανθρώπους. Το ανθρώπινο στίγμα...έτσι είναι. Αφήνουμε ένα στίγμα, το αποτύπωμά μας. Ακαθαρσία,σκληρότητα, κακοποίηση, σφάλμα, περιττώματα, σπέρμα- δεν έχουμε άλλον τρόπο να δηλώσουμε την παρουσία μας. Και αυτό το στίγμα δεν έχει σχέση με ανυπακοή, καμιά σχέση με σωτηρία και λύτρωση. Το έχουμε όλοι μας. Είναι μέσα μας. Έμφυτο. Μας καθορίζει. Το στίγμα ενυπάρχει μέσα μας πριν αφήσει την κηλίδα του. Υπάρχει χωρίς το σημάδι του. Είναι τόσο έμφυτο ώστε να μην απαιτείται κηλίδα....οποιοσδήποτε λόγος περί κάθαρσης είναι φάρσα. Και πολύ βάρβαρη μάλιστα. Η φαντασίωση της καθαρότητας είναι τρομαχτική. Παράλογη.
Τι είναι η επιδίωξη της καθαρότητας αν όχι κι άλλη ρυπαρότητα;....το στίγμα είναι αναπόφευκτο..."
Μέσα απο την ιστορία της Αμερικής γεννιέται το σύγχρονο μοντέλο ζωής.
Το "στίγμα",η κοινοτοπία του κακού, υπάρχει πριν την ύπαρξη της ανθρώπινης υπόστασης και διαιωνίζεται μέσα απο αυτή.
Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο,θα έλεγα το καλύτερο της Αμερικανικής τριλογίας.
ΤΡΑΓΙΚΗ ΕΙΡΩΝΙΑ σε όλο της το μεγαλείο.
Προσπάθεια κάθαρσης και πλήρους αυτομόλησης με τρομερές συνεπείες. Ο απάνθρωπος που προσπαθεί να αλλάξει το πεπρωμένο του χωρίς να μπορεί να υπολογίσει το αναπόδραστο της ιστορίας του κόσμου που εξελίσσεται.
Φαντάστηκε πως η φυγή του αν πετύχει θα κρατήσει για πάντα. Μετά διαπίστωσε τραγικά ρεαλιστικά πως τα πάντα έχουν πρόσκαιρο χαρακτήρα και η ιστορία καθώς και η μοίρα των εξελίξεων σε αιφνιδιάζουν ανεξέλεγκτα.
Ο καθηγητής Κόλμαν είναι ο άνθρωπος που πάλεψε με
την ιεροτελεστία της προσωπικής του κάθαρσης και νικήθηκε.
Ο Κόλμαν είναι ένας σπουδαίος καθηγητής κλασικών σπουδών καταφέρνει ως κοσμήτορας σε ένα παρηκμασμένο πανεπιστήμιο να αλλάξει άρδην την ποιότητα σπουδών,να βελτιώσει και να εκσυγχρονίσει με την δυναμική προσωπικότητα του όλο το ακαδημαϊκό σύστημα του ιδρύματος.
Βρίσκεται στο απόγειο της καταξίωσης του.
Άριστος οικογενειάρχης. Ευυπόληπτος πολίτης. Άψογος ακαδημαϊκός και ήρωας αρχαίας τραγωδίας.
Μια τραγωδία που σκηνοθέτησε ολομόναχος και αφού διέπραξε την ύβρη, περιμένει την κάθαρση χωρίς ίχνος μεταμέλειας ή θυσίας προς τους θεούς της μοίρας.
Αναπόφευκτα ακολουθεί η προσωπική νέμεση.
Την ιστορία του καθηγητή την μαθαίνουμε και πάλι απο τον συγγραφέα Νέιθαν Ζούκερμαν, ο οποίος αναπτύσσει φιλική σχέση με τον Κόλμαν και προσπαθεί να κατανοήσει την ιδιοσυγκρασία του καθηγητή και το μυστήριο του θανάτου του.
Γνωρίζονται πάνω στον παροξυσμό αγανάκτησης του καθηγητή αμέσως μετά το θάνατο της συζύγου του όπου και εισβάλει στη ζωή του -παραιτημένου απο όλα-Ζούκερμαν απαιτώντας απο τον συγγραφέα να γράψει βιβλίο στο οποίο θα αποκαλύπτει ποιοι σκότωσαν τη σύζυγο του ως ηθικοί αυτουργοί.
Ο Κόλμαν ανατρέπει την νεκρική προβλεψιμότητα της ζωής του Ζούκερμαν όταν του μιλάει για το παρελθόν του αλλά κυρίως για το πολύπαθο παρόν του.
Ο καθηγητής κατηγορείται ως ρατσιστής απο την πανεπιστημιακή κοινότητα ύστερα απο ενα διφορούμενο γλωσσικά σχόλιο που κάνει μέσα στην τάξη. Αναφέρεται σε δυο μονίμως απόντες μαθητές που δεν γνωρίζει καν πως είναι νέγροι αφού δεν τους έχει δει ποτέ.
Αναγκάζεται να παραιτηθεί και χάνοντας τη σύζυγο του χάνει τα πάντα. Ότιδηποτε έχτιζε χρόνια πάνω σε ψεύτικες βάσεις στήριξης.
Απο εκεί ξεκινάει η κάτω βόλτα. Αρχίζει ο πόλεμος των εντυπώσεων και ανατέμνονται βαθιές δομές της Αμερικανικής κοινωνίας που θίγουν την νεότερη ιστορία.
Ξεπροβάλλουν απροκάλυπτα οι φυλετικές διακρίσεις, τα δικαιώματα των νέγρων,ο πόλεμος του Βιετνάμ, ο πόλεμος του Ιράκ, το πέος του Κλίντον στο οβάλ γραφείο και η στροφή στο δήθεν συντηρητισμό.
Ο Κόλμαν εξομολογείται στον Ζούκερμαν ότι μετά το στιγματισμό του και τη διάλυση της οικογένειας του έχει συνάψει ερωτική σχέση με μια αναλφάβητη καθαρίστρια που ηλικιακά θα μπορούσε να είναι εγγονή του, η οποία είναι μια ακόμη τραγική φιγούρα σε αυτή την παράσταση της κάθαρσης.
Το μεγάλο μυστικό του όμως δεν το ομολογεί. Αυτό είναι η λύτρωση και ο θάνατος του.
Ο αξιότιμος καθηγητής Κόλμαν κατάγεται απο οικογένεια νέγρων. Είναι ένας ανοιχτόχρωμος νέγρος που μεγαλώνει βιώνοντας το ρατσισμό αφού τον κατατρέχει ο χαρακτηρισμός του "αράπη".
Αποφασίζει να ξαναγεννηθεί ως Εβραίος και να απαρνηθεί για πάντα μάνα, οικογένεια,καταγωγή,φυλή.
Αρνείται τη στιγματισμένη του γενιά και την κατώτερη νέγρικη κοινωνία των παιδικών του χρόνων. Κρατάει κρυφή την καταγωγή του ακόμη και απο τη σύζυγο και τα τέσσερα παιδιά του.
Και φτάνει σαράντα χρόνια μετά να αποβάλλεται απο μια αντιρατσιστική κοινωνία που υπερασπίζεται τα δικά του δικαιώματα. Στο τέρμα της ζωής του, η σύγχρονη ιστορία των ίσων δικαιωμάτων κατηγορεί τον νέγρο συνταξιούχο κοσμήτορα πανεπιστημίου για...ρατσιστή.
"Ποια η ιεροτελεστία της κάθαρσης;
Πως γίνεται;
Με εξοστρακισμό ή ανταποδίδοντας
το αίμα με αίμα".
Σοφοκλής,Οιδίπους τύραννος
Καλή ανάγνωση
Άνθρωποι και Άνθρωποι!!
Τι είναι η επιδίωξη της καθαρότητας αν όχι κι άλλη ρυπαρότητα;....το στίγμα είναι αναπόφευκτο..."
Μέσα απο την ιστορία της Αμερικής γεννιέται το σύγχρονο μοντέλο ζωής.
Το "στίγμα",η κοινοτοπία του κακού, υπάρχει πριν την ύπαρξη της ανθρώπινης υπόστασης και διαιωνίζεται μέσα απο αυτή.
Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο,θα έλεγα το καλύτερο της Αμερικανικής τριλογίας.
ΤΡΑΓΙΚΗ ΕΙΡΩΝΙΑ σε όλο της το μεγαλείο.
Προσπάθεια κάθαρσης και πλήρους αυτομόλησης με τρομερές συνεπείες. Ο απάνθρωπος που προσπαθεί να αλλάξει το πεπρωμένο του χωρίς να μπορεί να υπολογίσει το αναπόδραστο της ιστορίας του κόσμου που εξελίσσεται.
Φαντάστηκε πως η φυγή του αν πετύχει θα κρατήσει για πάντα. Μετά διαπίστωσε τραγικά ρεαλιστικά πως τα πάντα έχουν πρόσκαιρο χαρακτήρα και η ιστορία καθώς και η μοίρα των εξελίξεων σε αιφνιδιάζουν ανεξέλεγκτα.
Ο καθηγητής Κόλμαν είναι ο άνθρωπος που πάλεψε με
την ιεροτελεστία της προσωπικής του κάθαρσης και νικήθηκε.
Ο Κόλμαν είναι ένας σπουδαίος καθηγητής κλασικών σπουδών καταφέρνει ως κοσμήτορας σε ένα παρηκμασμένο πανεπιστήμιο να αλλάξει άρδην την ποιότητα σπουδών,να βελτιώσει και να εκσυγχρονίσει με την δυναμική προσωπικότητα του όλο το ακαδημαϊκό σύστημα του ιδρύματος.
Βρίσκεται στο απόγειο της καταξίωσης του.
Άριστος οικογενειάρχης. Ευυπόληπτος πολίτης. Άψογος ακαδημαϊκός και ήρωας αρχαίας τραγωδίας.
Μια τραγωδία που σκηνοθέτησε ολομόναχος και αφού διέπραξε την ύβρη, περιμένει την κάθαρση χωρίς ίχνος μεταμέλειας ή θυσίας προς τους θεούς της μοίρας.
Αναπόφευκτα ακολουθεί η προσωπική νέμεση.
Την ιστορία του καθηγητή την μαθαίνουμε και πάλι απο τον συγγραφέα Νέιθαν Ζούκερμαν, ο οποίος αναπτύσσει φιλική σχέση με τον Κόλμαν και προσπαθεί να κατανοήσει την ιδιοσυγκρασία του καθηγητή και το μυστήριο του θανάτου του.
Γνωρίζονται πάνω στον παροξυσμό αγανάκτησης του καθηγητή αμέσως μετά το θάνατο της συζύγου του όπου και εισβάλει στη ζωή του -παραιτημένου απο όλα-Ζούκερμαν απαιτώντας απο τον συγγραφέα να γράψει βιβλίο στο οποίο θα αποκαλύπτει ποιοι σκότωσαν τη σύζυγο του ως ηθικοί αυτουργοί.
Ο Κόλμαν ανατρέπει την νεκρική προβλεψιμότητα της ζωής του Ζούκερμαν όταν του μιλάει για το παρελθόν του αλλά κυρίως για το πολύπαθο παρόν του.
Ο καθηγητής κατηγορείται ως ρατσιστής απο την πανεπιστημιακή κοινότητα ύστερα απο ενα διφορούμενο γλωσσικά σχόλιο που κάνει μέσα στην τάξη. Αναφέρεται σε δυο μονίμως απόντες μαθητές που δεν γνωρίζει καν πως είναι νέγροι αφού δεν τους έχει δει ποτέ.
Αναγκάζεται να παραιτηθεί και χάνοντας τη σύζυγο του χάνει τα πάντα. Ότιδηποτε έχτιζε χρόνια πάνω σε ψεύτικες βάσεις στήριξης.
Απο εκεί ξεκινάει η κάτω βόλτα. Αρχίζει ο πόλεμος των εντυπώσεων και ανατέμνονται βαθιές δομές της Αμερικανικής κοινωνίας που θίγουν την νεότερη ιστορία.
Ξεπροβάλλουν απροκάλυπτα οι φυλετικές διακρίσεις, τα δικαιώματα των νέγρων,ο πόλεμος του Βιετνάμ, ο πόλεμος του Ιράκ, το πέος του Κλίντον στο οβάλ γραφείο και η στροφή στο δήθεν συντηρητισμό.
Ο Κόλμαν εξομολογείται στον Ζούκερμαν ότι μετά το στιγματισμό του και τη διάλυση της οικογένειας του έχει συνάψει ερωτική σχέση με μια αναλφάβητη καθαρίστρια που ηλικιακά θα μπορούσε να είναι εγγονή του, η οποία είναι μια ακόμη τραγική φιγούρα σε αυτή την παράσταση της κάθαρσης.
Το μεγάλο μυστικό του όμως δεν το ομολογεί. Αυτό είναι η λύτρωση και ο θάνατος του.
Ο αξιότιμος καθηγητής Κόλμαν κατάγεται απο οικογένεια νέγρων. Είναι ένας ανοιχτόχρωμος νέγρος που μεγαλώνει βιώνοντας το ρατσισμό αφού τον κατατρέχει ο χαρακτηρισμός του "αράπη".
Αποφασίζει να ξαναγεννηθεί ως Εβραίος και να απαρνηθεί για πάντα μάνα, οικογένεια,καταγωγή,φυλή.
Αρνείται τη στιγματισμένη του γενιά και την κατώτερη νέγρικη κοινωνία των παιδικών του χρόνων. Κρατάει κρυφή την καταγωγή του ακόμη και απο τη σύζυγο και τα τέσσερα παιδιά του.
Και φτάνει σαράντα χρόνια μετά να αποβάλλεται απο μια αντιρατσιστική κοινωνία που υπερασπίζεται τα δικά του δικαιώματα. Στο τέρμα της ζωής του, η σύγχρονη ιστορία των ίσων δικαιωμάτων κατηγορεί τον νέγρο συνταξιούχο κοσμήτορα πανεπιστημίου για...ρατσιστή.
"Ποια η ιεροτελεστία της κάθαρσης;
Πως γίνεται;
Με εξοστρακισμό ή ανταποδίδοντας
το αίμα με αίμα".
Σοφοκλής,Οιδίπους τύραννος
Καλή ανάγνωση
Άνθρωποι και Άνθρωποι!!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 3, 2007
Hey Roth, I know you have a great vocabulary...Just tell me a damn story.
Let me explain: I just read a very positive review of this book stating that Roth has such an expansive vocabulary, and every word seems painstakingly chosen, etc. That is exactly what I hate about this book! A narrative is supposed to flow, not make you resolve to study the dictionary more fastidiously.
For the record, I have a pretty good vocabulary and I thorouoghly enjoy creative uses of the English language. But I despise the use of overly academic, deliberately "highbrow" language when something simple would tell the story better. The problem is NOT that I didn't understand this book, it is that the plot just does not flow at all. I really dislike this book.
It looks as though this is a pretty unpopular opinion, but oh well.
Let me explain: I just read a very positive review of this book stating that Roth has such an expansive vocabulary, and every word seems painstakingly chosen, etc. That is exactly what I hate about this book! A narrative is supposed to flow, not make you resolve to study the dictionary more fastidiously.
For the record, I have a pretty good vocabulary and I thorouoghly enjoy creative uses of the English language. But I despise the use of overly academic, deliberately "highbrow" language when something simple would tell the story better. The problem is NOT that I didn't understand this book, it is that the plot just does not flow at all. I really dislike this book.
It looks as though this is a pretty unpopular opinion, but oh well.
October 7, 2022
How does one review a book such as this? I need to be careful not to give anything away.
The Human Stain by Philip Roth fascinated me – Roth drilled down into each character in such detail a less talented author would have been accused of ‘banging on’ too much. He moved around seamlessly between subjects and people, but the best for me, was the stream of surprises he threw in my face. Gosh moments.
This book is set in the mid to late ‘90s - America, the time when Billy Boy Clinton was engaging in vertical refreshments in The Oval Office – I still feel for Monica during that sordid episode - poor thing. Anyway, it was good to refresh one’s memory of the times – the great movie, American Beauty (when Spacey was still cool), Spice Girls (still cool – well Ginger is), post-Soviet Europe and the Internet was truly taking off – heady times indeed.
This is all about Coleman Silk, a Classics Academic, married, he has a handful of adult kids and is known as a leader in the academic community of Athena College in Massachusetts. However, recent events have seen him occupy less senior positions within the college. In fact, he is experiencing a downfall, a downfall in disgrace. He is close to retirement age – around seventy.
Anyway, Coleman is accused of using a racial slur when referring to some students. The veracity of this accusation is opaque to say the least, but either way – it has a profound impact in him and his reputation in the college and the community. This incident sparks a whole bunch of events that change his life, and the life of those around him forever.
Roth’s style reminded me somewhat of John Updike. Now, I’m not an expert on either writer, only read one work of the former and two of the latter – but to me, the resemblance is striking. So, if you stridently disagree – be gentle.
The characters in this book carry the day. They are complex and so, so human. I defy any reader not to identify with some (it will probably be many) character traits or references in this book. I certainly did.
So, we spend considerable time with Coleman (of course) and his parents, siblings, previous loves, and new ones. My word, his family was so real I almost picked up the phone. The author then dissects a fascinating woman called Faunia Farley, a janitor – supremely sexy and one of the most resilient, interesting, and attractive (I’m not focussing on just physical here) characters around. Then we get under the skin of Vietnam veteran Les Farley, oh my, what a soup of extremely messed-up viscera. We also meet Delphine Roux, the chic, intelligent, massively qualified but surprisingly insecure boss of Colemen Silk, in fact she occupies a position previously held by Colemen – a recipe for disaster, right? The interplay between Colemen and Delphine are brilliant – we have all seen the type of thing before.
My mind’s eye image of Delphine
Roth constructs each character with so much care, depth, and weight of history – I really did understand who they were. Oh my, I hope that makes sense – in other words, we all act in ways that are a product of our past, genetics and our environment (I believe) – and that’s the way it seems to be. Because, in a book like this we get to get inside each character in a very deep way, their behaviour makes sense. This even includes atrocious behaviour. We don’t need to like or support their actions, or the person – Roth arms us with the tools to understand. Well, that happened for me.
My mind’s eye image of Les Fearley
There is also the issue of how an institution of higher learning can groupthink in such a way as to ostracise a peer and orchestrate the downfall of a colleague based on such superficial, flimsy, evidence. I was surprised to witness a group of people act in a way one would expect from a bunch of adolescents. Perhaps this is what Colleges and Universities are like? – as is the case with many workplaces?
If you are still with me, Coleman harbours a massive secret It is worth waiting for.
This is a difficult review to write, there is no way one should spoil Roth’s traps and tricks. The depth of each character is such that a 500-word review cannot do any of them any justice. All I can say is if you haven’t read it – you must!!
5-Stars
ps. I was so vigorous with this paperback, as I reached the end, I had reduced the spine into a useless flaccid thing - and I was losing pages everywhere!! Caution to all potential readers :))
The Human Stain by Philip Roth fascinated me – Roth drilled down into each character in such detail a less talented author would have been accused of ‘banging on’ too much. He moved around seamlessly between subjects and people, but the best for me, was the stream of surprises he threw in my face. Gosh moments.
This book is set in the mid to late ‘90s - America, the time when Billy Boy Clinton was engaging in vertical refreshments in The Oval Office – I still feel for Monica during that sordid episode - poor thing. Anyway, it was good to refresh one’s memory of the times – the great movie, American Beauty (when Spacey was still cool), Spice Girls (still cool – well Ginger is), post-Soviet Europe and the Internet was truly taking off – heady times indeed.
This is all about Coleman Silk, a Classics Academic, married, he has a handful of adult kids and is known as a leader in the academic community of Athena College in Massachusetts. However, recent events have seen him occupy less senior positions within the college. In fact, he is experiencing a downfall, a downfall in disgrace. He is close to retirement age – around seventy.
Anyway, Coleman is accused of using a racial slur when referring to some students. The veracity of this accusation is opaque to say the least, but either way – it has a profound impact in him and his reputation in the college and the community. This incident sparks a whole bunch of events that change his life, and the life of those around him forever.
Roth’s style reminded me somewhat of John Updike. Now, I’m not an expert on either writer, only read one work of the former and two of the latter – but to me, the resemblance is striking. So, if you stridently disagree – be gentle.
The characters in this book carry the day. They are complex and so, so human. I defy any reader not to identify with some (it will probably be many) character traits or references in this book. I certainly did.
So, we spend considerable time with Coleman (of course) and his parents, siblings, previous loves, and new ones. My word, his family was so real I almost picked up the phone. The author then dissects a fascinating woman called Faunia Farley, a janitor – supremely sexy and one of the most resilient, interesting, and attractive (I’m not focussing on just physical here) characters around. Then we get under the skin of Vietnam veteran Les Farley, oh my, what a soup of extremely messed-up viscera. We also meet Delphine Roux, the chic, intelligent, massively qualified but surprisingly insecure boss of Colemen Silk, in fact she occupies a position previously held by Colemen – a recipe for disaster, right? The interplay between Colemen and Delphine are brilliant – we have all seen the type of thing before.
My mind’s eye image of Delphine
Roth constructs each character with so much care, depth, and weight of history – I really did understand who they were. Oh my, I hope that makes sense – in other words, we all act in ways that are a product of our past, genetics and our environment (I believe) – and that’s the way it seems to be. Because, in a book like this we get to get inside each character in a very deep way, their behaviour makes sense. This even includes atrocious behaviour. We don’t need to like or support their actions, or the person – Roth arms us with the tools to understand. Well, that happened for me.
My mind’s eye image of Les Fearley
There is also the issue of how an institution of higher learning can groupthink in such a way as to ostracise a peer and orchestrate the downfall of a colleague based on such superficial, flimsy, evidence. I was surprised to witness a group of people act in a way one would expect from a bunch of adolescents. Perhaps this is what Colleges and Universities are like? – as is the case with many workplaces?
If you are still with me, Coleman harbours a massive secret It is worth waiting for.
This is a difficult review to write, there is no way one should spoil Roth’s traps and tricks. The depth of each character is such that a 500-word review cannot do any of them any justice. All I can say is if you haven’t read it – you must!!
5-Stars
ps. I was so vigorous with this paperback, as I reached the end, I had reduced the spine into a useless flaccid thing - and I was losing pages everywhere!! Caution to all potential readers :))
August 11, 2015
Ho da pochi minuti terminato la lettura de “La macchia umana” di Philip Roth.
Ci sono quei libri che si insinuano all’interno del tuo consolidato nido di credenze, idee, saperi, pregiudizi, convinzioni - che hai fortificato con fatica e scrupolosa dedizione in vent’anni di scuola, vita familiare, cadute e ripartenze sentimentali - e sai già che non c’è più nulla da fare. Arrivano per scombussolare tutto, tocca ricostruire il castello di carta della tua identità da capo.
Sono libri alteri, sdegnosi. Non smetterai mai di consigliarli, di parlarne, di instaurare confronti e soprattutto li rileggerai. Probabilmente subito dopo averli terminati, li ricomincerai. Questo è il destino fortunato di libri come “La macchia umana”.
Il mio primo Roth. Considerato uno dei più grandi scrittori viventi, vittima felice del totoNobel praticamente ogni anno, scatenato, chiacchieratissimo Roth. Ho sempre nutrito un timore reverenziale (vi rassicuro: non c’è ragione) verso queste figure della letteratura. Acquistano un’aria familiare, il loro nome - dappertutto letto, dappertutto udito - diventa quasi una sagoma. Roth, in particolare, con le sue consonanti finali, due arroganti fricative dentali, me lo immagino sempre con una giacca di lana cotta, modello coloniale, con le sopracciglia aggrottate, propenso verso di me come un grosso rapace ma dallo sguardo ironico.
Si dia il caso che l’autore Roth sembri (e badate, sembrare è un verbo spietato) rassomigliare straordinariamente ai personaggi che raffigura. Vi avverto, prima di scrivere non ho cercato informazioni biografiche, né recensioni né alcun tipo di materiale a supporto di questa tesi. Semplicemente sembra così. Da lettrice, vedo che Coleman Silk è simile al suo artefice e l’autore si limita, come dire, a quest’opera di svelamento e occultamento continuo dello specchio. è così vicino, così vicino all’essenza del personaggio che dev’essere lui. Sappiamo che lo scrittore deve essere un abilissimo fingitore ma siccome io non credo ad un’abilità portentosa nel dissimulare che sia completamente disinteressata, devo pensare che il demone a cui risponde il signor Roth sia di natura personale. Non esiste che si vada così a fondo ad un personaggio senza che ci sia qualcosa di tuo. E tutta quella storia sulla necessità del testimone - perché il resoconto della faccenda qui ci viene fornito dallo scrittore Nathan Zuckerman - è una grossa panzana e qui si sta parlando di un meraviglioso alter ego. Anzi di due: Nathan Zuckerman, narratore degli eventi, e il coetaneo Coleman Silk, nella parte del povero viveur. La testimone unica è la scrittura. L’autore per proteggersi deve inventarsi delle maschere ma sappiamo tutti che razza di narcisi egocentrici siano, con noi non attacca.
D’altra parte, non credo che lavorando di fantasia il signor Roth sarebbe stato in grado di arrivare a tali vette di autenticità. Il protagonista dunque è una personalità formidabile e così il suo creatore. Ora possiamo addentrarci nel fitto della foresta nera.
Continua qui http://conamoreesquallore.blogspot.it...
Ci sono quei libri che si insinuano all’interno del tuo consolidato nido di credenze, idee, saperi, pregiudizi, convinzioni - che hai fortificato con fatica e scrupolosa dedizione in vent’anni di scuola, vita familiare, cadute e ripartenze sentimentali - e sai già che non c’è più nulla da fare. Arrivano per scombussolare tutto, tocca ricostruire il castello di carta della tua identità da capo.
Sono libri alteri, sdegnosi. Non smetterai mai di consigliarli, di parlarne, di instaurare confronti e soprattutto li rileggerai. Probabilmente subito dopo averli terminati, li ricomincerai. Questo è il destino fortunato di libri come “La macchia umana”.
Il mio primo Roth. Considerato uno dei più grandi scrittori viventi, vittima felice del totoNobel praticamente ogni anno, scatenato, chiacchieratissimo Roth. Ho sempre nutrito un timore reverenziale (vi rassicuro: non c’è ragione) verso queste figure della letteratura. Acquistano un’aria familiare, il loro nome - dappertutto letto, dappertutto udito - diventa quasi una sagoma. Roth, in particolare, con le sue consonanti finali, due arroganti fricative dentali, me lo immagino sempre con una giacca di lana cotta, modello coloniale, con le sopracciglia aggrottate, propenso verso di me come un grosso rapace ma dallo sguardo ironico.
Si dia il caso che l’autore Roth sembri (e badate, sembrare è un verbo spietato) rassomigliare straordinariamente ai personaggi che raffigura. Vi avverto, prima di scrivere non ho cercato informazioni biografiche, né recensioni né alcun tipo di materiale a supporto di questa tesi. Semplicemente sembra così. Da lettrice, vedo che Coleman Silk è simile al suo artefice e l’autore si limita, come dire, a quest’opera di svelamento e occultamento continuo dello specchio. è così vicino, così vicino all’essenza del personaggio che dev’essere lui. Sappiamo che lo scrittore deve essere un abilissimo fingitore ma siccome io non credo ad un’abilità portentosa nel dissimulare che sia completamente disinteressata, devo pensare che il demone a cui risponde il signor Roth sia di natura personale. Non esiste che si vada così a fondo ad un personaggio senza che ci sia qualcosa di tuo. E tutta quella storia sulla necessità del testimone - perché il resoconto della faccenda qui ci viene fornito dallo scrittore Nathan Zuckerman - è una grossa panzana e qui si sta parlando di un meraviglioso alter ego. Anzi di due: Nathan Zuckerman, narratore degli eventi, e il coetaneo Coleman Silk, nella parte del povero viveur. La testimone unica è la scrittura. L’autore per proteggersi deve inventarsi delle maschere ma sappiamo tutti che razza di narcisi egocentrici siano, con noi non attacca.
D’altra parte, non credo che lavorando di fantasia il signor Roth sarebbe stato in grado di arrivare a tali vette di autenticità. Il protagonista dunque è una personalità formidabile e così il suo creatore. Ora possiamo addentrarci nel fitto della foresta nera.
Continua qui http://conamoreesquallore.blogspot.it...
September 18, 2017
See, I was an enormous fan of the Tony Hopkins/ Nicky Kidman film already. But incredibly, that adapatation was just the tip of an iceburg so rich, complex & incredible that is Philip Roth's masterpiece "The Human Stain." The film fails oh-so miserably to fulfill at least 40% of the emotional clout (which is significant and HEAVVVY) famously attributed to this, a gargantuan beauty of a book.
It seems that this late in the year, the magic wand waved by Literature is (constantly and repeatedly) still dabbing this dreary moment of living history with its good work: I've read at least four sure MASTERPIECES this year. 2010: not so bad after all.
Roth meshes history with modern tragedy; parallels that* with the goings on of a disgraced college professor; the torrid love affair is placed in the backdrop; the national consciousness is the Theme, as is the sadness in people living (or pretending to live) in modern times. I fell in LOVE with this book (difficult, academic, and witty) for its dimension and its crisp flavor. All characters are worthy of at least a few tears for Roth has so faithfully captured how the country fucks people over (and over, & over) and how the price of freedom means the loss of something perhaps as equally important.
If the film is above average, then the novel, a modern Bovary-esque tale with so much personality and imbedded tragedy in it to make it worthy of a faithful readership for the decades that are to come, (so modern and CLASSIC it is!) is quite simply (no joke) FLAW-LESS.
* The Clinton/Lewinski scandal--all but forgotten (and perhaps its important to notice, too, that that disgrace, though not quite so far long ago, has been already buried under so many others...)
It seems that this late in the year, the magic wand waved by Literature is (constantly and repeatedly) still dabbing this dreary moment of living history with its good work: I've read at least four sure MASTERPIECES this year. 2010: not so bad after all.
Roth meshes history with modern tragedy; parallels that* with the goings on of a disgraced college professor; the torrid love affair is placed in the backdrop; the national consciousness is the Theme, as is the sadness in people living (or pretending to live) in modern times. I fell in LOVE with this book (difficult, academic, and witty) for its dimension and its crisp flavor. All characters are worthy of at least a few tears for Roth has so faithfully captured how the country fucks people over (and over, & over) and how the price of freedom means the loss of something perhaps as equally important.
If the film is above average, then the novel, a modern Bovary-esque tale with so much personality and imbedded tragedy in it to make it worthy of a faithful readership for the decades that are to come, (so modern and CLASSIC it is!) is quite simply (no joke) FLAW-LESS.
* The Clinton/Lewinski scandal--all but forgotten (and perhaps its important to notice, too, that that disgrace, though not quite so far long ago, has been already buried under so many others...)
July 13, 2024
I repost this because The New York Times has two of Philip Roth's (RIP) novels on their list of 100 best novels of the 21st century, at the one quarter-century mark: The Human Stain and The Plot Against America.
I read Roth’s Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy’s Complaint in college, and loved them. They were funny, especially in depicting the lusts and lives of young men, with literary flair. But I didn’t read him too often after that for no particular reason until relatively recently. Maybe it was something to do with my feeling tired of reading the same Roth main character, book after book, an aggressive male consumed by lust. But then I happened to read the non-fiction Patrimony, about his relationship with his father, and The Plot Against America, a dark fantasy about a possible past where we chose a fascist dictator--Charles Lindberg--in the thirties instead of FDR, and liked these books very much, so I thought maybe I'd take a closer look at his work again. So I have read several Roth novels now.
And now having completed his Nathan Zuckerman trilogy, beginning with the much-acknowledged masterpiece, American Pastoral, which I loved, and I Married a Communist, which I also came to like very much, I see the greatness of this trilogy, which like the Plot Against America, has to do with its attention to the sweep of twentieth-century American history, with some central social issues of each period examined in the context of often deeply flawed characters. It’s also about Roth’s use of language, at once visceral and muscular and startlingly honest in places, and more often than not lyrical at the same time. And talk. All the characters talk (and think like they're talking) in grand, sometimes manic, fashion. Epic verbal sparring and reflection.
The Human Stain took its time for me to warm up to, but grew on me, and then ended with me shouting hurrah as it concluded. It’s the story of three interlocking tragic stories: New England Athena College Classics professor and Dean Coleman Silk is forced out of his job at age 69 for supposed racist comments about two students; his 34-year-old girlfriend Faunia Farley whom he takes up with after his wife dies of complications from a stroke, and her ex, a PTSD-riddled Vietnam vet, each of them finally at least somewhat understandable if not completely sympathetic, but morally culpable and doomed by their own terrible mistakes. It’s primarily the story of Silk, and his secrets and lies, but especially of one central secret which led to terrible mistakes he made in the context of America’s racial past (and present). The legacies of racism and war and shame are at the heart of this book, how you can never really get free of them. You do some bad things and you pay and pay for them, no matter what good you may do.
The inciting impulse for the novel, set in 1998, (but only part of its motivation, finally) is the Clinton Impeachment trial, and on one level the book is an examination of all that sexual sanctimony through the lens of secrets and lies and the rest of us speculating about all public scandals as most of us typically do: Are they really "doing it"? What positions do they use?! Who's using whom? Should we impeach a guy for that?! We all watched what I and my friends thought then were ludicrous proceedings, the end of the sexual revolution being televised, with all these hypocrites pointing fingers at him so we wouldn't point at them.
“It was the summer in America when the nausea returned, when the joking didn't stop, when the speculation and the theorizing and the hyperbole didn't stop”—Roth on the Clinton impeachment trial, which became of national interest, but also on Silk’s affair with Faunia, which becomes a small town scandal that same summer. And at first this book reads like it is a gripe about cancel cutlure, until it becomes much more than that.
This book can make you uncomfortable. When Zuckerman and Silk joke crudely about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, it’s funny, but there are no filters here. No filters, either, when the damaged and abusive Farley threatens to explode about the “draft dodger” “slick Willie” getting off free when so many Vets died in the jungle so he could get what he got from more than just Monica Lewinsky. These are all deeply flawed, screwed-up people, but they are never uninteresting. The two men, Silk and Fawley, are driven by rage, by hatred, for what has happened to them (Silk is pushed out of his position on the faculty because of something he said that people mistakenly assume is racist, and during this period his wife has a stroke and dies, so he is enraged about all that; Fawley is angry and bitter about his experiences in Nam, but):
“The danger with hatred is, once you start in on it, you get a hundred times more than you bargained for. Once you start, you can't stop”—Roth
This book is not just about "gossip" about who's doing what to whom, sexually, though. It's also about racial secrets. Does that white guy look a little bit black? Could he be "passing" for white? If so, what are we going to do about that??! Because we need these classifications for some reason, it seems. And what if you were "technically black," but looked white; would you choose to say you were black to be true to that legacy or would you say you were white so you could more easily achieve "the American Dream"? You read this novel in part about race through the lens of an Obama birther story, the light-skinned Kamala Harris, the Native American controversy around Elizabeth Warren, and so on. The continuing national obsession with race and color.
When I was done I thought that Zuckerman is to Silk as Nick Carraway is to Gatsby, albeit a cruder, more visceral Nick/Gatsby combo. Here Zuckerman speaks of what he imagines to be Silk’s goal: “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.” Sounds a little like Gatsby, right?
The stories we read of Silk and Faunia and Fawley are stories told by writer Zuckerman, so we (meta-fictionally) reflect through the telling on the way any novelist’s imagination can work its magic. But Zuckerman makes it clear that neither the novelist nor any of his readers, when we are done with this story, will have any really deep insights into human nature beyond this:
“There is truth and then again there is truth. For all that the world is full of people who go around believing they've got you or your neighbor figured out, there really is no bottom to what is not known. The truth about us is endless. As are the lies”—Roth
Zuckerman and Roth as novelists are not preachers, they are not social scientists; they only have their imaginations, and hunches; they can describe these fascinating, screwed-up people, and they can hypothesize, but they make it clear we’re all unknowable at some deep level. Even when he finds out all he can know to inform his telling of Silk’s story, the novel he writes, The Human Stain, Zuckerman says:
“Now that I know everything, it was though I knew nothing”—Roth
We look at others, we look at the world, and what we are left with is mystery, or a set of them, but a sense, too, of being highly entertained, having achieved a level of intensity that equals any of the other great Roth novels. I highly recommend this book. You don’t need to need to have read the first two to read this one, but the whole trilogy is great if you want to put it on your tbr list!
I read Roth’s Goodbye, Columbus and Portnoy’s Complaint in college, and loved them. They were funny, especially in depicting the lusts and lives of young men, with literary flair. But I didn’t read him too often after that for no particular reason until relatively recently. Maybe it was something to do with my feeling tired of reading the same Roth main character, book after book, an aggressive male consumed by lust. But then I happened to read the non-fiction Patrimony, about his relationship with his father, and The Plot Against America, a dark fantasy about a possible past where we chose a fascist dictator--Charles Lindberg--in the thirties instead of FDR, and liked these books very much, so I thought maybe I'd take a closer look at his work again. So I have read several Roth novels now.
And now having completed his Nathan Zuckerman trilogy, beginning with the much-acknowledged masterpiece, American Pastoral, which I loved, and I Married a Communist, which I also came to like very much, I see the greatness of this trilogy, which like the Plot Against America, has to do with its attention to the sweep of twentieth-century American history, with some central social issues of each period examined in the context of often deeply flawed characters. It’s also about Roth’s use of language, at once visceral and muscular and startlingly honest in places, and more often than not lyrical at the same time. And talk. All the characters talk (and think like they're talking) in grand, sometimes manic, fashion. Epic verbal sparring and reflection.
The Human Stain took its time for me to warm up to, but grew on me, and then ended with me shouting hurrah as it concluded. It’s the story of three interlocking tragic stories: New England Athena College Classics professor and Dean Coleman Silk is forced out of his job at age 69 for supposed racist comments about two students; his 34-year-old girlfriend Faunia Farley whom he takes up with after his wife dies of complications from a stroke, and her ex, a PTSD-riddled Vietnam vet, each of them finally at least somewhat understandable if not completely sympathetic, but morally culpable and doomed by their own terrible mistakes. It’s primarily the story of Silk, and his secrets and lies, but especially of one central secret which led to terrible mistakes he made in the context of America’s racial past (and present). The legacies of racism and war and shame are at the heart of this book, how you can never really get free of them. You do some bad things and you pay and pay for them, no matter what good you may do.
The inciting impulse for the novel, set in 1998, (but only part of its motivation, finally) is the Clinton Impeachment trial, and on one level the book is an examination of all that sexual sanctimony through the lens of secrets and lies and the rest of us speculating about all public scandals as most of us typically do: Are they really "doing it"? What positions do they use?! Who's using whom? Should we impeach a guy for that?! We all watched what I and my friends thought then were ludicrous proceedings, the end of the sexual revolution being televised, with all these hypocrites pointing fingers at him so we wouldn't point at them.
“It was the summer in America when the nausea returned, when the joking didn't stop, when the speculation and the theorizing and the hyperbole didn't stop”—Roth on the Clinton impeachment trial, which became of national interest, but also on Silk’s affair with Faunia, which becomes a small town scandal that same summer. And at first this book reads like it is a gripe about cancel cutlure, until it becomes much more than that.
This book can make you uncomfortable. When Zuckerman and Silk joke crudely about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, it’s funny, but there are no filters here. No filters, either, when the damaged and abusive Farley threatens to explode about the “draft dodger” “slick Willie” getting off free when so many Vets died in the jungle so he could get what he got from more than just Monica Lewinsky. These are all deeply flawed, screwed-up people, but they are never uninteresting. The two men, Silk and Fawley, are driven by rage, by hatred, for what has happened to them (Silk is pushed out of his position on the faculty because of something he said that people mistakenly assume is racist, and during this period his wife has a stroke and dies, so he is enraged about all that; Fawley is angry and bitter about his experiences in Nam, but):
“The danger with hatred is, once you start in on it, you get a hundred times more than you bargained for. Once you start, you can't stop”—Roth
This book is not just about "gossip" about who's doing what to whom, sexually, though. It's also about racial secrets. Does that white guy look a little bit black? Could he be "passing" for white? If so, what are we going to do about that??! Because we need these classifications for some reason, it seems. And what if you were "technically black," but looked white; would you choose to say you were black to be true to that legacy or would you say you were white so you could more easily achieve "the American Dream"? You read this novel in part about race through the lens of an Obama birther story, the light-skinned Kamala Harris, the Native American controversy around Elizabeth Warren, and so on. The continuing national obsession with race and color.
When I was done I thought that Zuckerman is to Silk as Nick Carraway is to Gatsby, albeit a cruder, more visceral Nick/Gatsby combo. Here Zuckerman speaks of what he imagines to be Silk’s goal: “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.” Sounds a little like Gatsby, right?
The stories we read of Silk and Faunia and Fawley are stories told by writer Zuckerman, so we (meta-fictionally) reflect through the telling on the way any novelist’s imagination can work its magic. But Zuckerman makes it clear that neither the novelist nor any of his readers, when we are done with this story, will have any really deep insights into human nature beyond this:
“There is truth and then again there is truth. For all that the world is full of people who go around believing they've got you or your neighbor figured out, there really is no bottom to what is not known. The truth about us is endless. As are the lies”—Roth
Zuckerman and Roth as novelists are not preachers, they are not social scientists; they only have their imaginations, and hunches; they can describe these fascinating, screwed-up people, and they can hypothesize, but they make it clear we’re all unknowable at some deep level. Even when he finds out all he can know to inform his telling of Silk’s story, the novel he writes, The Human Stain, Zuckerman says:
“Now that I know everything, it was though I knew nothing”—Roth
We look at others, we look at the world, and what we are left with is mystery, or a set of them, but a sense, too, of being highly entertained, having achieved a level of intensity that equals any of the other great Roth novels. I highly recommend this book. You don’t need to need to have read the first two to read this one, but the whole trilogy is great if you want to put it on your tbr list!
November 21, 2020
The author sums it up perfectly on page 81
"You area a verbal master of extroadinary loquatiousness[P. Roth]. So Perspicatios. So fluent. A vocal master of the endless, ostentatious overelaborate sentence."
Yup.
This book is the Jackson Pollock of our literary time. Just spatter everything all over the page and call it art. Roth goes on and on by using every single adjective he ever learned in his SAT class, in a row, then completely counters every argument he just made, so he can use all the opposite words he knows. ITs OBNOXIOUS. I've read reviews about how each word seems painstakingly chosen. Its painful alright, for the reader. I don't think the author made any choices. TO choose the implies you would select one word or phrase to the exclusion of another. He uses ALL OF THEM.
This guy is the master of the tripple negative (You are not so unshrewed as not to know it.. p195) but not quite as good at it as he is at using ellipses, dashes and commas to create an entire page of run on sentence that is, none the less, gramatically correct, and here the real skill- its also pointless. He makes Melville seem to the point and full of rich coloqiolism and contemporary dialect.
he goes on for a full page to discuss a scene he has already earlier described about milking cows, he uses every verb and adjective that can even be remotely related to a cow, then proceeds to contradict himself (as he does often) just to put in more words, negate the meaning of the word immidiately preceeding it then relate it to sex and subjugation.
".. the human and bovine, the highly differentiated and the all but undifferentiated, to live, not merely to endure, but to live, to go on taking, feeding, milking, acknowleging wholeharetedly, the enigma that it is, the pointless meaningfulness of living- all was recorded as real by tens of thousands of minute impressions. The sensory fullness, the copiousness, the abundant- superabundant-detail of life which is the rhapsody"
BULLSHIT. Pointless meaninfullness? Full, copious, abundant,and then we needed superabundant- as if his point in unclear? Well his point is unclear. This is the rhapsody? What rhapsody? I dont know if he's trying to show off, or insult me, like I dont know what the first three mean, or maybe I have to read it three, oh, wait, no 4 times to get the point. What is this? a 9th grad vocab test? You're kidding, right?
how about this crap:
"Stunned by how little he'd gotten over her and she'd gotten over him, he walked away understanding, as outside his reading in classical Greek drama he'd never had to understand before, how easily a life can be one thing rather than another and how accidentally a destiny is made... on the other hand, how accidental fate may seem when things can never turn out other than they do. That is, he walked away understanding nothing, knowing he could understand nothing, though with the illusion that he WOULD have metaphysically understood somthing of emormous importance about the stubborn determination of his to become his own man... if only such things were understandable."
I'm pretty sure in this case the author meant to convey the character's confusion- but I'm too confused to say for sure. Did you watch? Because that's a SINGLE SENTENCE that took me forever to copy from the book, letter for letter.
The author is so obnoxios, he regularly references characters from Euripides by name only - do you know anyone familiar with the characters of Euripides ancient greek plays? How about Aschenback and Tadzio? Herodotus? How about some general concepts. Most people know ethos, pathos, logos, but how about"The difference between diegesis and mimesis?" He seems to be trying to satorize his characters in the book, to make them seem obnoxious, overeducated and socially innept, secretly insecure which requires they blather on dropping names and fancy words. It works, except that its not just one or two characters. He does it constantly himself- in the authors own narration- as if his point wasnt already so obfuscated you have to go back through 2 pages, six dashes, a dozen commas, a hanful of ellipses to find where the sentence begins and remember what he was talking about.
"You area a verbal master of extroadinary loquatiousness[P. Roth]. So Perspicatios. So fluent. A vocal master of the endless, ostentatious overelaborate sentence."
Yup.
This book is the Jackson Pollock of our literary time. Just spatter everything all over the page and call it art. Roth goes on and on by using every single adjective he ever learned in his SAT class, in a row, then completely counters every argument he just made, so he can use all the opposite words he knows. ITs OBNOXIOUS. I've read reviews about how each word seems painstakingly chosen. Its painful alright, for the reader. I don't think the author made any choices. TO choose the implies you would select one word or phrase to the exclusion of another. He uses ALL OF THEM.
This guy is the master of the tripple negative (You are not so unshrewed as not to know it.. p195) but not quite as good at it as he is at using ellipses, dashes and commas to create an entire page of run on sentence that is, none the less, gramatically correct, and here the real skill- its also pointless. He makes Melville seem to the point and full of rich coloqiolism and contemporary dialect.
he goes on for a full page to discuss a scene he has already earlier described about milking cows, he uses every verb and adjective that can even be remotely related to a cow, then proceeds to contradict himself (as he does often) just to put in more words, negate the meaning of the word immidiately preceeding it then relate it to sex and subjugation.
".. the human and bovine, the highly differentiated and the all but undifferentiated, to live, not merely to endure, but to live, to go on taking, feeding, milking, acknowleging wholeharetedly, the enigma that it is, the pointless meaningfulness of living- all was recorded as real by tens of thousands of minute impressions. The sensory fullness, the copiousness, the abundant- superabundant-detail of life which is the rhapsody"
BULLSHIT. Pointless meaninfullness? Full, copious, abundant,and then we needed superabundant- as if his point in unclear? Well his point is unclear. This is the rhapsody? What rhapsody? I dont know if he's trying to show off, or insult me, like I dont know what the first three mean, or maybe I have to read it three, oh, wait, no 4 times to get the point. What is this? a 9th grad vocab test? You're kidding, right?
how about this crap:
"Stunned by how little he'd gotten over her and she'd gotten over him, he walked away understanding, as outside his reading in classical Greek drama he'd never had to understand before, how easily a life can be one thing rather than another and how accidentally a destiny is made... on the other hand, how accidental fate may seem when things can never turn out other than they do. That is, he walked away understanding nothing, knowing he could understand nothing, though with the illusion that he WOULD have metaphysically understood somthing of emormous importance about the stubborn determination of his to become his own man... if only such things were understandable."
I'm pretty sure in this case the author meant to convey the character's confusion- but I'm too confused to say for sure. Did you watch? Because that's a SINGLE SENTENCE that took me forever to copy from the book, letter for letter.
The author is so obnoxios, he regularly references characters from Euripides by name only - do you know anyone familiar with the characters of Euripides ancient greek plays? How about Aschenback and Tadzio? Herodotus? How about some general concepts. Most people know ethos, pathos, logos, but how about"The difference between diegesis and mimesis?" He seems to be trying to satorize his characters in the book, to make them seem obnoxious, overeducated and socially innept, secretly insecure which requires they blather on dropping names and fancy words. It works, except that its not just one or two characters. He does it constantly himself- in the authors own narration- as if his point wasnt already so obfuscated you have to go back through 2 pages, six dashes, a dozen commas, a hanful of ellipses to find where the sentence begins and remember what he was talking about.
February 14, 2022
3.5 stars. Agreed, there are some things about reading Philip Roth that are really irritating: his sometimes excessive wordiness, his fixation on elder men who are obsessed with sex (whether or not prostate-related), his storylines that are regularly interrupted by the introduction of new characters with extensive biographical backgrounds, etc. But - after having read 4 works of Roth - I have to confess I'm really getting under his spell. I'm especially impressed by how deep Roth can plunge into the soul of a character, and how he illustrates the human inability to really know how things are, or how it is impossible to really know another, even very close person. And what always returns: his main characters again and again deceive themselves, more than they do others; they all build their lives on deliberate or unconscious lies or faulty obsessions. Roth is a real late-twentieth-century Balzac, put in a very typical eastern-coast, jewish context.
In 'The Human Stain' all these typical ingredients are included, both the annoying and the impressive ones. I'm not going to start a synopsis, because then I have to give away the plot. Let me merely state that the main character is a man, Coleman Silk, who breaks with his past and completely builds his own identity based on a big secret, but he also goes down because of that secret. This sounds like a Greek tragedy, and that is no coincidence: the protagonist is a professor of classical languages.
Along the way Roth gives ample examples of his stylistic and psychological mastership. Just one take (page 335): "The man who decides to forge a distinct historical destiny, who sets out to spring the historical lock, and who does so, brilliantly succeeds at altering his personal lot, only to be ensnared by the history he hadn’t quite counted on: the history that isn’t yet history, the history that the clock is now ticking off, the history proliferating as I write, accruing a minute at a time and grasped better by the future than it will ever be by us. The we that is inescapable: the present moment, the common lot, the current mood, the mind of one’s country, the stranglehold of history that is one’s own time. Blindsided by the terrifyingly provisional nature of everything." Now, can anyone grasp reality better than this?
Furthermore, in this book there are a few really enticing female characters (Steena, Faunia) that markedly adjust Roth's reputation as a portraitist of stubborn elder men. And I do agree, the story sometimes falters; master works like American Pastoral and the unruly Sabbath's Theater were much more homogeneous than this one. But despite all the critical remarks one can make, I think I'm finally going to rank Roth among my favorite authors.
In 'The Human Stain' all these typical ingredients are included, both the annoying and the impressive ones. I'm not going to start a synopsis, because then I have to give away the plot. Let me merely state that the main character is a man, Coleman Silk, who breaks with his past and completely builds his own identity based on a big secret, but he also goes down because of that secret. This sounds like a Greek tragedy, and that is no coincidence: the protagonist is a professor of classical languages.
Along the way Roth gives ample examples of his stylistic and psychological mastership. Just one take (page 335): "The man who decides to forge a distinct historical destiny, who sets out to spring the historical lock, and who does so, brilliantly succeeds at altering his personal lot, only to be ensnared by the history he hadn’t quite counted on: the history that isn’t yet history, the history that the clock is now ticking off, the history proliferating as I write, accruing a minute at a time and grasped better by the future than it will ever be by us. The we that is inescapable: the present moment, the common lot, the current mood, the mind of one’s country, the stranglehold of history that is one’s own time. Blindsided by the terrifyingly provisional nature of everything." Now, can anyone grasp reality better than this?
Furthermore, in this book there are a few really enticing female characters (Steena, Faunia) that markedly adjust Roth's reputation as a portraitist of stubborn elder men. And I do agree, the story sometimes falters; master works like American Pastoral and the unruly Sabbath's Theater were much more homogeneous than this one. But despite all the critical remarks one can make, I think I'm finally going to rank Roth among my favorite authors.
May 24, 2018
Shaming Censors of Academic Speech: A Pox on the PC Police
My favorite Roth novel. I will miss the lusty old tale-hound.
“I'm very depressed how in this country you can be told 'That's offensive' as though those two words constitute an argument.” Christopher Hitchens
Coleman Silk, a professor of classics at a local esteemed college, has been accused of racism by two African American students in one of his classes, after he notices upon calling roll that these two enrolled students never attend his class, and mumbles : "Do they exist or are they spooks?"
Roth brilliantly uses the most ambiguous of words due to its several legitimate meanings compared to the one meaning racially derogatory to African Americans. Wikipedia's most comprehensive definition indicates the term's many meanings, a few of which fit the context of the professor's statement, only one of which is the racially offensive, pejorative use. The primary other use which appears to fit the context unless some evidence of a racial animus could be shown is of an apparition who is present but cannot be seen. This latter meaning is in fact its primary English meaning since its etymology revolves around various references to "ghost" or "apparition": cognate Dutch spook (“ghost"), Middle Dutch spooc (“spook, ghost"); liken German Spuk (“ghost, apparition"), Middle Low German spok (“spook"), and Norwegian spjok (“ghost, specter").
Silk says he used the word "spook" to sarcastically imply the "possibility" that the students might be attending as ghosts or spirits. That, since they did not attend class and he didn't know who they were, he could not even know their race.
I won't get too sidetracked on "political correctness" run amok in this country, particularly in academia, and misused as a tool amounting to censorship, but I'll footnote excellent, reasoned quotes from a nonfiction book about the cultural revolution changing this country since the 1960s as well as two late iconoclastic hyper-intellectuals: David Foster Wallace and Christopher Hitchens.**
The narrator is Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Roth based the novel on an incident involving his friend, a professor at Princeton University. Silk resigns his post in anger and raises the stakes (and ire of campus feminists) when he starts dating an illiterate, but intelligent, female custodian who's about 30 years younger than he is (she's 34). She has a former lover who has serious "issues" arising from his stint in Vietnam.
The piercing irony is in Silk's disclosure that he is an African American who's been "passing" as Jewish and white since he served in the Navy. He married a white woman and had 4 children with her. His wife recently died and he never told her or the children of his/their ancestry. Silk decided to "take the future into his own hands rather than to leave it to an unenlightened society to determine his fate." Zuckerman frames novel and retells the back story in flashbacks as conveyed to him by Silk.
Against a present backdrop of the 1998 Oval Office Orgasm Scandal of former President Bill Clinton, Roth develops what I believe is his best novel, one raising trusty old questions of identity and self-invention, i.e., questions of whether one can change the past (Gatsby) or whether the past is ever even past (Faulkner in Requiem for a Nun). Two passages on these issues that I considered especially poignant were:
____________________________________
**Footnote on Political Correctness
From Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America:
“As with most revolutions, the counterculture's call for total freedom quickly turned into a demand for total control. The phenomenon of 'political correctness', with its speech codes and other efforts to enforce ideological conformity, was one predictable result of this transformation. What began at the University of California at Berkeley with the Free Speech Movement (called by some the 'Filthy Speech Movement'} soon degenerated into an effort to abridge freedom by dictating what could and could not be said about any number of politically sensitive issues.”
From David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays:
“There's a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect of progressive reform but is in fact--in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself--of vast[ ] ... help to conservatives and the US status quo.... Were I, for instance, a political conservative who opposed using taxation as a means of redistributing national wealth, I would be delighted to watch PC progressives spend their time and energy arguing over whether a poor person should be described as "low-income" or "economically disadvantaged" or "pre-prosperous" rather than constructing effective public arguments for redistributive legislation or higher marginal tax rates. [...] In other words, PCE acts as a form of censorship, and censorship always serves the status quo.”
My favorite Roth novel. I will miss the lusty old tale-hound.
“I'm very depressed how in this country you can be told 'That's offensive' as though those two words constitute an argument.” Christopher Hitchens
Coleman Silk, a professor of classics at a local esteemed college, has been accused of racism by two African American students in one of his classes, after he notices upon calling roll that these two enrolled students never attend his class, and mumbles : "Do they exist or are they spooks?"
Roth brilliantly uses the most ambiguous of words due to its several legitimate meanings compared to the one meaning racially derogatory to African Americans. Wikipedia's most comprehensive definition indicates the term's many meanings, a few of which fit the context of the professor's statement, only one of which is the racially offensive, pejorative use. The primary other use which appears to fit the context unless some evidence of a racial animus could be shown is of an apparition who is present but cannot be seen. This latter meaning is in fact its primary English meaning since its etymology revolves around various references to "ghost" or "apparition": cognate Dutch spook (“ghost"), Middle Dutch spooc (“spook, ghost"); liken German Spuk (“ghost, apparition"), Middle Low German spok (“spook"), and Norwegian spjok (“ghost, specter").
Silk says he used the word "spook" to sarcastically imply the "possibility" that the students might be attending as ghosts or spirits. That, since they did not attend class and he didn't know who they were, he could not even know their race.
I won't get too sidetracked on "political correctness" run amok in this country, particularly in academia, and misused as a tool amounting to censorship, but I'll footnote excellent, reasoned quotes from a nonfiction book about the cultural revolution changing this country since the 1960s as well as two late iconoclastic hyper-intellectuals: David Foster Wallace and Christopher Hitchens.**
The narrator is Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Roth based the novel on an incident involving his friend, a professor at Princeton University. Silk resigns his post in anger and raises the stakes (and ire of campus feminists) when he starts dating an illiterate, but intelligent, female custodian who's about 30 years younger than he is (she's 34). She has a former lover who has serious "issues" arising from his stint in Vietnam.
The piercing irony is in Silk's disclosure that he is an African American who's been "passing" as Jewish and white since he served in the Navy. He married a white woman and had 4 children with her. His wife recently died and he never told her or the children of his/their ancestry. Silk decided to "take the future into his own hands rather than to leave it to an unenlightened society to determine his fate." Zuckerman frames novel and retells the back story in flashbacks as conveyed to him by Silk.
Against a present backdrop of the 1998 Oval Office Orgasm Scandal of former President Bill Clinton, Roth develops what I believe is his best novel, one raising trusty old questions of identity and self-invention, i.e., questions of whether one can change the past (Gatsby) or whether the past is ever even past (Faulkner in Requiem for a Nun). Two passages on these issues that I considered especially poignant were:
“There is truth and then again there is truth. For all that the world is full of people who go around believing they've got you or your neighbor figured out, there really is no bottom to what is not known. The truth about us is endless. As are the lies.”
“I couldn't imagine anything that could have made Coleman more of a mystery to me than this unmasking. Now that I knew everything, it was as though I knew nothing.”
____________________________________
**Footnote on Political Correctness
From Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America:
“As with most revolutions, the counterculture's call for total freedom quickly turned into a demand for total control. The phenomenon of 'political correctness', with its speech codes and other efforts to enforce ideological conformity, was one predictable result of this transformation. What began at the University of California at Berkeley with the Free Speech Movement (called by some the 'Filthy Speech Movement'} soon degenerated into an effort to abridge freedom by dictating what could and could not be said about any number of politically sensitive issues.”
From David Foster Wallace, Consider the Lobster and Other Essays:
“There's a grosser irony about Politically Correct English. This is that PCE purports to be the dialect of progressive reform but is in fact--in its Orwellian substitution of the euphemisms of social equality for social equality itself--of vast[ ] ... help to conservatives and the US status quo.... Were I, for instance, a political conservative who opposed using taxation as a means of redistributing national wealth, I would be delighted to watch PC progressives spend their time and energy arguing over whether a poor person should be described as "low-income" or "economically disadvantaged" or "pre-prosperous" rather than constructing effective public arguments for redistributive legislation or higher marginal tax rates. [...] In other words, PCE acts as a form of censorship, and censorship always serves the status quo.”
July 27, 2025
Here it is, another book to add to my special collection of "Dick Lit".
Because undeniably, this IS Dick Lit.
It's been a while since I read Philip Roth. I'd read five of his novels before this one, and even though Roth has the habit of annoying the crap out of me (whilst somehow keeping me in awe of his brain) I knew I would end up coming back and reading The Human Stain.
*small side note, my teenage daughter snickered at how dirty the title sounds, and I had to laugh because I too snickered, many years ago, for the same reason. And now I snicker again because... it IS dirty!
Dirty, because in the first 40 pages, you realize how heavily penis-laden this book is. It might be described as a companion piece to J.G. Ballard's Crash, which before now struck me as the most penis-y book I'd ever read. Penises tenting pants everywhere you look, penises that rest on the steering wheels of cars. Penises, penises, everywhere!
Sorry if I'm getting a little carried away. I'll try my best to stay on task. As I was saying, in the first 40 pages, we learn that the protagonist, Coleman Silk, a 71 year old disgraced classics professor and dean, with the help of Viagra, is having an affair with an illiterate woman less than half his age. A woman who was sexually abused, but yet is a dynamo in the sack (which, Coleman Silk muses, might be "a gift of the molestation"). On the heels of that sickening revelation, we then learn that narrator Nathan Zuckerman (who readers will know from American Pastoral and I Married a Communist), thanks to prostate cancer, pees himself on the regular, and is impotent.
Whew. Thank goodness. The state of the penises has been established. And the attitude is also established. Zuckerman admires Bill Clinton, who is President during the time in which this story takes place, and with some warmth, observes how "human" Clinton is, and that the whole country at this time was thinking about their president's... well, you know. Do I have to say it again?
For god's sake, Philip Roth. I can barely see your ferocious intellect past the collection of phalli on display here. Do I want to read on? Do I care about a protagonist as repulsive as this one?
Well, I did read on. I got a break from penises, sometimes in the form of 6-page paragraphs. Roth's form is demanding. There's a text density and a bombastic energy there. It's all Zuckerman's narration about his friend Coleman Silk, so it's in summary, which, if you read my reviews, you'll know is not my favourite way of consuming a story. I also found myself questioning the narrative voice. How does Zuckerman know what Silk's lawyer said to said lawyer's wife, in private conversation? How does Zuckerman know intimate sex details and thoughts belonging to Silk or his lover. These are things he couldn't possibly know. So is he making those things up? Are we supposed to just accept his clairvoyance? Or, with amusement and deference, take it as some cunning piece of meta?
The book is about race, and racism, and there are great bits of writing (it can be thrilling to be in Philip Roth's pages - he's a thing, he had a genius, he was brilliant, this is not something I could possibly deny, he's a celebrity in the literary world and I'm glad he exists). But this also has some serious penis obsession and toxic masculinity going on here, and for so many reasons is, to my sensibility, incredibly problematic.
A conversation that goes on for pages, for example, about how if Clinton had only fucked Lewinsky (that conniving bitch, that 22 year old intern in a room with the most powerful man in the world at the time) up the ass, then she would have just kept her mouth shut. That Clinton's "niceness" did him in. WOW.
And, the repeated comparison of Silk with Aschenbach, the aging character from Thomas Mann's classic Death In Venice, a character who grips onto life by inappropriately obsessing over a beautiful young boy, is to me, a weak attempt on Roth's part to give some kind of literary grandeur to Silk's relationship with his abused young thing who cannot read.
The racial themes (of shame and self-loathing) barely touched me because I was continually gobsmacked over the rampant sexist bullshit that I ran into, again and again. What a shame.
I think now with half a dozen of his books under my belt, I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence, that's it for me and Roth. I adore his Goodbye, Columbus and wish he'd written more like that over his long and prolific career. If he had, I would have read every last thing.
I've said way too much, this review is way too long, obnoxiously rambling and opinionated (I think Roth has had an effect on me). I found a review that was far more succinct on here, and the reviewer did a much better job of saying everything quickly, and summing up my reading experience, so here it is:
Every once in a while I would get lost in the sentences and start to enjoy this. And then a few sentences later (so an entire page), Roth would start talking about a woman again, and I would stop enjoying it.
Because undeniably, this IS Dick Lit.
It's been a while since I read Philip Roth. I'd read five of his novels before this one, and even though Roth has the habit of annoying the crap out of me (whilst somehow keeping me in awe of his brain) I knew I would end up coming back and reading The Human Stain.
*small side note, my teenage daughter snickered at how dirty the title sounds, and I had to laugh because I too snickered, many years ago, for the same reason. And now I snicker again because... it IS dirty!
Dirty, because in the first 40 pages, you realize how heavily penis-laden this book is. It might be described as a companion piece to J.G. Ballard's Crash, which before now struck me as the most penis-y book I'd ever read. Penises tenting pants everywhere you look, penises that rest on the steering wheels of cars. Penises, penises, everywhere!
Sorry if I'm getting a little carried away. I'll try my best to stay on task. As I was saying, in the first 40 pages, we learn that the protagonist, Coleman Silk, a 71 year old disgraced classics professor and dean, with the help of Viagra, is having an affair with an illiterate woman less than half his age. A woman who was sexually abused, but yet is a dynamo in the sack (which, Coleman Silk muses, might be "a gift of the molestation"). On the heels of that sickening revelation, we then learn that narrator Nathan Zuckerman (who readers will know from American Pastoral and I Married a Communist), thanks to prostate cancer, pees himself on the regular, and is impotent.
Whew. Thank goodness. The state of the penises has been established. And the attitude is also established. Zuckerman admires Bill Clinton, who is President during the time in which this story takes place, and with some warmth, observes how "human" Clinton is, and that the whole country at this time was thinking about their president's... well, you know. Do I have to say it again?
For god's sake, Philip Roth. I can barely see your ferocious intellect past the collection of phalli on display here. Do I want to read on? Do I care about a protagonist as repulsive as this one?
Well, I did read on. I got a break from penises, sometimes in the form of 6-page paragraphs. Roth's form is demanding. There's a text density and a bombastic energy there. It's all Zuckerman's narration about his friend Coleman Silk, so it's in summary, which, if you read my reviews, you'll know is not my favourite way of consuming a story. I also found myself questioning the narrative voice. How does Zuckerman know what Silk's lawyer said to said lawyer's wife, in private conversation? How does Zuckerman know intimate sex details and thoughts belonging to Silk or his lover. These are things he couldn't possibly know. So is he making those things up? Are we supposed to just accept his clairvoyance? Or, with amusement and deference, take it as some cunning piece of meta?
The book is about race, and racism, and there are great bits of writing (it can be thrilling to be in Philip Roth's pages - he's a thing, he had a genius, he was brilliant, this is not something I could possibly deny, he's a celebrity in the literary world and I'm glad he exists). But this also has some serious penis obsession and toxic masculinity going on here, and for so many reasons is, to my sensibility, incredibly problematic.
A conversation that goes on for pages, for example, about how if Clinton had only fucked Lewinsky (that conniving bitch, that 22 year old intern in a room with the most powerful man in the world at the time) up the ass, then she would have just kept her mouth shut. That Clinton's "niceness" did him in. WOW.
And, the repeated comparison of Silk with Aschenbach, the aging character from Thomas Mann's classic Death In Venice, a character who grips onto life by inappropriately obsessing over a beautiful young boy, is to me, a weak attempt on Roth's part to give some kind of literary grandeur to Silk's relationship with his abused young thing who cannot read.
The racial themes (of shame and self-loathing) barely touched me because I was continually gobsmacked over the rampant sexist bullshit that I ran into, again and again. What a shame.
I think now with half a dozen of his books under my belt, I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence, that's it for me and Roth. I adore his Goodbye, Columbus and wish he'd written more like that over his long and prolific career. If he had, I would have read every last thing.
I've said way too much, this review is way too long, obnoxiously rambling and opinionated (I think Roth has had an effect on me). I found a review that was far more succinct on here, and the reviewer did a much better job of saying everything quickly, and summing up my reading experience, so here it is:
Every once in a while I would get lost in the sentences and start to enjoy this. And then a few sentences later (so an entire page), Roth would start talking about a woman again, and I would stop enjoying it.
February 9, 2017
A masterfully architected tale about race, shame, violence, and remembrance, The Human Stain is definitely one of Roth's masterpieces. From its first pages, the reader is drawn into the mystery of Coleman "Silky" Silk né Silkzweig and his tragic downfall. The characters here are vibrant and real, the descriptions terrifying at times but always captivating, I found it hard putting this book down as I was relentlessly driven to want to know what happened - the mark of truly great writing. If you have never read Roth, you can safely start with this one or American Pastoral and you will definitely want more.
I just watched the movie from 2003 starring Anthony Hopkins as Coleman, Nicole Kidman as Faunia, Gary Sinise as Zuckerman and Ed Harris as Les. It is a wonderful and accurate rendition of the book for the silver screen. It can be watched before or after reading the book, but I would suggest reading the book first.
I just watched the movie from 2003 starring Anthony Hopkins as Coleman, Nicole Kidman as Faunia, Gary Sinise as Zuckerman and Ed Harris as Les. It is a wonderful and accurate rendition of the book for the silver screen. It can be watched before or after reading the book, but I would suggest reading the book first.
February 27, 2021
Philip Roth dealing with serious topics at this novel
discrimination, shame, identity, and judging others
the human between the truth, rumors and illusions
how hard to truly know someone
and how hard to live in a circle of lying and anger
lying to be accepted in a discriminatory community, and being angry for doing so
discrimination, shame, identity, and judging others
the human between the truth, rumors and illusions
how hard to truly know someone
and how hard to live in a circle of lying and anger
lying to be accepted in a discriminatory community, and being angry for doing so
April 9, 2016
للحق , الأدب الأمريكي هو أقل الآداب إثارة للاهتمام بالنسبة لي , فلا
يغامرني تجاهه ذلك الفضول القاتل الذي يجبرني على البحث في أعماقه , وباستثناء إدجار آلان بو , لم أجد في تاريخ ذلك الأدب من يستحق أن يمثل لي عظمة خالصة , واعترف أن العيب في ذلك مني أنا , لأني لم أقرأ فيه كفايته .
ولكن هنا أجد نفسي أمام حالة شديدة الخصوصية , حالة من شأنها أن تُجبرني على الاهتمام بذلك الأدب ووضعه على رأس الأولويات , حالة تمثلت في رواية إنسانية من الطراز الرفيع , رواية قد تغير لك مزاجك الشخصي , بل قد تغير لك وجهة نظر حيايتة مهمة .
الوصمة , العار , العيب , العرف , المجتمع , كلها مفاهييم عالمية , تجدها في مختلف الثقافات و مختلف اللغات , وعانى منها ملايين البشر عبر تاريخهم الطويل , منهم من هزمه مجتمعه وعاره الشخصي , ومنهم من استطاع تجاوزه والانطلاق من جديد .
نحن أمام رواية خاصة للغاية , عبر تاريخ إنسان أكثر خصوصية وأكبر غرابة , فكيف يُتهم بالعنصرية من هو في خانة المضطهدين ؟ وكيف يقاوم تلك التهمة ؟ وكيف يهرب منها ؟ وهل احتلته لحظة ضعف فوقف يائسًا أمام الحياة والدنيا عاجزًا عن مقاومتها ؟ وما الذي يدفع أستاذ أدب كلاسيكي من الطراز الرفيع لمرافقة أنثى تصغره بقرابة الاربعين عامًا ؟ وما ذلك الدافع لكي يفعل ذلك ؟ أهو دافع جسدي جنسي بحت ؟ أم هي عقد ترسبت في دخله و أخرجها متأخرًا ؟
رواية عبارة عن كتلة واحدة , كتلة انسانية فائقة الجودة , الكاتب فيها يخاطب أدق تفاصيل النفس الإنسانية , فيكشف لنا كيف نهرب من مصيرنا , ولكن مصيرنا أبدا لا يتركنا , إنه يتركنا فقط نعيش الوهم , الوهم الخاص بنا , وهم التحرر من القيود الأبدية والمتلازمات الشخصية , ليصفعنا مرة واحدة ويضعنا في فوهة البركان .
بكل ما تحمله الكلمة من معنى , الرواية عظيمة , عظيمة الأحداث , عظيمة الفترة التي تتحدث عنها (أمريكا في أواخر التسعينات , أيام فضيحة مونيكا و كلينتون ) , واستطاع الكاتب ببراعة أن يضعنا في قلب الزمن الروائي , ويكشف لنا أعماق المجتمع الأمريكي و أبعاده .
وصف الكاتب بديع , فعلا , وصفه لتعابير الوجه الإنساني وتفاصيله , وصفه للعلاقات الإنسانية المختلفة , سواء كانت علاقة صداقة أو حب أو زواج أو حتى علاقة جنسية دقيقة , يضعنا في عمق تلك العلاقة ليجعلنا نفهم .
ترجمة النص الروائي كانت جيدة للغاية (لازم نشكر فاطمة ناعوت اللي أنا شخصيًا لا أطيقها ) لكنها مترجمة جيدة وفاهمة للنصوص ومتذوقة , مقدمتها كانت مفيدة و هوامش الترجمة أكثر من مفيدة , وفي المجمل النص المترجم يدل على عظمة النص الأصلي الفائقة .
يغامرني تجاهه ذلك الفضول القاتل الذي يجبرني على البحث في أعماقه , وباستثناء إدجار آلان بو , لم أجد في تاريخ ذلك الأدب من يستحق أن يمثل لي عظمة خالصة , واعترف أن العيب في ذلك مني أنا , لأني لم أقرأ فيه كفايته .
ولكن هنا أجد نفسي أمام حالة شديدة الخصوصية , حالة من شأنها أن تُجبرني على الاهتمام بذلك الأدب ووضعه على رأس الأولويات , حالة تمثلت في رواية إنسانية من الطراز الرفيع , رواية قد تغير لك مزاجك الشخصي , بل قد تغير لك وجهة نظر حيايتة مهمة .
الوصمة , العار , العيب , العرف , المجتمع , كلها مفاهييم عالمية , تجدها في مختلف الثقافات و مختلف اللغات , وعانى منها ملايين البشر عبر تاريخهم الطويل , منهم من هزمه مجتمعه وعاره الشخصي , ومنهم من استطاع تجاوزه والانطلاق من جديد .
نحن أمام رواية خاصة للغاية , عبر تاريخ إنسان أكثر خصوصية وأكبر غرابة , فكيف يُتهم بالعنصرية من هو في خانة المضطهدين ؟ وكيف يقاوم تلك التهمة ؟ وكيف يهرب منها ؟ وهل احتلته لحظة ضعف فوقف يائسًا أمام الحياة والدنيا عاجزًا عن مقاومتها ؟ وما الذي يدفع أستاذ أدب كلاسيكي من الطراز الرفيع لمرافقة أنثى تصغره بقرابة الاربعين عامًا ؟ وما ذلك الدافع لكي يفعل ذلك ؟ أهو دافع جسدي جنسي بحت ؟ أم هي عقد ترسبت في دخله و أخرجها متأخرًا ؟
رواية عبارة عن كتلة واحدة , كتلة انسانية فائقة الجودة , الكاتب فيها يخاطب أدق تفاصيل النفس الإنسانية , فيكشف لنا كيف نهرب من مصيرنا , ولكن مصيرنا أبدا لا يتركنا , إنه يتركنا فقط نعيش الوهم , الوهم الخاص بنا , وهم التحرر من القيود الأبدية والمتلازمات الشخصية , ليصفعنا مرة واحدة ويضعنا في فوهة البركان .
بكل ما تحمله الكلمة من معنى , الرواية عظيمة , عظيمة الأحداث , عظيمة الفترة التي تتحدث عنها (أمريكا في أواخر التسعينات , أيام فضيحة مونيكا و كلينتون ) , واستطاع الكاتب ببراعة أن يضعنا في قلب الزمن الروائي , ويكشف لنا أعماق المجتمع الأمريكي و أبعاده .
وصف الكاتب بديع , فعلا , وصفه لتعابير الوجه الإنساني وتفاصيله , وصفه للعلاقات الإنسانية المختلفة , سواء كانت علاقة صداقة أو حب أو زواج أو حتى علاقة جنسية دقيقة , يضعنا في عمق تلك العلاقة ليجعلنا نفهم .
ترجمة النص الروائي كانت جيدة للغاية (لازم نشكر فاطمة ناعوت اللي أنا شخصيًا لا أطيقها ) لكنها مترجمة جيدة وفاهمة للنصوص ومتذوقة , مقدمتها كانت مفيدة و هوامش الترجمة أكثر من مفيدة , وفي المجمل النص المترجم يدل على عظمة النص الأصلي الفائقة .
October 24, 2021
Primera novela que leo de Philip Roth, uno de los autores americanos contemporáneos mejor valorados. Creo que es un gran narrador y refleja muy bien la problemática de la sociedad americana actual. Inspirándose en las grandes tragedias griegas que forman parte del curriculum que su protagonista imparte en una pequeña universidad americana, nos muestra cómo las tragedias actuales están más cerca del esperpento que de la heroicidad de los clásicos.
Situada en el verano de 1998, con la sociedad americana conmocionada por el escándalo del affaire del Presidente Clinton con Mónica Lewinsky, esta obra revisa los valores de unos colectivos que llevan al extremo normas de conducta que condicionan - y pueden arruinar - la vida de los individuos.
El racismo, las relaciones sexuales, la hipocresía en la vida de la comunidad universitaria, todo está puesto en cuestión con gran lucidez. Es una mirada cínica y desencantada que expone las contradicciones de una sociedad que intenta mejorar pero no siempre lo consigue - o eso piensa Philip Roth.
Situada en el verano de 1998, con la sociedad americana conmocionada por el escándalo del affaire del Presidente Clinton con Mónica Lewinsky, esta obra revisa los valores de unos colectivos que llevan al extremo normas de conducta que condicionan - y pueden arruinar - la vida de los individuos.
El racismo, las relaciones sexuales, la hipocresía en la vida de la comunidad universitaria, todo está puesto en cuestión con gran lucidez. Es una mirada cínica y desencantada que expone las contradicciones de una sociedad que intenta mejorar pero no siempre lo consigue - o eso piensa Philip Roth.
November 16, 2025
This was the first Roth I've ever read, as it was part of the syllabus in a college seminar titled "Fictions of Passing" dealing with stories about people who pass as members of another identity group. Famous examples with protagonists trying to flee a racist society are Passing and The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man, but also Roth's anti-hero in "The Human Stain", Coleman Silk, denies his roots because he hopes for a better life: He is a light-skinned Black man who presents as a white Jew. Silk becomes a respected professor of classics and dean of the faculty, even his wife and kids are unaware of his true heritage, but when he's nearing his retirement, his secret comes back to haunt him: A misunderstanding causes him to be accused of hate speech against Black students, and he can hardly admit that he's Black himself. After his wife dies - Silk sees the stress as the main reason - he asks Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman to write down his story.
Silk is not a bad person, no, he wants to be free from the discrimination and restrictions a racist society has burdened him with, and that's why denying his ancestry and living a double life seems a justified sacrifice to him - until he becomes what he wanted to escape. It's like a Greek tragedy, Silk is not a classics professor for nothing. He is also not an American for nothing, because this is also a satire of the American myth of self-invention. This complex storyline was of course the main focus in my seminar in the early 2000's, but today, another topic that features prominently in the novel seems particularly current: Cancel culture and misguided wokeness, concepts that didn't even exist when Roth wrote the text. Silk's former protégée Delphine Roux becomes his main antagonist, she causes and then instrumentalizes moral outrage to destroy him for her own gain and plenty of people join her. Remember: The event at the center of this is a misunderstanding, Silk is not a racist, he is, unbeknownst to his peers, a victim of racism himself.
Roth was inspired to craft this final part of the "American Trilogy" by two factors: The experiences of his friend Melvin Tumin, a sociologist at Princeton, and the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal (remember the infamous stain on her dress?) that broke in 1998, when the novel is set. The title of course refers to the greater concept of human imperfection, and the fact that we ultimately cannot escape who we are. But here it gets tricky: Clinton, the POTUS, was 49 and the intern Lewinsky 22 when their sexual relationship started. Retired professor Silk, 71, enters a relationship with 34-year-old janitor Faunia Farley. And Roth is not here to defend the women (you could certainly also argue that that's not his job as a writer). What is it with these older, powerful, and supremely pathetic men? Reading Asymmetry, a roman à clef about a then twentysomething Lisa Halliday and her relationship with a much older Roth, does not help matters.
Still, this aspect only raises the complexity and renders the text more challenging, and it's not like horny senior citizen Silk looks good in these pages. The construction of the novel is also sublime, as we get two narrative strands, one about Zuckerman slowly learning about Silk and his secret, and the other one being the novel Zuckerman writes about Silk. And per usual with Roth, it is so readable and smart and immersive and captivating.
I have a weak spot for "The Human Stain" because it was my first Roth and it makes me think of a professor who had great influence on what kind of reader I am today, but it's objectively also very hard to argue that this is not a masterpiece.
Silk is not a bad person, no, he wants to be free from the discrimination and restrictions a racist society has burdened him with, and that's why denying his ancestry and living a double life seems a justified sacrifice to him - until he becomes what he wanted to escape. It's like a Greek tragedy, Silk is not a classics professor for nothing. He is also not an American for nothing, because this is also a satire of the American myth of self-invention. This complex storyline was of course the main focus in my seminar in the early 2000's, but today, another topic that features prominently in the novel seems particularly current: Cancel culture and misguided wokeness, concepts that didn't even exist when Roth wrote the text. Silk's former protégée Delphine Roux becomes his main antagonist, she causes and then instrumentalizes moral outrage to destroy him for her own gain and plenty of people join her. Remember: The event at the center of this is a misunderstanding, Silk is not a racist, he is, unbeknownst to his peers, a victim of racism himself.
Roth was inspired to craft this final part of the "American Trilogy" by two factors: The experiences of his friend Melvin Tumin, a sociologist at Princeton, and the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal (remember the infamous stain on her dress?) that broke in 1998, when the novel is set. The title of course refers to the greater concept of human imperfection, and the fact that we ultimately cannot escape who we are. But here it gets tricky: Clinton, the POTUS, was 49 and the intern Lewinsky 22 when their sexual relationship started. Retired professor Silk, 71, enters a relationship with 34-year-old janitor Faunia Farley. And Roth is not here to defend the women (you could certainly also argue that that's not his job as a writer). What is it with these older, powerful, and supremely pathetic men? Reading Asymmetry, a roman à clef about a then twentysomething Lisa Halliday and her relationship with a much older Roth, does not help matters.
Still, this aspect only raises the complexity and renders the text more challenging, and it's not like horny senior citizen Silk looks good in these pages. The construction of the novel is also sublime, as we get two narrative strands, one about Zuckerman slowly learning about Silk and his secret, and the other one being the novel Zuckerman writes about Silk. And per usual with Roth, it is so readable and smart and immersive and captivating.
I have a weak spot for "The Human Stain" because it was my first Roth and it makes me think of a professor who had great influence on what kind of reader I am today, but it's objectively also very hard to argue that this is not a masterpiece.
July 4, 2016
“The danger with hatred is, once you start in on it, you get a hundred times more than you bargained for. Once you start, you can't stop.”
― Philip Roth, The Human Stain
Reading Roth is almost a spooky, sexual experience. I say that knowing this will sound absurd, trite and probably hyperbolic. But with Roth, his words are imbued with an almost carnal power, a spectral courage, energy and life. IT is like watching an absurdly talented musician do things with an instrument/with sound that bends the edge of possible. Reading Roth, I can understand how the audience in Paganini's time wanted to burn the man for witchcraft, feared the man for his deal with the Devil. I'm not sure who Roth sold his soul to, but Roth's run of Novels: Operation Shylock (1993) Sabbath's Theater (1995) >> American Pastoral (1997) >> I Married a Communist (1998) >> The Human Stain (2000) can only be thought of as the greatest run of novels produced by ANY writer at anytime. Maybe Shakespeare had a better run. Maybe Proust. Maybe. For me, these five novels, ending with The Human Stain are the apex of 20th Century writing. Spooky.
― Philip Roth, The Human Stain
Reading Roth is almost a spooky, sexual experience. I say that knowing this will sound absurd, trite and probably hyperbolic. But with Roth, his words are imbued with an almost carnal power, a spectral courage, energy and life. IT is like watching an absurdly talented musician do things with an instrument/with sound that bends the edge of possible. Reading Roth, I can understand how the audience in Paganini's time wanted to burn the man for witchcraft, feared the man for his deal with the Devil. I'm not sure who Roth sold his soul to, but Roth's run of Novels: Operation Shylock (1993) Sabbath's Theater (1995) >> American Pastoral (1997) >> I Married a Communist (1998) >> The Human Stain (2000) can only be thought of as the greatest run of novels produced by ANY writer at anytime. Maybe Shakespeare had a better run. Maybe Proust. Maybe. For me, these five novels, ending with The Human Stain are the apex of 20th Century writing. Spooky.
March 27, 2020
Εδώ έχουμε την πεμπτουσία της λογοτεχνίας. Απαιτούνται δύο απλά πράγματα(κάτι όχι εύκολο) και μόνο δύο για να χαρακτηριστεί ένα λογοτεχνικό έργο ως κορυφαίο. Μία άκρως ενδιαφέρουσα ιστορία με βαθύ νόημα. Και κυρίως ένας τρόπος γραφής που να προκαλεί την μέγιστη αισθητική ευχαρίστηση και απόλαυση.
reviews-of-books-i-didnt-read
February 27, 2023So I watched the movie, and I really shouldn't have. To quote Pope Pius VII, it sometimes makes you wonder if you're on the right planet. Anthony Hopkins plays an extremely white black man! And the ever-crushingly beautiful Nicole Kidman plays an illiterate woman who's a janitor! Yes! And we're supposed to take this seriously! And the actor who plays the young Anthony Hopkins looks absolutely nothing like him! It's so insane. I believe they take a lot of drugs in Hollywood, and this movie appears to prove it. Some of the loonyness belongs to Philip Roth of course. Because the story has the crashingly beautiful even though desperately dressing down Nicole take a shine to the 70-if-he's-a-day Anthony and wants to shag him a lot! And this is the same wish fulfillment fantasy that Philip Roth keeps on writing about in all his late books! Over and over again! This would be funny if it weren't for the many rothophiles running about telling us that he's the greatest living writer of prose and will soon be the greatest dead one too. Ugh.
Okay, I admit, the book MUST must must must be better than this wretched loony movie but I will never find out. I got Rothed to death years ago.* This Human Stain movie, it was just a one time thing. It meant nothing. I swear I'll never see it again.
Hey, maybe when I'm real old and creepy I'll turn into this giant Rothfan and reread all this stuff and be yelling "yeah, stick it to her one more time, substitute-Rothman, you know she's gagging for your 70 year old flesh". Ew.
TO RECAP :
this is a black man
this is a cleaning lady
I understand the team who made The Human Stain will be producing a biopic on Philip Roth shortly and that the challenging role of Philip Roth, which requires the actor to age from 20 to 70 has gone to
[image error]
* er... not quite - I did subsequently read Nemesis and since it wasn't anything to do with shagging it was really pretty good, in a Larry David way : "pretty...pretty...pretty good".
Okay, I admit, the book MUST must must must be better than this wretched loony movie but I will never find out. I got Rothed to death years ago.* This Human Stain movie, it was just a one time thing. It meant nothing. I swear I'll never see it again.
Hey, maybe when I'm real old and creepy I'll turn into this giant Rothfan and reread all this stuff and be yelling "yeah, stick it to her one more time, substitute-Rothman, you know she's gagging for your 70 year old flesh". Ew.
TO RECAP :
this is a black man
this is a cleaning lady
I understand the team who made The Human Stain will be producing a biopic on Philip Roth shortly and that the challenging role of Philip Roth, which requires the actor to age from 20 to 70 has gone to
[image error]
* er... not quite - I did subsequently read Nemesis and since it wasn't anything to do with shagging it was really pretty good, in a Larry David way : "pretty...pretty...pretty good".
February 29, 2016
Has being human in modern human society become a stigma? Judging by the novel The Human Stain humanism in the contemporary society is considered to be some kind of social defect.
“He was not a firebrand or an agitator in any way. Nor was he a madman. Nor was he a radical or a revolutionary, not even intellectually or philosophically speaking, unless it is revolutionary to believe that disregarding prescriptive society's most restrictive demarcations and asserting independently a free personal choice that is well within the law was something other than a basic human right—unless it is revolutionary, when you've come of age, to refuse to accept automatically the contract drawn up for your signature at birth.”
So he was branded for being just human…
What one thinks doesn’t matter… What matters is the way how one can pretend that one thinks exactly the way the others all around do think… Conformity and hypocrisy has become a social norm.
And in such society it is dangerous to be different.
“He was not a firebrand or an agitator in any way. Nor was he a madman. Nor was he a radical or a revolutionary, not even intellectually or philosophically speaking, unless it is revolutionary to believe that disregarding prescriptive society's most restrictive demarcations and asserting independently a free personal choice that is well within the law was something other than a basic human right—unless it is revolutionary, when you've come of age, to refuse to accept automatically the contract drawn up for your signature at birth.”
So he was branded for being just human…
What one thinks doesn’t matter… What matters is the way how one can pretend that one thinks exactly the way the others all around do think… Conformity and hypocrisy has become a social norm.
And in such society it is dangerous to be different.
January 8, 2023
L’opera di Philip Roth, me ne convinco sempre più, è un unico grande disegno, una sorta di canovaccio che l’autore ha scritto nel tempo, ampliando la sua visione della vita ma sempre dentro alcuni temi ben definiti, i punti focali della sua esistenza. L’appartenenza etnica, l’appartenenza culturale, l’appartenenza geografica, quella sociale, e la totale, assoluta, mancanza di appartenenza a una qualsivoglia classificazione. Non c’è niente che possa imbrigliarlo, né lui, né tantomeno i suoi personaggi, piccole schegge impazzite di un male che qui, in questo grande romanzo, sono accomunate dal fatto di essere ontologicamente il male stesso. Un’opera intensa, amara come al solito, ma viva e perfettamente capace di restituire quell’alone di incompiutezza che gravita, tragicamente, sui suoi personaggi migliori e di pari passo sull’uomo in sé. Lo svedese, esempio brillante di una vita apparentemente brillante, un’identità frantumata, Sabbath, una ridicola controfigura di quello che avrebbe potuto essere un uomo e ora il brillante professore Coleman Silk, burlato dal logos, pensiero e parola che lo incarnano a finzione di se stesso. Un uomo nero che si finge bianco, che recita la sua esistenza sul filo di lama, una lama tagliente che potrebbe fendere la sua carne in ogni momento. Non solo personaggi tragici però, come si sa, nel caso di Seymour Levov e dello stesso Coleman Silk, l’equilibrio è ripristinato con l’espediente del ponderato narratore, colui che veste il ruolo del testimone degli eventi e di novello tedoforo, capace di rischiarare i punti bui di un’esistenza mentre la consegna ai lettori per mano del suo stesso inventore. Nathan Zuckerman, l’alter ego di Philiph Roth, è il nostro mentore ancora una volta, è colui che ci guiderà a dare un significato all’esistenza appena rappresentata. L’epilogo di questo romanzo infatti , pur generando gli stessi quesiti suscitati dall’esperienza parainfernale di Sabbath, lascia il lettore in uno stato completamente diverso, nell’accettazione di un destino terribile, crudele.
Consapevole di non aver affatto parlato del romanzo, lo consegno ai futuri lettori, totalmente appagata da una lettura che ancora una volta offre una visione disincantata dell’uomo, dell’America, del suo falso mito delle “belle sorti e progressive” che si frantumano nell’incapacità di un sistema di istruzione lacunoso e deficitario, nel falso mito del melting polt e nella totale inadeguatezza della sua classe politica. Roth chiama Pirandello, per la parte squisitamente filosofica, come America chiama Italia per il contesto socio-culturale e politico. Mai così vicini, a noi manca il Vietnam ma i ragazzi del ’99 non furono poi tanto lontani dagli americani quando divennero “scemi di guerra”.
Consapevole di non aver affatto parlato del romanzo, lo consegno ai futuri lettori, totalmente appagata da una lettura che ancora una volta offre una visione disincantata dell’uomo, dell’America, del suo falso mito delle “belle sorti e progressive” che si frantumano nell’incapacità di un sistema di istruzione lacunoso e deficitario, nel falso mito del melting polt e nella totale inadeguatezza della sua classe politica. Roth chiama Pirandello, per la parte squisitamente filosofica, come America chiama Italia per il contesto socio-culturale e politico. Mai così vicini, a noi manca il Vietnam ma i ragazzi del ’99 non furono poi tanto lontani dagli americani quando divennero “scemi di guerra”.
March 22, 2016
Δεν είναι κρυφό πλέον πως δεν τα πηγαίνω και πάρα πολύ καλά με τους συγγραφείς από την άλλη πλευρά του Ατλαντικού. Τα χνώτα μας δεν πολυταιριάζουν και συνήθως βγάζω σπυράκια… όμως επειδή τώρα στα γεράματα, βάλθηκα πέρα από την ευρωπαϊκή μου παιδεία να αποκτήσω και ολίγον αμερικανική (για να είμαι σκορόφιδον κοσμοπολίτικον και παντός καιρού), συνεχίζω ακάθεκτο τις βουτιές μου στα αμερικανικά γράμματα… Και ευτυχώς για μένα… γιατί ανακάλυψα τον Ροθ και ομολογώ πως οι δυο μας τα βρήκαμε μια χαρά… Τουλάχιστον εγώ μαζί του…
Αν και όταν τρελαίνομαι με κάποιο βιβλίο, η υπόθεση περνάει όχι στη δεύτερη αλλά σε τρίτη και τέταρτη μοίρα, ολίγα λόγια για το story: Ο Κόλμαν Σίλκ είναι καθηγητής, πρώην κοσμήτορας ενός μικρού αμερικάνικου πανεπιστημίου, ευυπόληπτος και αμέμπτου ηθικής… Σε ένα μάθημά του, θα κάνει το «τραγικό» λάθος να κάνει την ερώτηση εάν δύο φοιτητές που δεν έχουν εμφανιστεί ποτέ στο μάθημά του είναι ‘spookies’… Η λέξη ‘spooky’ όμως στην αγγλική γλώσσα έχει διπλή σημασία… «φάντασμα» και «μαύρος»… Ο καθηγητής την είπε με την πρώτη, κάποιοι καλοθελητές την πήραν με τη δεύτερη… Αποτέλεσμα ο Σιλκ ‘διώκεται’ από την έδρα του, του κολλάει μια ‘ρετσινιά’ (νάτο λοιπόν ένα από τα στίγματα), το βάρος μεγάλο, η γυναίκα του πεθαίνει… Αφού περνάει δυο χρόνια μέσα στη μαύρη κατάθλιψη και την πικρή οργή, ο καθηγητής μια ωραία πρωία τα αφήνει όλα πίσω του, χάρη στην αγκαλιά (και όχι μόνο…) μιας 34/χρονης αναλφάβητης καθαρίστριας (ο ίδιος είναι ήδη 71 χρόνων…) κι αρχίζουν κι άλλα ωραία, κατά πόσο είναι ηθική μια τέτοια σχέση… και πολλά – πολλά άλλα…
Την λάτρεψα τη γραφή του Ροθ… Με απογείωσε… Η ψυχογράφηση των ηρώων του είναι μοναδική… Θίγει τόσα πολλά θέματα αριστοτεχνικά, σου δίνει τροφή για σκέψη, σε απογειώνει… Η ιστορία δεν έχει πλέον καμία σημασία… σημασία έχει όλα αυτά που μπορεί να πάρει ο αναγνώστης…
Υποκλίνομαι στην ψυχογράφηση του Λες (τέως άντρα της Φιόνα, της καθαρίστριας), βετεράνου του πολέμου του Βιετνάμ… Τον συμπόνεσα και τον κατάλαβα, αχ! Τι ψυχοπονιάρικο φίδι που είμαι!!! (ασχέτως αν συμφωνώ με τις πράξεις του…) Τι Αποκάλυψη Τώρα, τι Platoon και American Full metal jacket… (εντάξει καταλάβατε την ηλικία μου…)
Υποκλίνομαι στην ψυχογράφηση της Ντελφίν Ρου (της γαλλίδας προέδρου του τμήματος), αν και μου άφησε κάποια κενά στο τέλος…
Εβραίοι της Αμερικής, φυλετικές διακρίσεις, σχέσεις μη αποδεκτές από την κοινωνία, δεσμοί αίματος, τα εσωτερικά των πανεπιστημίων, προσωπικές φιλοδοξίες, εσωτερικές συγκρούσεις και άλλα πολλά δένουν αρμονικά σ’αυτό το βιβλίο…
Και όλα αυτά… με ένα μυστικό που βαραίνει την πλάτη του Κόλμαν (του ήρωα μας) και εν τέλει όλη την οικογένεια του, την περίοδο που η Αμερική και όλος ο πλανήτης έχει πάθει φρενίτιδα με το σκάνδαλο Λιουίνσκι και που ακριβώς ο Πρόεδρος Κλίντον έριξε το πολυπόθητο σπέρμα του…
ΥΠΟΚΛΙΝΟΜΑΙ λοιπόν στον μεγαλύτερο εν ζωή Αμερικανό συγγραφέα (τουλάχιστον έτσι τον αποκαλούν οι γνώστες…) που έχει πάρει όλα τα βραβεία, εκτός από το Νόμπελ… (έχει καιρό ακόμα… you never know!)
Εντάξει, έξυπνοι είσαστε… καταλάβατε τι βαθμό θα βάλω…
10/10 (ασυζητητί…)
Αν και όταν τρελαίνομαι με κάποιο βιβλίο, η υπόθεση περνάει όχι στη δεύτερη αλλά σε τρίτη και τέταρτη μοίρα, ολίγα λόγια για το story: Ο Κόλμαν Σίλκ είναι καθηγητής, πρώην κοσμήτορας ενός μικρού αμερικάνικου πανεπιστημίου, ευυπόληπτος και αμέμπτου ηθικής… Σε ένα μάθημά του, θα κάνει το «τραγικό» λάθος να κάνει την ερώτηση εάν δύο φοιτητές που δεν έχουν εμφανιστεί ποτέ στο μάθημά του είναι ‘spookies’… Η λέξη ‘spooky’ όμως στην αγγλική γλώσσα έχει διπλή σημασία… «φάντασμα» και «μαύρος»… Ο καθηγητής την είπε με την πρώτη, κάποιοι καλοθελητές την πήραν με τη δεύτερη… Αποτέλεσμα ο Σιλκ ‘διώκεται’ από την έδρα του, του κολλάει μια ‘ρετσινιά’ (νάτο λοιπόν ένα από τα στίγματα), το βάρος μεγάλο, η γυναίκα του πεθαίνει… Αφού περνάει δυο χρόνια μέσα στη μαύρη κατάθλιψη και την πικρή οργή, ο καθηγητής μια ωραία πρωία τα αφήνει όλα πίσω του, χάρη στην αγκαλιά (και όχι μόνο…) μιας 34/χρονης αναλφάβητης καθαρίστριας (ο ίδιος είναι ήδη 71 χρόνων…) κι αρχίζουν κι άλλα ωραία, κατά πόσο είναι ηθική μια τέτοια σχέση… και πολλά – πολλά άλλα…
Την λάτρεψα τη γραφή του Ροθ… Με απογείωσε… Η ψυχογράφηση των ηρώων του είναι μοναδική… Θίγει τόσα πολλά θέματα αριστοτεχνικά, σου δίνει τροφή για σκέψη, σε απογειώνει… Η ιστορία δεν έχει πλέον καμία σημασία… σημασία έχει όλα αυτά που μπορεί να πάρει ο αναγνώστης…
Υποκλίνομαι στην ψυχογράφηση του Λες (τέως άντρα της Φιόνα, της καθαρίστριας), βετεράνου του πολέμου του Βιετνάμ… Τον συμπόνεσα και τον κατάλαβα, αχ! Τι ψυχοπονιάρικο φίδι που είμαι!!! (ασχέτως αν συμφωνώ με τις πράξεις του…) Τι Αποκάλυψη Τώρα, τι Platoon και American Full metal jacket… (εντάξει καταλάβατε την ηλικία μου…)
Υποκλίνομαι στην ψυχογράφηση της Ντελφίν Ρου (της γαλλίδας προέδρου του τμήματος), αν και μου άφησε κάποια κενά στο τέλος…
Εβραίοι της Αμερικής, φυλετικές διακρίσεις, σχέσεις μη αποδεκτές από την κοινωνία, δεσμοί αίματος, τα εσωτερικά των πανεπιστημίων, προσωπικές φιλοδοξίες, εσωτερικές συγκρούσεις και άλλα πολλά δένουν αρμονικά σ’αυτό το βιβλίο…
Και όλα αυτά… με ένα μυστικό που βαραίνει την πλάτη του Κόλμαν (του ήρωα μας) και εν τέλει όλη την οικογένεια του, την περίοδο που η Αμερική και όλος ο πλανήτης έχει πάθει φρενίτιδα με το σκάνδαλο Λιουίνσκι και που ακριβώς ο Πρόεδρος Κλίντον έριξε το πολυπόθητο σπέρμα του…
ΥΠΟΚΛΙΝΟΜΑΙ λοιπόν στον μεγαλύτερο εν ζωή Αμερικανό συγγραφέα (τουλάχιστον έτσι τον αποκαλούν οι γνώστες…) που έχει πάρει όλα τα βραβεία, εκτός από το Νόμπελ… (έχει καιρό ακόμα… you never know!)
Εντάξει, έξυπνοι είσαστε… καταλάβατε τι βαθμό θα βάλω…
10/10 (ασυζητητί…)
January 8, 2023
"La macchia che esiste prima del suo segno. Che esiste senza il segno. La macchia così intrinseca che non richiede un segno."
"La macchia che precede la disobbedienza, che comprende la disobbedienza e frustra ogni spiegazione e ogni comprensione."
Ci sono macchie e macchie nella vita di Coleman Silk e dei personaggi che costellano la sua esistenza.
Macchie primigenie, simili al peccato originale, di cui non nessuna colpa è imputabile al protagonista e ai suoi compagni di avventura, e poi ci sono le macchie causate dalle azioni e dalle decisioni prese consapevolmente da essi.
Azioni e decisioni che demarcano un prima e un dopo, azioni e decisioni che definitivamente rivelano quello di cui può essere capace l'uomo.
Rinnegare una madre (Coleman), mentire per coprire le proprie squallide azioni (Delphine), lasciare andare l'uomo che si ama perché incapaci di andare contro le convenzioni e la società (Steena).
Verità e segreti. Verità presunte e segreti mai rivelati.
Motivazioni e leve che sono alla base dell'agire.
Di cui, a volte nemmeno chi le mette in atto, è così consapevole, e di come alla fine, nessuno, neanche la persona col carattere più forte e indomito, sia in grado di pilotare il proprio destino. (... e qui ad un certo punto mi son chiesta se non stessi leggendo Marias, lui avrebbe tirato fuori Lady Macbeth, immagino)
“Tutti sanno” è l’invocazione del cliché e l’inizio della banalizzazione dell’esperienza, e sono proprio la solennità e la presunta autorevolezza con cui la gente formula il cliché a riuscire così insopportabili. Ciò che noi sappiamo è che, in un modo non stereotipato, nessuno sa nulla. Non puoi sapere nulla. Le cose che sai… non le sai. Intenzioni? Motivi? Conseguenze? Significati? Tutto ciò che non sappiamo è stupefacente. Ancor più stupefacente è quello che crediamo di sapere.
Colonna Sonora: youtu.be/oh4ntia0hOE
Inizio d'anno col botto: en plein di stelle per me.
"La macchia che precede la disobbedienza, che comprende la disobbedienza e frustra ogni spiegazione e ogni comprensione."
Ci sono macchie e macchie nella vita di Coleman Silk e dei personaggi che costellano la sua esistenza.
Macchie primigenie, simili al peccato originale, di cui non nessuna colpa è imputabile al protagonista e ai suoi compagni di avventura, e poi ci sono le macchie causate dalle azioni e dalle decisioni prese consapevolmente da essi.
Azioni e decisioni che demarcano un prima e un dopo, azioni e decisioni che definitivamente rivelano quello di cui può essere capace l'uomo.
Rinnegare una madre (Coleman), mentire per coprire le proprie squallide azioni (Delphine), lasciare andare l'uomo che si ama perché incapaci di andare contro le convenzioni e la società (Steena).
Verità e segreti. Verità presunte e segreti mai rivelati.
Motivazioni e leve che sono alla base dell'agire.
Di cui, a volte nemmeno chi le mette in atto, è così consapevole, e di come alla fine, nessuno, neanche la persona col carattere più forte e indomito, sia in grado di pilotare il proprio destino. (... e qui ad un certo punto mi son chiesta se non stessi leggendo Marias, lui avrebbe tirato fuori Lady Macbeth, immagino)
“Tutti sanno” è l’invocazione del cliché e l’inizio della banalizzazione dell’esperienza, e sono proprio la solennità e la presunta autorevolezza con cui la gente formula il cliché a riuscire così insopportabili. Ciò che noi sappiamo è che, in un modo non stereotipato, nessuno sa nulla. Non puoi sapere nulla. Le cose che sai… non le sai. Intenzioni? Motivi? Conseguenze? Significati? Tutto ciò che non sappiamo è stupefacente. Ancor più stupefacente è quello che crediamo di sapere.
Colonna Sonora: youtu.be/oh4ntia0hOE
Inizio d'anno col botto: en plein di stelle per me.
January 20, 2021
Il mio primo libro di Roth...
Una struttura narrativa che punta all'introspezione dei personaggi attraverso pochi dialoghi e molti flussi di coscienza. I personaggi si delineano e approfondiscono fino a impedire al lettore di esprimere un giudizio morale su di loro. La vita dei suoi personaggi ha la dote della moltiplicazione: fili che gemmano e si incrociano perchè nessuno è totalmente positivo, nessuno è completamente un eroe e nessuno è compiutamente un antieroe. Ognuno di loro racchiude il tutto.
Un linguaggio complesso e sapientemente articolato nella struttura perchè Roth sembra voler approfondire il sentire più che il fare dei suoi personaggi.
La storia che racconta è come una moderna tragedia greca: appassionata, totale, assoluta, etica e catartica.
Mi è piaciuto.
Una struttura narrativa che punta all'introspezione dei personaggi attraverso pochi dialoghi e molti flussi di coscienza. I personaggi si delineano e approfondiscono fino a impedire al lettore di esprimere un giudizio morale su di loro. La vita dei suoi personaggi ha la dote della moltiplicazione: fili che gemmano e si incrociano perchè nessuno è totalmente positivo, nessuno è completamente un eroe e nessuno è compiutamente un antieroe. Ognuno di loro racchiude il tutto.
Un linguaggio complesso e sapientemente articolato nella struttura perchè Roth sembra voler approfondire il sentire più che il fare dei suoi personaggi.
La storia che racconta è come una moderna tragedia greca: appassionata, totale, assoluta, etica e catartica.
Mi è piaciuto.
July 28, 2024
Set in New England, this book tells the story of a college professor accused of making a racist remark in one of his classes. The fact that what follows is patently unfair sets this book up as a commentary on extreme political correctness.
There is a lot of ground covered here - Vietnam, Clinton/Lewinsky, racism and ageing to name a few - and in typical Roth style it is rich, clever, complex and, at times, ranting. Not what I'd call a relaxing read but hugely worthwhile if you're in the mood.
There is a lot of ground covered here - Vietnam, Clinton/Lewinsky, racism and ageing to name a few - and in typical Roth style it is rich, clever, complex and, at times, ranting. Not what I'd call a relaxing read but hugely worthwhile if you're in the mood.
December 7, 2025
Pata umanã sau nevoia unora (*neînțeleasã total de oameni normali, mediocri, oameni ca mine), de a ieşi din ei înşişi şi de a se pune în mod intenționat în situații alerte pentru a putea sã suporte traiul monoton, cel de toate zilele. Doar aşa a putut Coleman, un bãrbat cu aptitudini intelectuale şi sportive peste medie, de a fi altfel decât se presupunea cã este. Iar ultima boacãnã, aceea de a se iubi cu o femeie mult mai tânãrã, o femeie distrusã, o femeie fãcutã parcã pentru distracții ascunse de vãzul celorlalți, aceasta fost cireaşa distrugãtoare şi aducãtoare de respingere publicã şi de moarte eternã.
Nu cred cã mi-a plãcut Coleman, deşi îmi plac indivizii deştepți. Nici nu cred cã l-am înțeles în totalitate. Dar el este un personaj credibil, construit piece by piece şi care se dezväluie încetul cu încetul pînã ce crezi cã nu mai este nimic de dezvãluit. Fals, el se aratã exact cât a vrut sã se arate! Cartea este un tur viril de forțã, un vârtej îndrãzneț care te absoarbe cu totul, un tãvãlug amețitor de emoții şi de subiecte delicate ca rasismul, acceptarea socialã şi ipocrizia la rang de artã.
Nu cred cã mi-a plãcut Coleman, deşi îmi plac indivizii deştepți. Nici nu cred cã l-am înțeles în totalitate. Dar el este un personaj credibil, construit piece by piece şi care se dezväluie încetul cu încetul pînã ce crezi cã nu mai este nimic de dezvãluit. Fals, el se aratã exact cât a vrut sã se arate! Cartea este un tur viril de forțã, un vârtej îndrãzneț care te absoarbe cu totul, un tãvãlug amețitor de emoții şi de subiecte delicate ca rasismul, acceptarea socialã şi ipocrizia la rang de artã.
OEDIP: Care este ritul purificãrii? Cum se îndeplineşte?
CREON: Prin exil ispãşirea, sau prin spãlarea sângelui cu sânge...
September 27, 2025
Il professor Coleman Silk, al culmine della sua carriera universitaria, non ha niente nellla sua vita che si discosti dalla perfezione: sul lavoro ha infilato un successo dopo l'altro, ha quattro figli stupendi, è rispettato da tutti.
Ma dentro di se porta il peso di un nefando segreto, che nasconde con la doppiezza tipicamente umana. Un banale errore, una parola scelta male nel momento sbagliato, e quella debolezza cosi ben nascosta provocherà lo sgretolamento di tutta la sua vita, fino alla distruzione finale.
Questo libro è una grande allegoria dell'ipocrisia umana: ogni uomo è portato a mostrare un sè diverso diverso da quello vero perchè l'errore, la scelta sbagliata, la malvagità esistono in ognuno di noi. Questo sè mostra a se stesso, perchè la forza di accettarsi insieme all'errore e alla debolezza è troppo rara, ed ognuno di noi si costruisce un'immagine falsa che possa spiegarne l'esistenza senza attribuirceli. Lo mostra agli altri perchè questa debolezza però non riusciamo mai a sconfiggerla del tutto, e la tentazione di mostrarci diversi da quello che siamo diventa insuperabile.
E' insuperabile per Coleman Silk, che in nome di una smisurata amibizione compie una scelta inaccettabile per la sua famiglia, causando sofferenze terribili alla madre e rompendo con il fratello e la sorella; e' insuperabile anche per Faunia Farley, l'amante trentaquattrenne che Silk si sceglie quano ormai è nel pieno del suo declino; per Delphine Roux, l'antagonista di Silk che ne causerà il tracollo e la rovina con un castello di false accuse alle quali Silk non avrà la sicurezza di rispondere perchè indebolito dal segreto che si porta dentro.
Roth sembra volerci dire che ogni uomo è portato a scendere a compromessi con il male nel costruire l'idea che ha di sè e dei suoi rapporti sociali, ed a fare uso dello stesso male per nuocere ai propri simili quando i rispettivi intteressi ed ambizioni vengono a collidere.
Significativo è il fatto che l'unica persona veramente vera sia uno psicopatico, il reduce dal Vietnam Lester Farley che ha perso la ragione a causa della guerra (sarà per lui segno di sofferenza presso il monumento alle vittime, scoprire che non prova il dolore che dovrebbe ma solo indifferenza: un uomo come Silk con quella indifferenza ci avrebbe convissuto tranquillamente).
La scrittura è profonda, la terminologia sempre precisa, il periodare è lungo e complesso ma mai pesante: Roth riesce ad essere sempre leggibile e chiaro senza evitare le difficoltà di utilizzare fino in fondo gli strumenti espressivi della scrittura.
Assolutamente da non perdere.
Ma dentro di se porta il peso di un nefando segreto, che nasconde con la doppiezza tipicamente umana. Un banale errore, una parola scelta male nel momento sbagliato, e quella debolezza cosi ben nascosta provocherà lo sgretolamento di tutta la sua vita, fino alla distruzione finale.
Questo libro è una grande allegoria dell'ipocrisia umana: ogni uomo è portato a mostrare un sè diverso diverso da quello vero perchè l'errore, la scelta sbagliata, la malvagità esistono in ognuno di noi. Questo sè mostra a se stesso, perchè la forza di accettarsi insieme all'errore e alla debolezza è troppo rara, ed ognuno di noi si costruisce un'immagine falsa che possa spiegarne l'esistenza senza attribuirceli. Lo mostra agli altri perchè questa debolezza però non riusciamo mai a sconfiggerla del tutto, e la tentazione di mostrarci diversi da quello che siamo diventa insuperabile.
E' insuperabile per Coleman Silk, che in nome di una smisurata amibizione compie una scelta inaccettabile per la sua famiglia, causando sofferenze terribili alla madre e rompendo con il fratello e la sorella; e' insuperabile anche per Faunia Farley, l'amante trentaquattrenne che Silk si sceglie quano ormai è nel pieno del suo declino; per Delphine Roux, l'antagonista di Silk che ne causerà il tracollo e la rovina con un castello di false accuse alle quali Silk non avrà la sicurezza di rispondere perchè indebolito dal segreto che si porta dentro.
Roth sembra volerci dire che ogni uomo è portato a scendere a compromessi con il male nel costruire l'idea che ha di sè e dei suoi rapporti sociali, ed a fare uso dello stesso male per nuocere ai propri simili quando i rispettivi intteressi ed ambizioni vengono a collidere.
Significativo è il fatto che l'unica persona veramente vera sia uno psicopatico, il reduce dal Vietnam Lester Farley che ha perso la ragione a causa della guerra (sarà per lui segno di sofferenza presso il monumento alle vittime, scoprire che non prova il dolore che dovrebbe ma solo indifferenza: un uomo come Silk con quella indifferenza ci avrebbe convissuto tranquillamente).
La scrittura è profonda, la terminologia sempre precisa, il periodare è lungo e complesso ma mai pesante: Roth riesce ad essere sempre leggibile e chiaro senza evitare le difficoltà di utilizzare fino in fondo gli strumenti espressivi della scrittura.
Assolutamente da non perdere.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,275 reviews