The Facts: A Novelist's Autobiography

by Philip Roth, Mel Foster (Narrator)

The Facts is the unconventional autobiography of a writer who has reshaped our idea of fiction — a work of compelling candor and inventiveness, instructive particularly in its revelation of the interplay between life and art. Philip Roth concentrates on five episodes from his life: his secure city childhood in the thirties and forties; his education in American life at a conventional college in the fifties; his passionate entanglement, as an ambitious young man, with the angriest person he ever met (the “girl of my dreams” Roth calls her); his clash, as a fledgling writer, with a Jewish establishment outraged by Goodbye, Columbus; and his discovery, in the excesses of the sixties, of an unmined side to his talent that led him to write Portnoy’s Complaint. The audiobook concludes surprisingly — in true Rothian fashion — with a sustained assault by the novelist against his proficiencies as an autobiographer.

Genres: Nonfiction, Biography, Memoir, Autobiography, American, Literature, Biography Memoir

7 pages, Audio CD

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

Philip 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.

Reviews

[Glenn Sumi · Rating 4 out of 5]

* UPDATED: May 22, 2018: R.I.P., Philip Roth. He never wrote an autobiography (there are a couple of biographies out there, and Blake Bailey is currently writing another). This is the closest Roth came to writing about "himself":

***

Up until the final chapter, I was all set to give 3 stars to this book of autobiographical essays by novelist Philip Roth, which he wrote, as he tells us in the introduction, after he suffered a “crack-up” in 1987 and was contemplating the mortality of his then 80-something father.

In lucid, graceful prose, Roth writes about: anti-Semitism in his childhood New Jersey neighbourhood; finding the right college and fraternity, which may have affected his choice of career (he set out wanting to become a lawyer); discovering his identity there not just as a Jew but as an American; honing his literary tastes and discovering the power of the pen; dating; being tricked into marriage by a woman who faked her pregnancy (she’s immortalized in his novel My Life As A Man); getting published; considering a career in academia; dealing with accusations of Jewish self-loathing from naysayers; and finally, all that went into the creation of his breakthrough novel, Portnoy’s Complaint.

All that is fine, but it’s nothing special. His mom isn’t Alexander Portnoy’s mom? Got it. His dad was proud of his stories, including “Defender Of The Faith,” which caused the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith to request a meeting with its author? Okay.

The story about his first wife, and what happened to her, is indeed fascinating stuff. But compared to Roth’s best books? 3 stars.

And then comes the lengthy final section, “written” by Roth’s fictional alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman, as a reaction to the work we’ve just read. Zuckerman calls Roth out on the book’s balance, its technique and his reasons for writing.

It’s a brilliant, dark, clever and tough-minded bit of post-modern writing about the act of writing down “the facts.” And it bumps my rating up to 4.

[Eliasdgian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αυτοβιογραφούμενος, ο μυθιστοριογράφος Philip Roth χαρτογραφεί τη ζωή του και, υπό τη μορφή πέντε, σχετικά αυτόνομων, αφηγημάτων, παρουσιάζει (ορισμένα από) τα “γεγονότα” του βίου του, αποκαθαρμένα από το μυθοπλαστικό περιτύλιγμα που κατά καιρούς τους απέδωσε. Με τον δικό του αντισυμβατικό τρόπο γραφής, ο Philip Roth αφηγείται περιστατικά από την παιδική του ηλικία στην εβραϊκή γειτονιά του Γουικουέικ στο Νιούαρκ των Η.Π.Α., πολύ μακριά από τα πεδία μαχών του Β΄ Παγκόσμιου Πολέμου και από το δράμα των Ευρωπαίων ομοθρήσκων του (“Ασφαλής στο σπίτι”), μεταφέρει τον αναγνώστη στην συντηρητική Πενσιλβάνια και το Πανεπιστήμιο του Μπακνέλ, κατά τη διάρκεια των σπουδών του στην αγγλική φιλολογία (“Τζο Κόλετζ”), περιγράφει τη σχέση του με την πρώτη του σύζυγο, που, πολύ σύντομα, από το κορίτσι των ονείρων του έμελλε να γίνει ο μεγαλύτερος εφιάλτης του (“Το κορίτσι των ονείρων μου”), δημοσιοποιεί τα «εν οίκω», καταγράφοντας, μεταξύ άλλων, τις έντονες αντιδράσεις που προκάλεσε στο εβραϊκό κατεστημένο της εποχής, εν έτει 1959, το «Αντίο, Κολόμπους» (“Εν οίκω”), και, τέλος, με τίτλο (του πέμπτου αφηγήματος) την τελευταία φράση του Σύνδρομου Πόρτνοϊ «Τώγα μπογούμε να ξεκινήσουμε», περιγράφει τις συνθήκες που επέτρεψαν στο συγγραφικό του ταλέντο ν’ ανθίσει και το «Σύνδρομο Πόρτνοϊ» (το βιβλίο που έκανε τον Philip Roth πλούσιο και διάσημο) να εκδοθεί.

Μέσα από ένα εξαιρετικό αφηγηματικό τέχνασμα, ο μυθιστοριογράφος επιτίθεται στον αυτοβιογραφούμενο εαυτό του! Τίνι τρόπω; Θέτοντας στην κρίση του Νέιθαν Ζούκερμαν (μυθιστορηματικό alter ego του Roth), μέσω μιας επιστολής που του απευθύνει στην αρχή του βιβλίου, το χειρόγραφο των “Γεγονότων”, ζητώντας τη γνώμη του για το αν πρέπει να το δημοσιεύσει («…φαίνεται πως τώρα έχω βαλθεί να γράψω ένα βιβλίο αναδρομής, παίρνοντας ό,τι υπήρξε προϊόν της φαντασίας μου και αφυδατώνοντάς το, ας πούμε, ώστε να επαναφέρω την εμπειρία μου στην πρωτογενή προ-μυθοπλαστική της πραγματικότητα. Γιατί; Για να αποδείξω ότι υπάρχει ένα σημαντικό χάσμα ανάμεσα στον αυτοβιογραφούμενο συγγραφέα που θεωρούν όλοι ότι είμαι και στον αυτοβιογραφούμενο συγγραφέα που όντως είμαι; Για να αποδείξω ότι οι πληροφορίες που αντλούσα από τη ζωή μου φαίνονταν ελλιπείς στη μυθοπλασία;»). Κι ο Ζούκερμαν, αυτός που περισσότερο από κάθε άλλον πυροδότησε τη φαντασία του συγγραφέα στο παρελθόν, η κορυφαία μυθοπλαστική επινόησή του, σε μια μακροσκελέστατη επιστολή του στο τέλος ακριβώς του βιβλίου επιχειρηματολογεί γιατί το χειρόγραφο αυτό δεν πρέπει να εκδοθεί!

Αν και πρόσφατα μεταφρασμένα στην γλώσσα μας, Τα γεγονότα δημοσιεύθηκαν το 1988, όταν ο Philip Roth, σε ηλικία 55 ετών, έχοντας ήδη χάσει από ετών τη μητέρα του και κρατώντας συντροφιά στον γηραιό και ασθενή πατέρα του, βίωνε, αμέσως μετά τη νευρική του κατάρρευση, ένα «ξέσπασμα νοσταλγίας», μιαν ανάγκη επιστροφής στην βιωμένη πραγματικότητα του παρελθόντος, όπου το ενδεχόμενο του θανάτου των γονιών του ούτε να το υποπτευθεί μπορούσε, ούτε να το αντιληφθεί, «σε μια εποχή που και η δική μας αναχώρηση ήταν αδιανόητη, διότι εκείνοι ήταν πάντοτε εκεί, σαν ανάχωμα.»

Όποιος θέλει να γνωρίσει τον Ροθ αμεταμφίεστο ή να έχει ανά χείρας του έναν άτυπο οδηγό ανάγνωσης των πρώτων μυθοπλαστικών του έργων, Τα γεγονότα είναι μια πρώτης τάξεως ευκαιρία. Κι επειδή τα καλά λόγια, όσο συχνά και να λέγονται, δεν καταντούν ποτέ περιττά, η μετάφραση της Κατερίνας Σχινά και η εν γένει επιμέλεια του βιβλίου από τις εκδόσεις Πόλις είναι εξαιρετικές.

[Φώτης Καραμπεσίνης · Rating 5 out of 5]

Στο μοναδικό του αυτοβιογραφικό έργο με τίτλο «Τα γεγονότα», ο μέγας Φ. Ροθ αποφεύγει συστηματικά τη βιογραφία του εαυτού του. Όσο κι αν το επιχειρεί, τα αποτελέσματα δεν είναι ακριβώς τα αναμενόμενα. Όχι γιατί δεν μπορεί να επιτύχει στους συγγραφικούς στόχους που εξαρχής θέτει – είναι που η στόχευσή του παραμένει διαφορετική. Η άμεση συνέπεια του γεγονότος αυτού είναι απλή: Όποιος αγοράσει το βιβλίο για να μάθει κάτι περισσότερο για τον άνθρωπο πίσω από τον μύθο, θεωρώ ότι θα απογοητευτεί, όπως του αξίζει εξάλλου. Ας εξηγηθώ.

Ο Ροθ γνωρίζει άριστα την ψυχολογία του κοινού του, των αναγνωστών του (έστω της πλειονότητας). Είναι εκείνοι που διαβάζοντας τα έργα τού λογοτέχνη, έχουν βιώσει έντονη ταύτιση με τους χαρακτήρες και τον δημιουργό τους. Εκείνοι που επιζητούν στη συνέχεια μια πιο ουσιαστική προσέγγιση με τον άνθρωπο πίσω από το έργο. Ο θαυμασμός για τον δημιουργό αποτελεί καθ’ όλα ανθρώπινη αντίδραση θα ισχυριστεί ο καλοπροαίρετος. Βεβαίως, το γεγονός ότι είναι ανθρώπινη, δεν την καθιστά και απαραιτήτως ορθή.

Ο Ροθ γνώριζε εις βάθος το παιχνίδι της δημοσιότητας, δεδομένου ότι υπήρξε ένας συγγραφέας-star, μάλιστα ένας συγγραφέας «προκλητικών» βιβλίων, ο οποίος βλήθηκε πανταχόθεν καθ’ όλη την μακρά και επιτυχημένη σταδιοδρομία του. Το γεγονός αυτό τον καθιστά εξαιρετικά φειδωλό στο πώς και τι θα αποκαλύψει και, κυρίως, τι όχι. Ακριβώς αυτό το «όχι» έχει ιδιαίτερη αξία και χρήζει περαιτέρω σχολιασμού.

Δεν χρειάζονται πολύς χρόνος προτού ο προσεκτικός αναγνώστης κατανοήσει ότι ο Ροθ δεν ενδιαφέρεται πραγματικά να προβεί σε μνημειώδεις αποκαλύψεις. Όχι γιατί στα ενδιάμεσα -αμιγώς αυτοβιογραφικά κεφάλαια- δεν συνομιλεί με τον παρελθόν του. Οι γονείς, οι συγγενείς, ο εβραϊκός κύκλος του Νιούαρκ, η εφηβεία, η ενήλικη ζωή, η ακαδημαϊκή και συγγραφική του καριέρα, οι σχέσεις του, οι γάμοι του, είναι όλα εκεί. Τουλάχιστον όλα εκείνα στα οποία έχει αποφασίσει να αναφερθεί εκτενώς.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτα πίσω από τον συγγραφέα, παρά μόνο ο συγγραφέας, υποστηρίζει ο Ροθ. Και το αποδεικνύει ξεκινώντας και ολοκληρώνοντας τα «Γεγονότα» (ειρωνικός ο τίτλος) με δύο επιστολές, προς και από το μυθιστορηματικό alter ego του, τον περιβόητο Ζούκερμαν. Πρόκειται για ξεκάθαρη στάση: τίποτε δεν πρόκειται να διαταράξει τον ορίζοντα συμβάντων της μυθοπλασίας. Τίποτε δεν είναι πιο σημαντικό από την επινόηση, τη δημιουργική φαντασία του συγγραφέα που συνδιαλέγεται με τη ζωή του, και παρεμπιπτόντως τους αναγνώστες του, μέσω της λογοτεχνικής του ύπαρξης. Το γεγονός πως ό,τι πραγματικό (το κύριο σώμα του βιβλίου) παρεμβάλλεται μεταξύ δύο επιστολών από και προς κάποιον φανταστικό χαρακτήρα αποτελεί συνάμα πρόθεση και δήλωση: Εν τω μέσω η ζωή, πλην όμως εν αρχή και εν τέλει η μυθοπλασία.

Η αυτοβιογραφία του Ροθ αποτελεί έναυσμα λογοτεχνικής δημιουργίας. Ο συγγραφέας εκτοπίζει τεχνηέντως τον άνθρωπο. Περισσότερη αλήθεια κρύβεται στα ερωτήματα που θέτει στο τέλος του βιβλίου ο Ζούκερμαν προς τον Ροθ, παρά στο ενδιάμεσο όπου ο Ροθ αποκαλύπτεται. Ετούτο δεν σημαίνει ότι ο συγγραφέας ψεύδεται εκούσια, παραποιώντας σκοπίμως τα γεγονότα. Πλην όμως, όπως κάθε ικανός μυθοπλάστης, γνωρίζει ότι τα «Γεγονότα» (πλην ημερομηνιών ή άλλων καταγεγραμμένων στοιχείων), είναι στην πραγματικότητα αναμνήσεις, ερμηνείες, αντιλήψεις και εκλογικεύσεις. Αυτό είναι ένα μη διαπερατό φράγμα που εκ προοιμίου ακυρώνει την ορμή του αναγνώστη για αλήθειες. Όσα θα διαβάσει ίσως δεν είναι ψέματα, αλλά παραμένουν η αλήθεια ενός ευφάνταστου δημιουργού.

Ο Ροθ είναι ένας ευφυής άνθρωπος και λογοτέχνης και επομένως έχει επίγνωση ότι το σπουδαίο έργο του είναι σαφώς πιο ενδιαφέρον από την ίδια τη ζωή που το εξέθρεψε. Σε αυτό το επίπεδο λειτουργεί σε πλήρη αντίθεση με τη μεγάλη μάζα καλλιτεχνών που αποδεικνύονται πολύ πιο ενδιαφέροντες ως άνθρωποι από το έργο τους. Ή πάλι και από εκείνους που έκαναν τη ζωή τους έργο τέχνης (έρχεται στο μυαλό η ταινία «Henry Fool» του Hal Hartley, αλλά και στον χώρο της λογοτε��νίας ο B. Σερζ κ.ο.κ.), τους μεγάλους τυχοδιώκτες, εξερευνητές, παράτολμους. Σε κάποια αποστροφή ο Ροθ εξηγεί, κλείνοντας το μάτι ξανά, ότι δεν υπάρχει τίποτα ενδιαφέρον στη ζωή ενός ανθρώπου που περνά ημέρες και χρόνια ολόκληρα μπροστά στη γραφομηχανή. Ο συγγραφέας έχει επιλέξει στρατόπεδο: ανήκει σ’ εκείνους που το έργο τους αποτελεί το ύψιστο ενδιαφέρον τους, μοναδικό τους μέλημα, απώτατο όριο των δυνάμεών τους, στο οποίο επέλεξαν να αφιερώσουν τη ζωή τους. Κι αν εφαρμόζει την αρχή αυτή στον εαυτό του, πώς περιμένουμε να είναι πιο επιεικής με το αόρατο κοινό που τον περιβάλλει;

Ο καλλιτέχνης ανοικειώνει (κατά τα διδάγματα του Β. Σκλόφκσι) το υπάρχον, το παρουσιάζει όπως το αντιλαμβάνεται κι όχι όπως το γνωρίζει, ξύνοντας την πατίνα που έχει προσθέσει η συνήθεια. Ως εκ τούτου, «η τέχνη γίνεται ο μόνος τρόπος να βιώσουμε την καλλιτεχνικότητα ενός αντικειμένου. Το ίδιο το αντικείμενο είναι αδιάφορο». Ακόμα κι αν το «αντικείμενο» είναι η ζωή του, ο καλλιτέχνης δεν μπορεί να αντισταθεί στον πειρασμό να την ανοικειώσει, επιτυγχάνοντας τον αείποτε στόχο του: ars longa εις βάρος του πεπερασμένου βίου. Τι μπορεί να ενδιαφέρει τον αναγνώστη; Ίσως όχι εκείνο που αφορά τον δημιουργό. Ο Ροθ επιλέγει ρόλο: και δείχνει σαφή προτίμηση σε εκείνον του λογοτέχνη. Εκείνου που πλάθει το υλικό, του εμφυσά ζωή και το παραδίδει ολοζώντανο στο κοινό του, αδιαφορώντας για τη συνέχεια.

Όσον αφορά εμένα, πέτυχε απόλυτα τον στόχο του. Ούτε προς στιγμή -ιδίως μετά το εναρκτήριο κεφάλαιο της επιστολής προς τον Ζούκερμαν- δεν είχα την ψευδαίσθηση ότι διάβαζα ένα αυτοβιογραφικό βιβλίο. Η χαριστική βολή στις όποιες πιθανότητες φωτογραφικής αποτύπωσης του βίου του ήρθε βέβαια με την καταληκτική επιστολή που ανατρέπει εκ βάθρων όσα προηγούνται, αφήνοντάς μου την υπέροχη αίσθηση ότι διάβασα ένα ακόμα εξαιρετικό μυθιστόρημα του Ροθ με ήρωα τον ίδιο. Κι αν αυτά ακούγονται υπερβολικά, θεωρώ ότι η ανάλυσή μου δεν είναι αυθαίρετη, και ότι αυτός ακριβώς υπήρξε ο σκοπός του συγγραφέα. Ιδίως εφόσον λάβουμε υπόψη τον πρότερο…ανέντιμο βίο του και την κωμική διάσταση που εμφιλοχωρεί ακόμα και στις πλέον δραματικές σελίδες του. Αδιανόητο να παρέλειπε την ευκαιρία να παίξει εκ νέου με όλα εκείνα τα «εν ου παικτοίς» που τον συνάρπαζαν ως λογοτέχνη.

Αν είσαι πλάσμα δημιουργικό που κυοφορείς πλοκές και πλάθεις μύθους με τη ζωή των άλλων, πώς να μη ρίξεις στην πρώτη γραμμή τον εαυτό σου, θυσιάζοντάς τον στα χαρακώματα της μυθοπλασίας; Αν έχεις μία και μόνο ζωή, όντας αποφασισμένος να την κάνεις βορά στην τέχνη, θα ήσουν δειλός να αφήσεις τα… Γεγονότα να παρεισφρήσουν αλλοιώνοντας το κορυφαίο έργο τέχνης: την αναδημιουργία του εαυτού σου, με έπαθλο -απόλυτη ματαιοδοξία!- τη Μεγάλη Αθανασία.

https://fotiskblog.home.blog/2021/04/...

[piperitapitta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dietro la maschera

E mentre lui parlava, io pensavo: "In che razza di storie la gente trasforma la vita, in che razza di vite la gente trasforma le storie".
[Nathan Zuckerman, in La controvita]

L'antefatto
finalmente mio!*
lo inizio subito in preda ad una irrefrenabile ingordigia letteraria :-)

Comincio ad essere sempre di più convinta che quest'uomo abbia in sé qualcosa di geniale, un dono naturale per la scrittura ed il sacrosanto diritto di essere premiato con un Nobel!

Il commento
Leggo quest'autobiogafia (romanzata?) di Philip Roth e mi accorgo che, nonostante fosse successo tantissimo, all'epoca in cui fu pubblicata non era ancora successo nulla.
Scritta nel 1989, nel mezzo del cammino letterario dell'autore, e quindi ben prima dei successi della Trilogia Americana (Pastorale americanaPastorale americana, Ho sposato un comunista, La macchia umana), della lunga serie di National Book Award, del Premio Pulitzer e prima ancora di vedere pubblicata la sua intera opera letteraria dalla Library of America, ma con già alle spalle il successo del Lamento di Portnoy, Philip Roth aveva già tanto da raccontare.
Lo fa a modo suo, con apparente cinicità (quando parla dei suoi rapporti sentimentali, sfociati poi in una relazione matrimoniale drammatica e nella quale rimarrà invischiato per lungo tempo) e con malcelata dolcezza (quando descrive con poche ma significative parole il rapporto con i genitori, con il padre soprattutto, con il fratello e del padre con lo zio), ripercorrendo il suo percorso di studi, l'avviamento professionale e infine gli inizi della sua carriera di scrittore.
L'intreccio, al quale partecipa sin dall'inizio il suo alter ego Nathan Zuckerman, è degno della vita di uno dei più grandi romanzieri di questo secolo: l'ebraicità di cui è pervaso questo libro è proprio ciò che lo distingue e che ne fa il punto di forza. Roth, accusato addirittura di antisemitismo, è ebreo, come dice egli stesso, senza capire di esserlo, così come è americano fino al midollo.
Philip Roth è Nathan Zuckerman, Philip Roth è Peter Tarnopol, Philp Roth è Alex Portnoy, Philip Roth è David Kepesh, Philip Roth è Philip Roth, ebreo e americano: uno, nessuno e centomila.

*(in effetti no: preso in prestito in biblioteca!)

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Why is it that when they talk about the facts they feel they're on more soid ground than when they talk about the fiction?" The truth is that the facts are much more refractory and unmanageable and inconclusive, and can actually kill the very sort of inquiry that imagination opens up."
- Philip Roth, The Facts



Part memoir, part exegeis on the same memoir by Roth's ficitonal alter-ego Zuckerman (with some pointers from Zuckerman's wife if it hasn't already becoeme uber-Meta). I walked into this only partially knowing what I was getting into. I figured it would be more than just an author's memoir, but I was unprepared to like it as much as I did. I didn't lke it as much as The Counterlife (his previous work). Like the Counterlife, Roth is absolutely screwing with the traditonal form. He is bending memoir into a post-modern exploration of not just fiction, but memoir, facts, and his own history.

It would have been a good memoir without the Zuckerman invention, but somehow by having a fictional character critique a memoir, Roth is able to explore corners that straight memoir or fiction wouldn't allow. I still don' think it is top-shelf Roth, but it is still damn good.

[Gabril · Rating 4 out of 5]

E mentre lui parlava io pensavo: “guarda in che razza di storie la gente trasforma la vita, in che razza di vite la gente trasforma le storie”. (Nathan Zuckerman, La controvita)

Lo scrittore Roth invia una lettera al personaggio Zuckerman. È il progetto di un libro intitolato I fatti. Reduce da un periodo di depressione profonda, Roth sente l’esigenza di fare pulizia, di “rendersi visibile a se stesso”(e quindi ai suoi lettori). Dopo tanta fiction, insomma, la verità. La verità dei fatti. Quella nuda e cruda. È mai possibile?

Roth ripercorre gli avvenimenti della sua vita cercando di trovare il nucleo essenziale e vitale della sua esperienza, ovvero di “tornare al momento esaltante in cui il lato maniacale della mia immaginazione prese il volo e io divenni lo scrittore di me stesso”.
Ma la ricerca delle “nude ossa”, della realtà pura e semplice, della struttura depurata dalla finzione è destinata al fallimento. L’abbellimento dell’esperienza, o almeno la sua trasformazione, è una sorta di pulsione originaria, una falsificazione necessaria che probabilmente può trovare il suo senso soltanto nella costruzione deliberata, nella rielaborata e meditata finzione del romanzo.

Il colpo di genio di Roth è quella di sottoporre il giudizio su “I fatti” al suo alter ego Zuckerman, dal quale riceve svelamento e risposta. Lascia perdere Phil, dice Zuckerman: in questo libro stai indorando la pillola perché non c’è la finzione a proteggerti dalle scomode verità dello scandaglio di sé (e degli altri, e della vita stessa). Non c’è la finzione a proteggerti dalla vertigine dell’abisso.
“Nella fiction puoi essere molto più sincero senza doverti continuamente preoccupare di fare del male a qualcuno.[…] Il tuo dono non consiste nell’impersonare la tua esperienza ma nel personificarla, nell’incarnarla nella rappresentazione di una persona che non sei tu. Tu non sei l’autore di un’autobiografia, sei un personificatore.[…] La mia ipotesi è che tu abbia scritto così tante metamorfosi di te stesso da non sapere più né chi sei né chi sei mai stato. Ormai non sei altro che un testo ambulante.”

L’integrità dell’uomo Roth è strettamente legata a quella del personaggio Zuckerman, giustamente preoccupato che la velleità dell’autore di ripercorrere semplicemente i fatti possa comportare la fine della sua vita romanzesca e che perciò lo invita a lasciar perdere.
“Un autore consapevole come te deve sicuramente chiedersi, nondimeno, se un personaggio che lotta senza tregua con quello che sembra essere il dramma necessario della sua esistenza non sia, in realtà, gratuitamente e crudelmente vittimizzato dalla celebrazione, da parte dell’autore, di un nevrotico rituale. Tutto quello che posso chiederti è che tu lo tenga in mente quando per me sarà il momento di farmi la barba, domattina. Obbligatissimo, Zuckerman.”

[Lee Klein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rotated back to Philip Roth after years away because he's a connection to my father, who grew up in the same Weequahic neighborhood of Newark and attended the same high school, nine years younger than Roth. I remember my father reading this maybe thirty years ago and exclaiming that Roth is describing some events and sandlot games etc he remembered watching as a five year old when Roth was fourteen. Since my father never really described his neighborhood or talked much about growing up in Newark in the '40s and '50s, I've always welcomed Roth as top-notch parental supplement, an ideal relative of sorts, avuncular, way more randy and verbose than my dad ever was. Generally enjoyed this, particularly descriptions of the old neighborhood, the kids in the predominately Jewish neighborhood totally assimilated Americans, the experience my father relayed as well, not so much repulsed by religion but just way more interested in Saturday morning sandlot baseball than synagogue. Welcomed typical Rothian flourishes about his understanding of the era's gentiles and anti-Semiticism, his escape to Bucknell and then Chicago and then NYC. How he could've worked at FSG or the New Yorker but returned to Chicago to teach, which he thought would allow him the most possible time to write. Also fantastic when discussing the self-hating Jew critique foisted on him by Jews he presumed rarely ever read, how this critique pushed him toward Portnoy -- a great scene getting grilled on stage, with Ralph Ellison defending him somewhat. Everything about his marriage to Josie seemed less interesting, or meaner, and toward the end I was reminded that there's an excessive aspect to Roth's mode of flowing analyses that can get kinda old or closes up as he drills deeper down to the heart of a matter. His syntax and sentences after a while reveal themselves as almost rote -- it feels like every sentence is twenty-five to thirty words long. Excels when the sentences open up a little and get longer but very few short sentences or fragments in play. Also, I didn't find the discussions about the nature of fiction and non-fiction all that interesting since for Roth it's all about reader manipulation to a degree. Writing as manipulation of appearances and reputations seems sort of sullied and base, if not totally off-base, or maybe it's just typical Rothian cynicism? Also, the Zuckerman frame seemed only vaguely interesting on a formal, self-analytical level, but also seemed kinda cheap and toward the end some long meaty self-questioning swashbuckling started to seem almost impenetrable. With that said, it's still a solid four stars for me thanks to the typical galloping language and insight. I have a handful of what I've always considered "lesser" Roth books all set to go (not counting this one, I've read exactly eight books by him, all the biggies etc) and look forward to them but also expect to a degree to appreciate them with reservations.

Also, this bit about the Jews in his neighborhood never talking about the old country really hit home -- I said aloud "exactly" and turned the page down:

"We knew very well that our grandparents had not torn themselves away from their shtetl families, had not left behind parents who they would never see again, because back home everyone had gone around the village singing show tunes that brought tears to your eyes. They'd left because life was awful; so awful, in fact, so menacing or impoverished or hopelessly obstructed, that it was best forgotten. The willful amnesia that I generally came up against whenever I tried as a child to establish the details of our pre-American existence was not unique to our family." (p 123)

My father hardly even was able to say where his grandfather (great-grandfather?) had come from in the 1880s. It just wasn't talked about. He once said Lithuania, so I've always claimed Lithuania, imagined life in and around Vilnius, read the excellent The Avengers: A Jewish War Story because it's about Jewish resistance of Nazis in Lithuania, but Roth herein says his family is from the historical region Galicia (centered around what's currently Lviv in Ukraine), including southeastern Poland (where my mother's Catholic side is from), apparently part of what was called the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, so it's possible my father's relatives came from the same area as Roth's family. Update: via 23andme, I recently learned that my father's side is most likely from western Ukraine (aka Eastern Galicia), so most likely the same area as Roth's family.

Pretty sure I acquired this one (and The Counterlife, which I also still haven't read) after a recommendation from a respected editor friend who first used the term "autofiction" in my presence..

[Read By RodKelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such a unique book. Written with characteristic polish, and veering off into, or rather structurally framed by, a meta experimental conceit that has Roth commenting on his own work via his fictional counterpart, Nathan Zuckerman, whose lengthy critique makes Roth a character in his own life. The Facts posits that writing fiction, for a protonovelist of Roth's ilk, is the only way to shed the facade of reality and make the truth known. Really brilliant stuff.

[Giuls (la_fisiolettrice) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nelle primissime pagine Roth scrive una lettera a Zuckerman, il suo alter ego letterario, dicendogli il motivo per cui ha scritto questo libro e chiedendogli se secondo lui deve pubblicarlo.

Superati i cinquanta, reduce da un forte esaurimento nervoso, Roth cerca di ricapitolare la sua vita e snocciolare la questione di come sia diventano uno scrittore di romanzi.

Roth prova a scardinarsi dal romanziere e a raccontare alcuni fatti importanti della sua vita che lo hanno ispirato per le vicende dei suoi primi romanzi e descrive gli episodi che hanno influenzato le sue scelte.

Partiamo dal 1944 e dal rapporto di Roth con il padre, proseguendo con gli anni al Joe College e le confraternite; la prima ragazza fissa, Polly; l’amicizia con Richard Stern, Thomas Rogers e Ted Solotaroff; il rapporto con il fratello, Sandy; il matrimonio con Margaret Martinson (che lui qui chiama Josie Jensen), gli anni turbolenti; i legami con la madre e con lo zio; la relazione controversa con la comunità ebraica, il secondo matrimonio e la difficoltà a indossare i panni del “marito”.

Comprendiamo perfettamente dal racconto da dove ha attinto per scrivere i suoi romanzi: negli scritti di Roth c’è Philip Roth, completamente, è dalla vita che attinge materiale per scrivere e allora perché provare a scrivere un’autobiografia? Lo stesso gli dice Zuckerman nelle 35 pagine finali, a mio avviso bellissime.

“L’esistenza non è sempre lì che invoca l’intervento del romanziere. A volte chiede solo di essere vissuta.”

Dai libri di Roth esco sempre diversa, cambiata, sono viaggi umani profondi.

Il mio personale consiglio è leggere questo una volta letto tutto ciò che ha scritto prima del 1988 proprio per poter collegare bene gli episodi ai suoi romanzi ma ormai è noto che a me piace leggere “a sentimento” quindi sono felice così, di aver aggiunto un altro tassello alla conoscenza di Philip Roth di cui voglio assolutamente leggere tutto.

[Stella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sono un’appassionata di Roth, mi sento sempre a mio agio nella sua letteratura, interessata e coinvolta da una scrittura abile, lucida, originale, tagliente, capace di scandagliare l’animo umano. Per me Roth è una garanzia. Questo libro mi è piaciuto meno di altri, ma .... la garanzia non viene meno. Negli intenti dichiarati dovrebbe trattarsi di un’autobiografia (scritta a 55 anni), un racconto di “fatti” e non una rielaborazione letteraria, come negli altri libri sino qual momento scritti. L’autobiografia parte molto bene, è interessante soprattutto per chi conosce bene la letteratura di Roth, perché racconta delle circostanze in cui sono sorti i primi romanzi, spiegandone genesi, intenzioni, stimoli e prima ancora ricostruisce l’infanzia a Newark, nel quartiere ebraico. Il racconto si focalizza su due aspetti in particolare: la formazione di un’identità ebraica, pur senza adesione religiosa, e il suo integrarsi nell’identità americana (secondo un modo di sentire che la comunità ebraica americana apprezza poco); il primo matrimonio, con una donna psicolabile che mette a dura prova l’integrità mentale di Roth. Tutto interessante finché Roth, tramite il suo alter ego Zuckerman, non mette in discussione la possibilità stessa che i fatti siano raccontabili, che un’autobiografia, per quanto scritta con le migliori intenzioni, sia meno rielaborata (anche nella sola scelta di cosa raccontare), sia in definitiva più “vera” di una genuina e dichiarata creazione letteraria. La faccenda si dilunga parecchio, psicoanalizzando, di fatto, ciò che Roth ha sinora raccontato di sé. Come lettrice non ne sentivo il bisogno, ho trovato questa parte un po’ pedante; mi sarei accontentata di un’autobiografia, pur con tutti i limiti di un racconto di presunti “fatti”.

[Ubik 2.0 · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Un’autobiografia è probabilmente il più manipolabile dei generi letterari.”

L’affermazione si trova nelle pagine di questo libro ed appare anomala, così come tanti altri elementi di quest’opera particolare che, letta pochi mesi dopo la scomparsa del grande Maestro, determina benevolenza e commozione al cospetto della vitalità e dell’energia che vi sgorgano in abbondanza.

In primo luogo è anomalo per un romanziere dare alle stampe la propria autobiografia quando è ancora a metà della sua produzione (ho verificato, è proprio la metà esatta! 14 romanzi scritti prima di “I Fatti”, 14 scritti dopo, se vi si calcola il meraviglioso “Patrimonio” che ha diversi punti in comune con questo libro), e quando ancora sta per sfornare gran parte dei suoi capolavori.

Poi, anche in un testo che sembrerebbe dichiaratamente asettico (“…un libro fedele ai fatti, un distillato di fatti che rinunci alla furia dell’immaginazione, può porre all’evidenza dei significati che l’approccio romanzesco aveva oscurati, dilatati o magari svisati”), l’istrione Roth non riesce a resistere al colpo di coda letterario teso a sbalordire il lettore: dopo avere raccontato “i fatti” in forma di una sorta di missiva inviata al suo personaggio/alter ego Nathan Zuckerman, esponendoli in un ordine approssimativamente cronologico, a una ventina di pagine dalla fine l’autobiografia termina, ma è seguita da un caustico documento di risposta da parte di Zuckerman!

E’ il personaggio che ribatte al suo autore, confutandone molte affermazioni, burlandosi dell’immagine di sé che egli ha voluto esibire a noi lettori (che così, in qualche modo, entriamo a far parte di questo teatrino a tre!), riabilitando personaggi (anzi persone reali, poiché trattasi pur sempre di autobiografia) che R. ha maltrattato nel corso della narrazione, in primis la “terribile” prima moglie che lo scrittore pone all’origine di pesanti tormenti interiori e guai economici, e così via.

Il risultato è allo stesso tempo dotto e spiazzante, divertente e ambiguo, così che resta la profonda impressione di aver letto non già un’autobiografia ma proprio l’ennesimo romanzo dell’autore.

Naturalmente gli elementi dominanti del libro sono quelli che ci si poteva attendere: l’ebraismo e la famiglia, la cultura e i primi approcci all’attività di scrittore, le donne: nel ripercorrere episodi della propria vita, Roth evidenzia come siano stati modello per opere come “La mia vita di uomo, Quando Lucy era buona, Portnoy, La contro vita, Lo scrittore fantasma…”. Ma in altri casi cita situazioni che troveranno solo molto più tardi collocazione in un romanzo, come ad esempio gli scontri con l’autorità scolastica e universitaria che preludono ai funambolici scambi di offese in “Indignazione”.

Insomma questo libro è una miniera per gli appassionati dell’autore, ma ignoro l’effetto che possa sortire in chi non conosca i suoi romanzi o, peggio ancora, li detesti.

[Nad Gandia]

Creo que al empezar con este libro me he equivocado. Philip Roth es una leyenda dentro del mundo de la literatura americana, por ello siempre me han interesado las biografías sobre algunos de estos autores. El caso es que hace muchas referencias a su obra, una obra que no me he leído, siempre ha sido uno de mis eternos pendientes, en este sentido he cometido un error.
A pesar de ello, me gusta su forma de escribir, su manera de contar las cosas. Puede que me acerque a una de sus novelas, después volveré a esta lectura y seguro que lo veo desde otra perspectiva.
Al final tengo tanta sobras pendientes que creo que no me será suficiente con una vida.

[Shauny Free Palestine · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short autobiographical book by Philip Roth is not your typically reflective account of a writer’s early days and he he transitioned from an adolescent student unsure of what path to take in life, to making the leap into the world of literature as a profession. Whilst he does recount his childhood, the book is divided into segments and thematically focuses on different aspects of his life.

I’m not usually a fan of autobiographies, but The Facts was an utterly compelling read. Perhaps it’s because Roth seems to be channelling Henry Miller in the very best way. Negative criticism towards both label them as misogynistic. Whilst some of Miller’s early work is dated, after reading 8 of Roth’s novels from all periods of his career, I’ve still found no evidence to suggest the former. No, what reminds me of his predecessor is his overwhelming passion on display for being liberated by producing a work of art.

Roth perfectly encapsulates the feeling of gaining literary success, finding recognition, becoming financially secure, having the means to travel, and what it means to being able to devote oneself to their craft.

Particular highlights include, his failed marriages, what it means to be Jewish in America and if he is a “self-hating Jew”, as he’s been accused of so many times, and his ailing father, who poignantly remarks what it’s like to live in his twilight years. Finally, in the final chapter, he's berated in the form of a letter by Zuckerman, a fictional version of himself he created.

I was very close to giving it 5 stars. The only criticism I can give is I wish it were longer, which is paradoxically one of the greatest compliments you can give a book.

[GrauWolf · Rating 3 out of 5]

In che razza di storie la gente trasforma la vita, in che razza di vite la gente trasforma le storie.

Durante la lettura di un'autobiografia del genere la domanda più congrua -e allo stesso tempo più presumibile- che ci si può porre riguarda la presenza (e allo stesso tempo assenza) di un'effettiva concretezza nei fatti narrati dall'autore.

Ma questo non è un libro a richiesta: nessuno lo ha commissionato, nessuno ha mai richiesto un'autobiografia di Roth. Semmai una tale richiesta era stata formulata una trentina d'anni fa da certi vecchioni ebrei che avevano richiesto a gran voce di saperne di più sul ragazzo che scriveva quella roba.

Da un Roth biografo, a rigor di logica, ci si può soltanto aspettare un testo fuori dal comune. E non potrebbe essere altrimenti: l'opera esordisce con una lettera dell'autore rivolta al suo alter-ego Zuckerman, piuttosto criptica e carica di spunti, adatta per affrontare I fatti con un pizzico di consapevolezza in più.
Dopo l'originalissima overture ha inizio la tediosa biografia in cui lo scrittore americano snocciola punti di vista (su perbenismi, tradizione ebraica, politica e letteratura) e accadimenti piuttosto intimi descritti meticolosamente (relazioni turbinose, odio di sé, rapporti genitoriali e problemi di appendicite) originando, nel mio opinabile parere, una prosa di una pesantezza notevole. Ma in fondo da I fatti si riesce a trarre solo un'esigua e stentata conclusione: in ogni libro di Roth è presente una forte componente autobiografica.

Nei miei primi racconti di studente ero riuscito ad assorbire da Salinger una verve assai stucchevole e a rubacchiare al giovane Capote una certa vulnerabile delicatezza nonché a imitare malamente il mio titano, Thomas Wolfe, al limite dell'autocommiserazione e dell'autoesaltazione..

Tre stelle dovute solamente allo sprazzo di genialità nel fotofinish con cui Roth è riuscito -in parte- a risanare quella che, per me, è stata una delusione. Forse un testo del genere è più adatto ai cultori dello scrittore che ai novellini come me; ciò non toglie che io abbia ancora una grande smania di approfondire questo autore.
E sono concorde a Zuckerman quando redarguisce Roth e la sua autobiografia con siffatte parole: Quanto alla caratterizzazione, tu sei, Roth, il meno riuscito dei personaggi. Tu hai il dono non di impersonare la tua esperienza ma di personificarla, di incarnarla nella rappresentazione di qualcuno che non è te stesso.

[Maria Di Biase · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nella sua parte prettamente autobiografica, è un libro ricco di spunti interessanti.
Un vero e proprio manuale di istruzione al Roth-pensiero.
Il mestiere del romanziere presuppone un grande lavoro di fantasia; lo sforzo principale consiste soprattutto nel corredare di fronzoli immaginari un fatto realmente accaduto.
Roth decide di fare il lavoro inverso, ossia di condurre la sua autobiografia disimmaginandosi.
Depurando il suo passato, spogliando la realtà dall’immaginazione, provando a raggiungere la veridicità di ogni episodio vissuto. L’idea è quella di arrivare ai fatti.

Ma... è davvero possibile tutto questo?
Può, un romanziere, rivelarsi completamente?
Raccontarsi, attenendosi semplicemente ai fatti?

La mia ipotesi è che tu abbia scritto così tante metamorfosi di te stesso da non sapere più né chi sei né chi sei stato.

Versione completa qui: http://startfromscratchblog.blogspot....

[Simona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Attraverso una lettera indirizzata a Nathan Zuckerman, il suo alter ego, ma anche il protagonista di alcuni suoi romanzi, Roth scrive la sua autobiografia. Una autobiografia diversa, atipica che si snoda su cinque punti, che sono la tematica portante della sua vita da romanziere, ma soprattutto la sua vita di uomo.
In un percorso che va dal rapporto con i genitori, un rapporto molto dolce, ma anche troppo protettivo che l'hanno tenuto in una campana di vetro, ai primi successi, all'università sino all'establishment ebraica sino ai rapporti sentimentali, compreso quello con Josie, la cui morte è per lui fonte di sollievo, impariamo a conoscere il pensiero di Roth.
Se vi aspettate la solita autobiografia, mi spiace deludervi, questo non il romanzo che fa per voi.
Questa è l'autobiografia non convenzionale di uno scrittore, ma soprattutto di un uomo che ho imparato ad apprezzare e amare.

[AlbertoD · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cinquantacinque anni, Philip Roth, spinto da un esaurimento nervoso e da un periodo di depressione, decide di ripercorrere gli eventi salienti della sua vita in un testo autobiografico.
A prima vista sembra proprio la sua biografia: l’infanzia e l’adolescenza in un quartiere ebraico della Newark del dopoguerra; il rapporto con i genitori; gli anni universitari e la scoperta della letteratura; le relazioni sentimentali turbolente e caotiche; la presa di coscienza del suo talento di scrittore; gli scontri con l’establishment intellettuale ebraico seguiti alla pubblicazione dei suoi primi lavori.
Ma si sa che nei romanzi di Philip Roth c’è sempre, filtrato e travestito, Philip Roth, ed è riconosciuta la genialità di questo scrittore nel trasfigurare in invenzione narrativa le sue esperienze. Viene dunque da chiedersi se, nel dichiarare di fare l’operazione inversa, vale a dire mettere nero su bianco la sua vita senza trasformarla in finzione, sia del tutto sincero e se quella che dice essere la sua autobiografia sia a tutti gli effetti una cronaca fedele.
La risposta ce la dà Nathan Zuckerman, alter ego letterario di Roth, in una lettera al suo creatore, posta alla fine del libro, in cui questi immagina che il personaggio abbia letto il manoscritto della presunta autobiografia. Zuckerman non ha dubbi: evidenti le omissioni, significativi i non detti, chiara l’operazione di autocensura. A chi credere, dunque, allo scrittore o al personaggio di sua creazione? I fatti è davvero un onesto resoconto della sua vita? O è piuttosto la versione che lo scrittore avrebbe desiderato? O, ancora, un ennesimo tentativo di sviscerare, per meglio comprenderli, certi eventi determinanti che lo hanno segnato, come il matrimonio con la prima moglie, e di esorcizzarne il fantasma ancora vivo? O un tentativo di riconciliarsi con quel mondo ebraico la cui critica è un tema ricorrente nella sua letteratura? O è semplicemente un’abile operazione letteraria che celebra le infinite forme dell’arte del narrare?
Autobiografia, romanzo, esperimento letterario: I fatti è un po’ tutto questo, e una lettura a mio parere importante per chi voglia approfondire lo scrittore, la sua vita, i temi dei suoi primi romanzi, il contesto in cui questi sono nati, e il suo genio narrativo.

[Bert Hirsch · Rating 4 out of 5]

In lieu of reading the new 900+ page biography of Roth [which has been temporarily suspended by the publisher due to sexual harassment charges against Blake Baily] I retreated to the more manageable (194 page) The Facts:A Novelist’s ’ Autobiography, written in 1988.

Here, Roth writes the facts of his life: his childhood family, his adolescent adventures growing up in Newark, his college career at Bucknell, his early writing career, teaching at U of Chicago, his disastrous first marriage and its aftermaths, and the initial controversial reaction of the Jewish community to his early stories.

Formulated as a letter he writes to his fictional alter-ego, Nathanial Zuckerman, Roth relates his experiences in a highly subjective manner. The description of his marriage relates how he became “hopelessly accessible to her demands” presenting himself as “duped” and manipulated by this attractive yet flawed divorcée. There is a detailed account of his feeling victimized and trapped, especially so when divorced and still hounded by late night drunken phone calls and court hearings.

Unexpectedly, Josie dies in a car accident, and Roth can hardly hold back his sense of relief, satisfaction and disbelief. “How could she be dead if I didn’t do it.” Roth’s hatred and resentment are evident and difficult to admire. As I was reading this section I was reminded of the long-standing debate about whether an artist, whose character is suspect and downright despicable, can still be admired and heralded for his or her craft and artistic talents. Having recently read Celine’s Journey-to the End of the Night ( an author who interestingly Roth championed) I have been able to consistently divorce the artist’s personal failures from the beauty of his art.

Parenthetically, I have for many years been a huge fan of Roth from his early stories, to the hilarious Portnoy’s Complaint, the early Tarnopol novels, the brilliant Ghost Writer which introduced Zuckerman as Roth’s stand-in and interlocutor in documenting the Jewish American experience in the 20th century. I have always considered him one of the giants of fiction yet felt that his work as Editor of the Writers from the Other Europe series of books was equal in its importance.

The last section of The Facts is Zuckerman’s response to the book. Here Roth presents a rather brilliant essay on the strengths and weaknesses of autobiography versus fiction and, to no one’s surprise, comes down heavily in favor of fiction's unique aspects and creativity. Zuckerman points out the shortcomings of The Facts and its autobiographical attempts. He takes Roth to task, accusing him of being unable to see his ex-wife’s perspective who was “married to the real adversary you were.”

Zuckerman believes that the autobiographical writer needs to maintain a “good boy”stance while the fiction writer is allowed to give vent to the “bad boy” side of life. In Roth’s Newark, Zuckerman argues that the good boy would have become a doctor or accountant while the bad boy was better suited to become an artist and writer. Zuckerman again attacks Roth,”you don’t appear to have the heart-the gall, the guts- to do in autobiography what you consider absolutely essential in a novel”, treating all other persons in your life (other than the ex) in glowing terms.

Zuckerman ends his argument celebrating “the things that wear you down are also the things that nurture your talent.”

In the end, this brief work, serves as a brilliant look at the role of fact and fiction. Roth takes on his critics, argues for the power of imagination, self reflection and revelation that fiction provides both to the writer and the reader.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've been derelict in keeping up with Goodreads lately, but I've still been reading! Admittedly this book was a real slog for me, taking almost two weeks to get through despite its modest length. The problem-- the main one, at any rate-- is that without the filter of a fictional protagonist and the accompanying embellishments, this material is just pretty dull. Even with Roth's assured and typically engaging voice there as our guide, there's just an overwhelming desire, for me, to ask "Why is this a book? You already covered this same stuff better elsewhere, in some cases many times over." Whereas in his fiction Roth comes off as fearless and willing to go scorched earth on subjects and characters who he confirms here have some basis in reality, but without the protective skin of fiction he seems reluctant to let his guard down, and it just isn't very interesting to read. And the thing is, in the book's final section-- a lengthy "letter" from his frequent alter-ego Nathan Zuckerman-- he acknowledges all of this himself, turning a straightforward memoir (covering only his childhood up until his beginning the process of writing Portnoy's Complaint) into something more postmodern, and the Zuckerman letter is certainly the most interesting part of the work, but the fact he recognized the book's lack of vitality and lack of any real raison d'etre and nonetheless had it published really is more damning an indictment of it than anything else we might say of it, isn't it? The "fictional character telling his creator not to publish" element, however clever one thinks of it as being, doesn't, ultimately, justify writing what aside from the 20 or so pages it encompasses is an often agonizingly boring read-- it just makes me wonder why he didn't heed "Zuckerman's" advice not to publish, or go back and write a different, better book.

It's worth noting, I suppose, that in the Blake Bailey biography of Roth, it's revealed that Roth started writing this memoir as a sort of project to get back into the swing of things after a mental health crisis that saw him hospitalized following the publication of The Counterlife and that left him so shaken about his ability to write that he wondered if he would ever type another word. So The Facts began less as a deliberate decision to write a non-fiction book than as just an effort to re-learn how to write following a profoundly disturbing psychic cataclysm.

[Luís Paz da Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comprei este livro para levar para as férias que hoje acabaram. Li-o em 2 dias. É uma auto-biografia do Philip Roth, engenhosamente construída: começa com uma carta aberta do Autor dirigida a um dos seus principais personagens (o seu alter-ego Nathan Zuckerman), anunciando a remessa do manuscrito da sua auto-biografia e pedindo opinião quanto à bondade da sua publicação. Termina com a resposta de Zuckerman. Entre estes dois momentos, há uma biografia a cinco tempos. E funciona, porque Roth consegue dar uma versão dos factos que o seu personagem depois desconstrói: faz de deus e diabo, juiz e réu, polícia e ladrão. Admirou-me o tom terno e geralmente conciliador do texto, o que não é de todo identificável com o Autor, pouco dado a caminhar em terrenos de consenso. É um livro com partes comoventes, de um homem que parece querer fazer as pazes com as suas raízes, depois do ajuste de contas com o passado que é, em grande parte, a sua obra. Este livro não ajuda a esclarecer se Portnoy é Roth: mas ajuda a perceber melhor o Autor, não necessariamente pelo que conta, mas pelo que deixa por contar e, nesse sentido, Zuckerman (Roth) tem muita razão no que afirma no final: se tudo foi assim como conta, aonde foi o homem buscar a bílis e o humor que escorre dos seus livros? Não sei dizer e o Roth, pelos vistos, também não. Mas recomendo vivamente a leitura deste livro de um Autor que é cada vez mais um dos meus favoritos.

[Il Pech · Rating 4 out of 5]

Questa è un'autobiografia che Philip Roth ha scritta nell'88, dopo La Controvita, per chi ha dimestichezza con le opere dell'autore.
Sconsigliatissima la lettura ai non fans e a chi non abbia già letto almeno qualcuno dei romanzi con Zuckerman ma soprattutto La mia vita di Uomo e Quando lei era buona (ahimè) di cui qua ci sono grossi spoiler.

Il libro tratta 4 macro temi:
- infanzia o rapporto coi genitori
- anni di studio e maturazione
- rapporti con le donne
- rapporti con la comunità ebraica

Come autobiografia I Fatti vale davvero poco, ad esempio non si parla mai di sesso, Roth senza sesso che roba è? È chiaro che Il Nostro ci percula, si nasconde, dice quello che vuole su quello che vuole ma a pagina 170 sbam arriva la svolta pazzesca di cui non dirò nulla per non rovinarti la lettura.
E lì ho detto cazzo Phil Cazzo siiii me l'hai fatta di nuovo, che scrittore meraviglioso sei stato, come autobiografo sei un maledetto ma a mani basse sei il king della narrativa americana Filippo mio ti amo tantissimo 4 stelle piene.

[Andre · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alguns fatos relevantes que conseguimos visualizar o impacto em certos livros, mas outros extensamente detalhados que não esclarecem muito além. Mas vale lembrar que o livro é de 1988, e antecede o período tardio, este talvez, o melhor de toda a obra.

[Angela Saba · Rating 4 out of 5]

Avessi un’agevole padronanza della lingua inglese Roth, dopo Scott Fitzgerald, sarebbe sicuramente in cima alla lista degli autori in lingua inglese che vorrei leggere senza il filtro della traduzione.Roth è verboso sempre, ma lo è in modo meraviglioso. La sua scrittura è pazzesca.

Roth in questo libro toglie la patina romanzata alla vita dei suoi alter ego per arrivare alla materia prima grezza: la sua vita appunto, da cui attinge per la scrittura dei suoi romanzi. Lo fa rispettosamente però, avvisando di questa operazione Nathan Zucherman, che anzi coinvolge nella scelta se pubblicare o meno questi “Fatti”.
Meravigliosa ironia.
Il punto è dove inizia la vita e dove comincia la sua arte di narratore ? Perché certamente nel raccontare “i fatti” c’è un’abile operazione dì filtraggio e censura, magari anche edulcorata…. Zucherman, coinvolto proprio da Roth, gli fa le pulci al riguardo, rispettosamente s’intende.
La cosa che mi colpisce da sempre di Roth è il modo in cui vive, ricorda, filtra, analizza, dipana e infine meravigliosamente romanza e mette per iscritto il suo vissuto. Il suo angolo di visuale, la sua capacità di processare e organizzare la vita finalizzati al suo talento di narratore di storie umane. E più che mai mi colpisce in questo libro scritto prima che alcuni dei suoi romanzi più acclamati e amati fossero scritti….
Io adoro Roth.
Roth è Roth

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Facts, Philip Roth's partial autobiography, is not very sly assault on the premise that anyone can write autobiography, much less biography. He recounts his boyhood in Newark, his college years at Bucknell, and his early years as a successful short story writer and novelist (taking us basically through Portnoy's Complaint). Along the way, once he is in his twenties, he interweaves the tale of his disastrous first marriage to a woman who wants his money and his growing fame. She clearly was, from the outset, a terrible choice. Roth at the time was blossoming not just as a writer but also as an ever-wider ranging intellectual. He already had demonstrated a strong desire to move on from a romantic relationship for the sake of his independence. And his first wife, who bullied him into marrying her by staging a fake pregnancy, was a person with a poor self-image, little self-confidence, and two children from her own first marriage of whom she had lost custody. The one benefit Roth claims to have received from this multi-year disaster was being so maddened that he developed what became his signature over-the-top comic/satirical style. Bye-bye Henry James. Portnoy's Complaint not only made Roth rich and famous, it also generated an intense backlash from American Jews who already believed he was a self-hating Jew who loved making fun of himself and other Jews. Roth disputes this. He claims he always was an ethnic Jew, never a religious or practicing Jew, but altogether he has been fine with his Jewish family, friends, and other Jewish writers.

Okay, that's what he says for seven-eighth of this short book. For the last eighth, Roth turns things over to his fictional alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman, who devilishly undermines most of what Roth claims was his life--or his attitude toward his life. Zuckerman even goes so far as to suggest Roth has underplayed his first wife, not given her enough time or credit from her own point of view--which of course is the last thing Roth would want to do because Roth quite frankly says that when she died in a car accident, he was unaffected...because he hated her.

What's the point? Zuckerman's point, at least, is that fiction offers more truth than non-fiction because non-fiction is incomplete and fiction is the entire sum of an aesthetic proposition. There is a great deal to be said for this view, especially as regards writers. The "true" autobiography of a writer in many ways is what transpires during the process of writing whatever he/she writes, and this is inaccessible. So it may be better to focus on the residue of the writing process, i.e., the texts themselves, and forget attempting to document everything that happened to the writer when he wasn't writing. Roth, of course, didn't really live an eventful life outside writing. He didn't go to war, hold high office, spend time in prison, shoot big game, or stab his first wife. He read a lot, he wrote a lot, he spent time with other writers he grew close to, and he felt grounded in the Newark of his boyhood.

This book, then, The Facts, thumbs its nose at itself, which is a pretty neat trick. My guess, however, is that Roth didn't intend this from the outset. My guess is that Roth simply got bored recording his sometimes embarrassing activities in a realistic way and one morning decided to riff against the grain, courtesy of Zuckerman, one man's facts being another man's fiction.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

Well, this is what makes him a master.

I finally read Roth earlier this year (American Pastoral), & have Portnoy’s Complaint in my shelf. When I read the description of this autobiography, I was intrigued & decided to read it.

The first couple chapters were charming - homage to his family, friends, & neighborhood.

Then he wrote about his first wife. And didn’t stop. And it became infuriating. As bad as this woman may have been, his egotistical chauvinism was overbearing. Even though there was recognition of the damaged life she came from, there was no compassion. None.

And then... there is his letter from one of his long-running characters, reviewing his autobiography. What a stunningly clever reversal of the entire book. Zuckerman undoes Roth in a way I suppose only one’s fictional creation can. It’s worth reading this book just to see this relationship, even if you know nothing about Philip Roth & have never read him.

And it’s worth considering what Zuckerman says about sharing reality vs sharing fiction - are we better-served by fictionalized truth? Does fiction allow a brutally incisive look that humans just can’t bear to give to the facts of their own lives? In what is supposed to be a simple recounting of his life, Roth turns the form of autobiography on its head by examining these questions in an inimitable way.

[Montse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brutal! No es una simple autobiografía, no, es autobiografía y autoficción

[Roger DeBlanck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps only if you’re a great admirer of a writer do you care enough to gather any facts about their life. My reverence for Philip Roth’s boldness of transforming aspects of his most personal experiences into novels has made my curiosity natural in wondering how much of his fiction actually draws from his real life.

Roth’s autobiography The Facts attests to the truth that his experiences, like those of many artists, have fueled his imagination, but his imagination is what makes his works so compelling, making them, he contends, more real than reality.

In his introduction, cleverly written as a letter by Roth to his iconic alter-ego character Nathan Zuckerman, he offers keen insight into his theory of writing fiction. He says he uses his past and the “facts” of his life as sources to be transformed or mythologized in his novels so that the result of his work can examine an independent reality more interesting than anything he experienced.

Writing a memoir, however, was born out Roth’s need to “repossess life” and “retrieve my vitality” from a mental breakdown he suffered after a routine surgery. The “crack-up” as he refers to his mental instability had him yearning to transform back into the ordinariness of his real life to overcome his depression. So the memoir was an effort at “demythologizing to induce depathologizing” of his psychological breakdown. The memoir helped him, moreover, to put aside his exhaustion from pursuing the “powerful valence” required for writing fiction.

What results in The Facts is an honest, candid autobiography that starts with Roth recounting his youth with experiences that range from the summer fun of family vacations at the beach to the dangers and injustices of anti-Semitism at school, throughout his hometown of Newark, and across the country, including his father’s difficulty in receiving advancement at his job.

Roth then offers recollection of his intellectual development during his formative college years. His promise and ambition as a young writer meet their biggest obstacle when Roth entangles in an ill-fated love affair with a divorced mother of two that leads to a disastrous marriage that nearly kills them both.

By the memoir’s end Roth employs his cleverness again in offering another letter written this time by the alter-ego Zuckerman to Roth himself in which Zuckerman attests to the challenge of telling the truth. Zuckerman questions whether Roth has expressed the “facts” in his memoir without compromise, distortion, or embellishment.

Perhaps the best way to appreciate Roth is to allow him (through Zuckerman’s letter) to explain how he handles his fictitious/autobiographical approach to telling stories: “Of course, by projecting essentially fictional characters with manic personae out into the world, you openly invited misunderstanding about yourself. But because some people get it wrong and don’t have any idea of who or what you really are doesn’t suggest to me that you have to straighten them out.”

Just as Roth’s fiction has been therapy to deal with his own anguish and trauma, his memoir seems to serve a similar purpose when Zuckerman tells him: “I repeat: the things that wear you down are also the things that nurture your talent.”

[KOMET · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Facts: A Novelist's Autobiography encapsulates 3 phases of the life of Philip Roth, who became one of America's pre-eminent novelists in the late 1960s with the publication of the best-seller Portnoy's Complaint and remained on that lofty perch until his death in 2018, age 85.

I enjoyed reading about the first 2 phases of Roth's autobiography which described his childhood, adolescence (capturing the essence of what life was like for a Jewish boy growing up in Newark, New Jersey from the late 1930s into the early 1950s), and his time as an undergraduate at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, followed by his stint at the University of Chicago (on a fellowship), where he earned an M.A., engaged in some teaching, dropped out of a doctoral program, and began developing his skills as a writer. I felt that Roth largely followed the path of the traditional autobiography by laying bare essential truths about himself to the reader.

But when I began reading the third phase of Roth's autobiography, I felt that he had tired of the undertaking and showed a reluctance to share more about himself. Roth had brought the reader up to the late 1960s, when, following a divorce from his first wife (who came from a very troubled background and proved a trial for Roth to deal with - that is, until she died in an auto accident in NYC), had taken up with another gentile woman, and was just hitting his stride as a novelist. I was expecting that he would take the reader into the following 2 decades of his life, shedding more light about how the impact of his growing fame as a writer impacted his life and relationships. Alas, that was not to be.

Nevertheless, The Facts was an interesting book to read because it gave me some additional insight into Philip Roth that I didn't have before.

[Sonia Menken · Rating 3 out of 5]

I decided to start w Philip Roth’s autobiography before reading any of his other books. I don’t think this one will stick with me for super long but it was enjoyable. Definitely the best part was the last chapter when his alter ego responds to the manuscript. I can see why people think he’s a bit annoying lol

[Josh Mandel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wherein Roth ends his memoir from the POV of his trusty protagonist Zuckerman, who skewers Roth’s failure at honesty in his autobiography, an honesty only achievable in fiction.

And yet Roth publishes his memoir anyway, unsure of where truth lies, if not in both fiction and non fiction.