Roth's prose, moving slowly and heavily like a tanker, carried on board the weight of the whole world. It left no unilluminated corner of the most precious essence of his heroes and no unturned stone of the millstone of time that smiles on human destinies between the teeth of history.

Background: The development of the communist movement in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s and the subsequent "witch hunt for communists" initiated by McCarthy and Nixon.

The heroes: Ira "The Iron" Randle - a convinced communist and idealist who spent his youth as a stevedore in factories, in the mines of the South, on the docks in Iran, where he dedicated himself to the cause of the working class, and later was caught up in the wheel of history in high society as a famous radio actor, the husband of Hollywood actress Eve Frame, the woman who will betray him for the crime of "being a communist" and shatter his life.

Murray, Ira's brother - a high school English teacher, convinced that only education can change people's destinies, convinced of the power of personal dignity. The book begins with him, with his interrogation before the McCarthy Commission for "un-American activities". His appearance is supposed to be just a formality, but it turns into a long saga after he refuses to answer the question of whether he is a communist, not because he has sympathies for the party, quite the opposite, but because he believes that the most patriotic duty of an American is the freedom to exercise his political rights and beliefs without being subject to persecution. He is fired from the school where he teaches, branded as an enemy of the people and forced to sell vacuum cleaners in advance until he manages, after years of legal battles, to regain his position. "However hard it was for me, the situation was not total, the power was not totalitarian, I was not tortured, I had the opportunity to fight in court and I grew as a person, even if I was selling vacuum cleaners in Newark. That's why I'm proud to live in this country."

I love Roth's ability to describe the radicalization of the time he writes about - both here and in "American Pastoral". Roth tells with compassion even about the most fanatical idealists, although he does not spare their short-sightedness. There is only no sympathy for the fanatical opportunists, the people ready to trample on you to climb to a higher step.

"Look, everything the Communists say about capitalism is true, and everything the capitalists say about Communism is true. The difference is, our system works because it's based on the truth about people's selfishness, and theirs doesn't because it's based on a fairy tale about people's brotherhood. It's such a crazy fairy tale they've got to take people and put them in Siberia in order to get them to believe it."

I ceased reading Philip Roth during my teenage years, and I can now understand the reason. His writing is truly outstanding. However, the book leans heavily towards a male perspective. The central character is a teenage boy who shows a great deal of interest in what he deems as manly men. He looks up to big, strong, intelligent, and intellectual men as the ideals he aspires to become. In contrast, the female characters are rather poorly developed. I am awarding him three stars for his remarkable writing skills and his vivid portrayal of the Red Scare during the 1950s. Nevertheless, I don't envision myself picking up another one of his books in the near future.

Being the next Roth novel after American Pastoral, which was the first one I read and still my favorite, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. It might be because the protagonist, Nathan Zuckerman, is around my current age. But I've always loved the conversational reminiscing between the nonagenarian teacher (Murray Ringold) and the student. The setting is Newark, Roth's home turf, where he re-creates a place and time through his art more meaningfully (to me) than any history book could. I try to explain to my friends that fiction is more "real" than history as it captures the true essence of mankind in his environment, going beyond mere facts and simple interviews. Usually, I don't convince them, but that's their loss.

This novel also describes what it's like to be American as a Jew, with the characters struggling to shed their immigrant roots and become assimilated. It's also a story of two brothers (I have three), where Murray advises and consults the younger Ira through his tribulations, ascent to fame, and inevitable catastrophe. Finally, it's about the McCarthy era in the 1950s, and it's the best expose I've read about how it played out and how it actually affected people's lives. Growing up largely after the red scare, I do recall its remnants as a child, and even today, I see the body politic still actively debating the Soviet experiment with communism and its stigma in the US.

What I found interesting is the reaction to the Soviets, which is more of a fear of oppression, and the dogma that Marxism leads to totalitarianism and loss of liberty is still strong. But I digress. Mainly, this is a tale about people, about what it's like to grow up without parents in 1950s urban America. The history and characters are richly detailed, and we have this special author who has gifted this to us forever. For me, one of Roth's most special talents is his ability to create authentic and deeply developed characters. His insights into human nature teach me about human beings in a way I wouldn't have otherwise conceived. He reveals the tragedy in a dramatic fashion, as we learn throughout the story in surprising and exciting ways. I've always enjoyed tragedy in literature as it helps me deal with it in life, and this book is the best of its kind.

«[...] My book of life is a book of voices. When I wonder how I got here where I am, the answer astonishes me: 'by listening carefully'.» This simple yet profound statement holds a world of meaning. The idea that our life's story can be written through the act of listening is truly remarkable. It implies that every voice we hear, every conversation we engage in, and every sound that reaches our ears has the potential to shape our journey. By listening carefully, we open ourselves up to new perspectives, learn from others' experiences, and gain a deeper understanding of the world around us. It is through this active listening that we can create a rich and meaningful narrative for our own lives. The book of our life becomes a compilation of all the voices that have touched us, inspired us, and guided us along the way.

In this second installment of the American Trilogy, Philip Roth presents himself as his alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman, in this fictional biography of Ira Ringold. Ira, married to the sophisticated yet fading Hollywood star Eve Frame, had a diverse life. He was a ditchdigger in Newark in the 1930s, a stevedore, a star presenter of the radio show "The Free and the Brave" in the 1940s, and a devoted Stalinist in the McCarthy era of the 1950s after serving in World War II.

Ira's brother, Murray Ringold, is Nathan Zuckerman's ninety-year-old former high school teacher who visits Nathan in the Berkshire woods. Nathan, living alone, welcomes the company of the old gentleman.

Ira becomes the topic of their conversations, with Nathan as the observer, listening to Murray's retelling of his brother's life story. Nathan also reminisces about Ira, who was a father figure to the younger Nathan. The long-dead Ira Ringold constantly had to reinvent himself.

Ira's downfall occurred when his troubled wife published her autobiography, "I married a Communist," which was a scandalous bestseller that exposed and destroyed him.

The author also uses Nathan Zuckerman to express his own feelings about Claire Bloom's autobiography, "Leaving a Doll's House." The aftermath is filled with rage, ranting, and rifting, boiling over into revenge.

The novel is divided into sections presenting memories, digressions, and an analysis of the raw bitterness behind betrayal, counter-betrayal, and the interplay between anger and sanity. It is a war of emotions where revenge is a perpetual weapon and pure hatred is the high octane booster. An almost misogynistic melancholy befalls all women.

Murray Ringold, the Jewish war hero and intellectual, spends several days with Nathan, passionately explaining, clarifying, and trying to understand Ira's life. In monologues throughout the 326 pages of the book, Murray dissects Ira's life.

Ira Ringold was a bullish, rough-neck Jewish giant, an antihero in the Age of McCarthyism, and a victim of his own descent into insanity, disgrace, and ultimate demise.

The story is about anger, a challenging word dump of monologues and philosophical journeys through the optimism of youth, the pessimism of old age, and mortality.

The biographical fictional tale has Ira Ringold as a distant main character, with its actual purpose being a reaction to his ex-wife's allegations against him in her autobiography. It is a story within a story.

Eve's memoir depicts Ira as a Machiavellian Communist, a vicious man of enormous cunning who nearly ruined her life, career, and the life of her beloved child. Claire Bloom's memoir depicted Philip Roth in a similar light.

In this fictional biography, Philip Roth has the upper hand. Using his ex-wife as the tragic fictional character Eve, he portrays her as a zealot, a malicious, scheming woman, while he remains a manly giant in real life.

Ms. Bloom, on the other hand, writing her autobiography, feeds the real-life gossipmongers of the media. Philip Roth's real persona, however, remains gentlemanly intact, while destroying his ex-wife as a character in a novel.

Philip Roth is a highly accomplished author, winning numerous awards. For this common reader, it was an exhausting read, both emotionally and intellectually. The intense narrative left the spirit lifeless and destroyed.

It might be a brilliant piece of word art, but the moral behind this tragic life story is a killer. The epitaph on the poor soul's gravestone might read "What are you looking at!?" It took almost three months to get through this melodrama, which was brutal, brilliant, but enough.

The American Trilogy consists of "American Pastoral" #1, "I Married a Communist" #2, and "The Human Stain" #3.

As always, great Roth. Although it may not seem to me to be his best book, it is nevertheless brilliant. It contains a mini-essay of 3 or 4 pages on the differences between what creators - writers and I would say even good readers - seek in terms of the novel with respect to new creations (the novelty that we readers look for in readings), the nuance, as Roth calls it. And on the other hand, the common, globalizing idea without nuances or fissures that large groups of people around a political party, a club or a religion pretend. Impressive, impressively lucid. One has to find it in the text.

This exploration by Roth offers a fascinating perspective. It makes us think about how different our individual quests for novelty and depth are compared to the more homogenized ideals of larger groups. The way he dissects these differences is truly remarkable. It forces us to question our own reading preferences and how they align or diverge from the mainstream. Overall, this aspect of the book adds an extra layer of complexity and interest, making it a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the intersection of literature, creativity, and social ideals.

There are numerous printing errors and mistakes. It's not clear if they are only in the electronic version of Fidibo that I've read or if the publisher Niloufar Shahkar has also made them. There are also issues like the misplacement in the mention of personalities, which is quite common and confusing.

In addition to these, Faridoun Majlesi, whose sensitive and intelligent translation I had read in another novel by Philip Roth, "Anger", in this novel, has given some sentences to the addressee that are strange, inappropriate, and sometimes without a verb, which is due to the length and verbosity of the sentence. Indeed, understanding some sentences took three or four readings. The long sentences, which sometimes can stretch to a paragraph of twelve lines, are the style of Philip Roth that Majlesi has taken on in the novel "Anger" but not in this one.

This is the best-selling novel of Philip Roth. It is the second novel of his trilogy. The first one is "American Pastoral" and the third one is "The Human Stain", and there are two translations of it, one of which is the work of Mr. Majlesi. The content of these three novels is about the lives of Americans after World War II in the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, especially the Jews.

This novel is specifically about a low-wattage Jewish radio host named Ira Ringold with communist tendencies who was also a coal miner and has spent his entire life fighting loudly and angrily for the rights of workers. Eventually, he becomes a victim of the McCarthyite program to purge communist elements and is pushed aside by the famous Republican senator Joe McCarthy. A high school teacher and his student, when both are old, recall their memories of Ira, the teacher's brother, and Eve Frame, Ira's wife, who is a well-known actress. The book is very political and is a sharp and incisive critique of corrupt, reactionary, and lying conservative politicians who, in the atmosphere of threat and suspicion that emerged during the McCarthy era and the Cold War, were able to present themselves as patriotic and anti-Soviet and gain privileged political positions, which they achieved by ruining the lives of enlightened and independent-minded people. The characters in the story have tragic fates.

Apart from the printing and translation errors, the narrative of the book itself seemed long to me, as the stories in the memories of the narrators are constantly repeated and it no longer has much charm. I saw a kind of confusion in the narrative structure that makes the reader impatient and makes the book somewhat tedious. However, the attractiveness of the novel's story creates a lot of pull for continuing to read it.

Roth se ia la trântă cu ipocrizia, ca în toate romanele pe care i le-am citit.

În această carte, însă, ipocrizia ia de data asta chipul McCarthyismului și al „virtutilor” burgheze, vechi dușman al marelui Philip.

Dar Roth nu se oprește aici. El mai face ceva - și o face grozav de bine.

Scrie povestea formării unui bărbat, a „modelării” lui Nathan Zuckerman după mentorii pe care și-i alege, frații Ringold - Ira cel primitiv și intelectualul Murray.

De fapt, acești doi frați sunt două naturi la fel de intempestive, de pătimașe precum personajul peren al lui Roth.

Este drumul lui Nathan până la „acea stare de orfan absolut care este bărbăția”.

Roth ne prezintă într-un mod fascinant cum un tânăr se formează, se confruntă cu ipocriziile și cu adevărurile vieții, și încearcă să-și găsească propria identitate într-un univers plin de confuzii și de contradicții.

Cartea lui Roth este o analiză profundă a umanității și a societății, o încercare de a înțelege ce înseamnă să fim oameni și să trăim într-o lume în care ipocrizia și inechitatea sunt prezențe constante.

This wonderful book served as a powerful reminder to me that there existed a truly vibrant radical movement in the United States prior to the 1960s. Ira Ringold, in my eyes, is almost a tragical figure in the full Aristotelian sense. He was exalted to a prominent position within both the Communist Party and his professional circles. He was reliable, self-confident, and, above all, highly idealistic.

After marrying his super-famous co-protagonist, who I believe represents the apolitical bourgeoisie, he struggles to adapt to his new life among the rich and famous of New York. However, this all comes crashing down when she decides to expose him as a Communist. His fall is truly thunderous.

The author provides a great depiction of the era of McCarthyism. The narration is presented through two unforgettable characters: Ira's brother (and protector) and his pupil who befriended Ira during his teenage years and, of course, admired him as a god. The prose is bold and courageous, with scattered funny episodes such as "She married me to carry her daughter's harp!". Overall, it is a great contemporary novel that offers a captivating look into a bygone era.

A communist? In 1950s America?? It's more likely than you think!

During the 1950s in America, the fear of communism was at its peak. The Red Scare had gripped the nation, and people were quick to suspect others of having communist sympathies. However, the reality was that the idea of a communist in America during that time was not as far-fetched as it might seem.

There were indeed individuals and groups who were influenced by communist ideology. Some were drawn to the principles of equality and social justice that communism promised. Others were disillusioned with the capitalist system and saw communism as an alternative.

Moreover, the political and social climate of the 1950s was such that it was easy for rumors and accusations of communism to spread. People were afraid of being associated with anything that might be considered un-American. As a result, many innocent people were wrongly accused and suffered the consequences.

In conclusion, while the idea of a communist in 1950s America may seem unlikely at first glance, the truth is that it was a very real possibility. The Red Scare had a profound impact on American society, and the fear of communism continued to linger for many years.

Philip Roth is a political novelist. Not only does he include historical political events in his books (which he does abundantly in this book), but more than that, he shows the political tension between people; that political nature that some people have, that inner and private motivation that exists in tough people and leads them to later engage in political work - in a broader sense, for the country.

The book is about America but it teaches a political analysis that is applicable to our current Iran. American citizens, after World War II, present a saintly and exemplary face of Roosevelt; could that noble man defeat a Soviet infiltrator with his aide?

In the electoral disputes, Truman's supporters say that voting for Wallace (who is not a bad candidate, but it is clear that he won't get votes) is a vote for the Republicans who have destroyed the country. Just as we also heard from the religious supporters in the recent elections that "not participating in the elections or voting for Mirsaeed is a vote for Raisi. It is a vote for making Iran like Syria."

And in response, Wallace's supporters say that but the Democrats also never passed a real law against racism. That is, the reformists in Iran also took a real step in the direction of - for example - truly democratizing.

The book is about the McCarthyism era. About a young man's eagerness to change the world with the tool of Marxism, and then his transformation and moderation when he goes to college and realizes that everything is not like that. Just as we have a famous saying in Iran that says whoever goes to college and doesn't become a Marxist is stupid, and whoever comes out of college and still remains a Marxist is stupid!

Silvija is the character that interests me. A girl who has grown up in the manners and customs of Hollywood, but she doesn't give a damn about all that sparkle and electricity and mocks all the participants in the formal parties and even ridicules her own husband, Chang, whom she treats well. She calls the Doppler music a garbage can and mocks a female writer who apparently knows everything and is enlightened as being yellow and clueless.

In my opinion, the art of the novel is a kind of questioning. The novel sees, hears, reads, and even experiences; but it maintains its distance from every text and material. For example, when it questions history, it has no belief or opinion about the leaps and falls of history. The work of the novel in history is like a journey in search of the unknown corners and marking them on the map. Its work is not to record history and draw a map; but it wants to show us something that probably has not attracted anyone's attention and sometimes it is enough for us to understand how reliable the map given to us is.

In this way, the common history of the world, that is, the course of events, even if it is so close and behind our ears, may have no place in our present life; but the history of values is always present and with us. Values are constantly questioned, judged, and defended because they are present in our lives and are re-judged. Therefore, their priority and position are always changing. Human wisdom, along with his stupidity, eagerness, and forgetfulness, always threatens the set of human values and, incidentally, this evasive feature of his has made it special and very human. Most people do not think in the form of documents, facts, equations, numbers, and even maps. People think in the form of stories. This is where the novel, by going after values in history, turns it into something that is useful and necessary for our thinking and strengthening our awareness.

Philip Milton Roth is one of those who, as evidenced by his books, has shown a very good ability in using this feature of the novel. Contemporary history is not just a scene for a generation of writers like Roth, who spent their youth in the upheavals of the global communist hysteria and the past Cold War, and of course for all serious writers. Therefore, history penetrates into writing, the minds of characters, and the moral structure of books and forces the reader to think again about his set of values and at least take a look at the remaining map in his hand. This forcing to think again is exactly what I want from literature and reading books.

The first book I read by Roth, "My Communist Husband," is a detailed account of human dreams, actions, and passions. Given the use Roth has made of contemporary history and his own character and life, it seems that the story is a kind of confrontation with the writer's own good myths and passions that cause his conquerors to one by one back down. Only from this point of view can he be compared with Solzhenitsyn. It seems that he wants to attract the reader's attention to this painful reality that nothing is permanent.

"Man is drowned in history and history is drowned in man. You are drowned in America and America is drowned in you and all of this was because of the virtue of living in New Jersey at the age of twelve and sitting next to the radio in 1945..."

The scenes of this novel are full of human hopes and ruins. The dominant emotions of people are anger, lust, anxiety, and envy, and all human motives, even loyalty and love, are in a wild way out of control and tend towards personal gain. Disorder is a razor and even understanding a bitter joke.

Among these ruins, two narrators guide us: the main character and probably very similar to Roth himself, Nathan Zuckerman, and his former high school English teacher and first mentor, Murray Ringold. Nathan, who is now retired, meets with his former teacher, who is now ninety years old. These two men sit under the stars and review their life memories and Ira Ringold over six long nights. Ira is the model and hero of Nathan and the younger brother of Murray. Perhaps it can be said that the character of Nathan is half the inquisitive Roth who always has doubts and asks questions. Murray, who is relatively talkative, is also half the angry and immoral Roth who, even now in his old age, has a complex feeling of a combination of anger, impotence, and ambition.

"I told Loren that there is no war that you can win... Look at Darwin. Anger should increase a person's efficiency. This is a kind of adaptation for survival. Life has been given to you for this. If it makes a person unable, it should be burned like a rotten apple."

Both narrators generally have a gloomy mood and their contemporary language is stormy, full of anger, and full of arithmetic. But it is very interesting that the language of their memories is rich and hopeful. Of course, this mixing of anxiety and anger with peace in the book is not at all illogical and has a reasonable acceptance. The logic of Roth's prose and characterization is the scene of the struggle of human reason with his own irrationality. At the same time, the idealism that has been flowing in the depth of the work attracts both the reader's sense of love and his sense of contempt.

In this way, Ira, as the hero and at the same time the anti-hero of the novel, on the one hand, is the embodiment of the inspiring communist idealism of the mid-twentieth century and, on the other hand, the embodiment of its crude and merciless stupidity. The reader of the book, along with both narrators, sometimes becomes deeply tired and pained by this contradiction; but in the end, this contradiction is a reality. Roth's grip is precisely here that he destroys the covering structure of dreams and hopes in such a way that its futility becomes visible and he also creates this suspension that there was never a dream in the work in the first place. After all, that dream was just an illusion from the beginning that fled from the fear of opening its eyes to the reality of the world.

Roth's literary wisdom and questioning skill are evident in the way he explains this reality and the hidden contradictions in it. Roth was Jewish; but he has often been accused of being anti-Semitic because of his writings. Roth is not an ideologist; but he has a very strong critical aspect towards the individual elements that make up society:

"He knows his duty is to say that it is not necessary to be alcoholics to commit a violation, it is enough to think. In human society, thinking itself is the greatest violation. Then, by tapping his fingers on the table, he said: T-a-f-k-u-r-i-n-q-a-d-a-n-h is not an act in the absolute sense of the word."

This kind of semi-ideological Nazi-like insinuations against the American government sometimes put him at risk of repeated accusations of being infiltrated. Some have also criticized him for why in his works, including this novel, he has shown the American government, which was engaged in the process known as McCarthyism to purge and eliminate mainly cultural and artistic radical forces, to be so paranoid about the crowd?

In the complex implementation of this novel with two simultaneous narrators, it seems that both of them, by reviewing Ira's life, reach a point where they see that whatever a person's choices are, they have been and will be a vague combination of contacts with the world and evasions from the world, and now they must finally know something:

"I think it's time for us to be either American or not American."

But in such a vague and unstable situation, what does being American mean? The concept of being American is a pleasant appearance that has taken shape in contrast to another ideological appearance and at a certain point in history, wisdom has prevailed over many and, in Roth's view, has now turned into something surreal and out of control, and if not, then a manifesto must be written for what, like a stubborn stain on the world, attracts gazes towards itself.

Roth has written almost documentary-like. In such a way that sometimes the boundaries between the writer's imagination and reality are no longer distinguishable; but the background of American history and geography is a pretext that the novelist only asks his questions in it and tells the inevitable fate of the cities of dreams that perhaps can be generalized to the whole world with a suitable approximation:

"A serious writer offers something to this world that did not even exist in the beginning. When God created all this in seven days, he did not have ten minutes for literature. And then literature will come. Some people will like it. Some people will engage themselves with it. If they want to deal with it... No! No! He didn't say that. If you asked God at that time if there will be plumbers? Yes, there will be. Because people will have houses and they will need plumbers. Will there be doctors? Yes, because people will get sick. Literature? What are you talking about? What use is literature? What pain does it relieve? Please, I have a universe (world) to create, not a university (college). Literature is literature-less!"

The book progresses rapidly among the words of Nathan and Murray Ringold. The story of the book winds around the events of Ira's life, breaks into pieces. The pieces are placed next to each other and the disaster of Ira's American life is revealed in front of our eyes. Although the characters in the book believe that life in general is moving towards confusion and disunity; but Roth's writing style and his insistence on testing writing as a way to fight confusion say something opposite:

"Generalizing politics is great and specializing in literature is great and the relationship between them is not only an inverse relationship but also a hostile relationship. From the perspective of politics, literature is a soft, disconnected, tiring, illogical, and tiresome thing that can actually not exist. Why? Because literature is a highly specialized tendency. How can an artist be and turn a blind eye to the subtle and detailed differences? On the other hand, how can a politician be and be aware of the subtle and detailed differences?... The artist's duty is not to simplify. Even if you want to write in the simplest style like Hemingway, the duty of respecting the subtleties remains to open up the complexities. You must suggest the contradictions, not deny them. You must see the suffering of people from the contradictions. Otherwise, you have only made propaganda... If you are a writer, you are as irresponsible towards one as you are towards the other. Yes, you see the differences and of course, you see that this trash can is better than that trash can. Maybe it's much better. But you see the trash can."

Although, for example, it cannot be understood how Murray's memory is, which quotes word for word even the words during Ira's love affair with his wife, Eve? Or how Nathan has become so sensitive to what happens at the higher levels of society much earlier than what his age, years, and lifestyle require?

Of course, Roth, with such works, often pushes the reader and his patience and tolerance to the limit and tests them. A task that few writers dare to do and it is not bad for the reader to know this before going to Roth.

At the climax of the narration, it seems that Murray has used the traditional method of Jewish education and has put himself on "cautious truth". His brother, Ira, takes the path of anger to wipe the smile off the face of the Jews from the world. The story clearly shows how Ira gradually learns anger:

"There were many angry Jewish men like Ira around. Angry Jews throughout America were fighting with something or other... This is one of the greatest things that America gave to the Jews. It awakened their anger."

Besides Ira, the characters opposite him, Eve, and even his daughter, Sylvia, have nothing to do but find a responsive anger in their existence and complete Ira's work with the same anger. Eve, who is lost in the light and on the stage of the American appearance, with the help of her friends, publishes a book called "I Married a Communist" and this is at the end of the ideological hysteria in America, that is, the end point.

"Perhaps the real disaster, despite ideology, politics, and history, is always ultimately the fall of the individual."

Nathan, who is Ira's follower at that time, also has other challenges with himself in his search for facts to write, which put Roth's works and life aside:

"Leo said to me: Art as a weapon? And he used the word weapon with great contempt as if he himself was a weapon. Art in the position of taking the right position about everything? Art as the protector of good things? Who taught you these things?... Who taught you that art is in the service of creation? In this case, no art worthy of attention has any value for anyone. Mr. Zuckerman! What is the motivation for writing serious literature? To disarm the enemies? To control prices? The motivation for writing serious literature is to write serious literature. Do you want to rebel against society? I'll tell you how to do it. By writing well... So fight for the word. Not a bombastic word. Not an inspiring word. Not a word in support of this and against that. Not a word that tells our respected advertisers that you are an interesting, admirable, loving, and supporter of the oppressed person. Not a word that you are a supporter of that word!... This work confuses the world with words and this work exalts your virtue to the sky. Nothing has a greater effect on art than this, that an artist wants to prove with them that he is good and the terrible passion of ambition... Just as you give advice and take a position and consider your point of view superior, you will be worthless and ridiculous."

It is not bad to mention here that the original name of Philip Roth's book is "I Married a Communist". The translator of the book has explained in an interview that the change of the book's name to "My Communist Husband" is a suggestion of the publisher and is for compatibility with the taste of the Iranian. In my opinion, the respected publisher, in addition to paying attention to the tastes of the market and creating and meeting the taste of the Iranian audience, could have paid much more attention to the literary quality of the translation, the editing of the text, and the purity of the form of the novel's publication.

I have previously found the translator's work in his specialized field of politics to be very impressive and competent. For example, two good books, "Freedom Before Liberalism" and "Theories of Jaberit", have been published with his good and acceptable translation and have been used by interested people; but in the translation of this book, unfortunately, the least attention has been paid to the style and structure of the idiomatic narration, which these things can be received even without referring to the original text and only by identifying the form of the novel. Of course, by referring to the original language of the book on Google Books, I understood that my perception is not very wrong. In addition, the number of blatant editorial errors in the book is such that I doubt that the publisher has actually hired anyone or any people as a proofreader or editor, and this is not believable for the good publications of Niloufar.

But this novel by Roth, although it is said to be his most political work and at the same time not his most outstanding work, has qualities that, despite this printing quality, are still readable and attractive.

In addition to the masterful display of the inherent contradiction of ambition in different ways, another interesting quality in Roth's writing is something that, in my opinion, paves the way for the novel to reach its peak in prose. I don't mean literary prose. In my opinion, bringing a subject into prose is not just about stringing words together. Prose, in contrast to poetry, is also a kind of lowering of people from a lofty, heroic, and mythical position of good and evil. That is, it refers to the ordinary and physical side of human daily life with all its strengths and weaknesses and its ridiculous phenomena.

Although the novel has been translated for the Iranian reader with cuts and censorships; but in the place of the Japanese book, I can see the prose I am referring to, for example, how people defend themselves in a radical way from a social position or an ideological program in a dangerous situation and then, in the bedroom, take a revengeful, personal, and humiliating action. Therefore, Roth understands something much more from the novel and literature than just telling a story and using literary techniques to shape the writer's beliefs into content.

"I would devour those two books and try to actually use them for writing. Writing a letter for me was like climbing a mountain. Probably, I would be criticized by someone who knew English well. God knows what my language was like; but anyway, I was writing; because this was a job that I felt I had to do. I was very nervous. Do you know? Do you understand? I wanted to tell people that that job was wrong."

After finishing this book, Roth and seeing the long list of literary awards he received for his works and all the attention he received from the world; I think that the medium of his narrations will remain with me again. Because with wisdom and a worthy skill, he speaks out from the limbo of the human soul and the hell of the world. Roth is the writer of a book in which one can find "oneself".