I really did not like the last chapter at all.

It seemed to lack the excitement and engaging elements that the previous chapters had. The story seemed to lose its momentum and became rather dull.

The characters' actions and dialogues felt forced and not very believable. I was hoping for a more satisfying conclusion or at least some interesting twists and turns.

However, it was just a disappointment. Maybe the author could have spent more time developing the plot and characters in the last chapter to make it more impactful.

Overall, I was quite dissatisfied with the last chapter and it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.

“The obsessive reinvention of the real never ceased: what could have been always prevailed over what was.”

This is a Roth novel belonging to the Zuckerman phase, a phase in which one of the characters is a writer who represents Roth's alter ego.

The novel consists of 5 stories where the characters, besides the writer, are always the same: Henry Zuckerman, Nathan's brother, a dentist and father of three children, Carol, Henry's wife, Maria, the mistress of some Zuckerman, Wendy, Henry's assistant and lover of Henry. Each story is more or less a variation of the same facts, in which the characters are puppets in the hands of the writer. To whom they sometimes even try to rebel by trying to get out of the story they are interpreting.

So it is a work of metafiction that plays with the themes that are the object of Roth's obsession: Judaism versus Christianity, the errant Jew irremediably attracted to the non-Jewish woman, sex, and finally, but obviously in this case the most relevant, the role of the writer and his meaning in the world.


“Nathan was incapable of devoting himself to anything that was not entirely of his own making. Nathan could only approximate the confusion of real life in these novels he built for us: otherwise he would have lived as he died, died as he lived, creating fictional beloved people, fictional adversaries, fantasies of conflicts and disorders, all alone, day after day, in a room of his own, perpetually trying with literary means to dominate what, in reality, he did not have the courage to face. That is: the past, the present, and the future.”

In short, a nice cerebral gem.

I was tempted to compare it to Auster's New York Trilogy, especially for the form. Moreover, the two novels are practically contemporary (published in the mid-1980s).

Not the best Roth (out of 11 read), but Roth is always a worthy read.

It was a tasteless reading. It became one of my least favorite books by Philip Roth.

It is a book constructed around concepts such as opposition, bigotry, Judaism, and nationalism. Although the story and plot structure were nice, it seemed too didactic to me.

The author might have intended to convey certain messages through these themes, but perhaps the way it was presented didn't resonate with me on a deeper level.

Maybe I was expecting a more engaging and less preachy narrative.

Nonetheless, it's important to note that everyone's reading experience can vary, and what didn't work for me might be highly regarded by others.

Overall, this particular work by Philip Roth failed to capture my interest and left me with a somewhat underwhelmed feeling.

Before anything else, I must warn you that if you are not interested in topics such as anti-Semitism, Zionism, and everything related to Jewish identity, whatever that may be, you may get bored at certain moments of the novel. However, if you think, like me, that humanity constitutes a single race and that our behavior does not essentially differ among people from different places and cultures and that identity or nationalist problems are universal, then everything said here concerns you.

The proposal is, in any case, extremely attractive. Entangled with the Jewish question - if there is such a thing as "Jewishness", and if so, the concern to keep it pure and intact, what it means to be a good Jew, the Jews' obsession or not with the goyim, the goyim's obsession or not with the Jews - there is a very suggestive metafictional apparatus in which it is investigated how life interferes in literature, as literature conditions life, not only of the author, often confused with his characters, but of all those who surround him and in whom the author is inspired for his novels.

In this metafictional game, the outcome of the funny and revealing story told in the first chapter, very much in line with Portnoy's Complaint, although substituting the priapism of the latter for a destabilizing impotence in this other, is altered in the second chapter to tell us another story equally revealing but less funny and more alarming, to surprise us later with several twists in the following chapters in which even the characters themselves rebel against the author.

According to what I have read, the work is born as a response to the impact that Portnoy's Complaint had, not very well received by the author, giving in it an ironic answer to the many attacks that he received for its publication both from those Jews who were ridiculed in the funny adventures of its protagonist and from those other Jews and non-Jews tired of the topic of Jewish identity.

Of course, Roth does not forget here many of his great themes, sex, desire, death, father-son relationships, the contradictory human behavior in general and, very particularly, his paradoxical dreams of rebirth, of escape, of starting over, of changing, whether it is with the search for new sexual or romantic relationships, turning to religion or other ideological identities, renouncing principles that seemed essential to us... in short, with the construction of a counterlife, a new fiction to which we will henceforth adhere.

And in that way, as a counterlife, Zuckerman, and supposedly Roth himself, defines Zionism, "a very conscious longing to practically distance oneself from everything that once could have been considered... a typically Jewish way of behaving", and, therefore, a failure?

Structurally brilliant, Philip Roth's work is a literary masterpiece. With a prose that shoots aggressively off every page, he takes readers on a captivating journey. Roth begins his narrative with erectile dysfunction and ends it with a nod to the circumcised erection of the Jewish father. He embarks on a path of travel and transformation, electing for historical plastic surgery to pick at every wound and irritate every scar of the past. He uses and abuses every bias and position that surrounds him.

This novel feels like Roth is trapped between the extreme faction of Jewish nationalists and a loud American Diaspora, along with everything in-between, including the tweedy, green, and quiet anti-Semitism of England. Most of us would probably break or bend when faced with such a cage as Roth has. But as a Modern Jew, Roth fights. He examines every word, every inflection, and prostrates his life and history. He sacrifices the past, present, and future to the narrative of his mare's nest. He realizes that pain and conflict make a helluva story. Instead of running from the extreme options, he gets his passport and visas, visits the extremes, and then writes a novel about them. This is life, and as Roth shows us, life can be glorious.

“People are unjust to anger — it can be enlivening and a lot of fun.”
― Philip Roth, The Counterlife

We are all engaged in the act of writing fictitious versions of our lives, constantly.

These are stories that are contrary to one another yet mutually entangling.

No matter how subtly or grossly they may be falsified, they constitute our tenuous hold on reality.

In fact, these fabricated accounts are often the closest thing we have to the truth.

We shape and reshape our life narratives, perhaps unconsciously, to make sense of our experiences and to create a coherent identity.

Sometimes, we exaggerate certain aspects to make ourselves seem more heroic or interesting.

Other times, we downplay or omit less flattering details.

Yet, it is through this process of fictionalizing that we are able to construct a version of ourselves and our lives that we can live with and present to the world.

So, the next time you think about your life story, remember that it may not be entirely true, but it is still a reflection of who you are and what you have become.

The structure of this piece is truly interesting, and the writing is strong. There are multiple drafts on the same theme, but with the characters and illnesses being moved around. It's really enjoyable to figure out what has changed. The first and fourth drafts are especially good, receiving a rating of 5s. However, for me, the second and last drafts dragged just a little bit, with a rating of around 3.5. Still, they are good. It's a quick read, and it might just be my favorite of his so far.

The way the author plays with the elements in these drafts adds an element of mystery and excitement. It makes the reader engage more deeply with the text, trying to spot the differences and understand the significance of the changes. The strong writing also helps to bring the story to life, making it vivid and engaging.

Overall, this is a great piece that showcases the author's creativity and skill. I look forward to reading more of his work in the future.

How I Liked the First Part of the Novel. Among all that I have read of Philip Roth, it is perhaps his most audacious aesthetic proposal. Composed of narrative blocks belonging to different layers of reality, in each of them the destiny of the characters differs and the reality addressed by the novel is put into question. Imaginative, ironic, it is perhaps the closest thing to a postmodern game by an author who, otherwise, writes as if the 20th century were still to come.

That first part excited me as much as the second part disgusted me. I notice a certain complacency in the game of mirrors. That kind of "love interview" even made me feel queasy. In short, there the narrator extends a test of his own love quality to his partner, and she has to express how very pleased she is with her romantic experience with Nathan Zuckerman, that is, Philip Roth. That is to say, in essence we are reading Philip Roth imagining Philip Roth as a great lover. Come on, please. Moderate his egocentrism a little, not too much, just enough so as not to make the non-groupies of Philip Roth nauseous.

Apart from that, yes, it is a good novel.

The overall quality of the article is decent. The middle part presents some interesting points and manages to engage the reader to a certain extent.

However, there is a drawback. Roth seems to exhaust the subject completely. He delves so deeply into every aspect that it almost feels overwhelming.

This excessive exploration can have a negative impact on the reader. Instead of leaving the reader with a sense of curiosity and a desire to learn more, it may cause them to feel fatigued or even lose interest.

Perhaps a more balanced approach would be beneficial. Roth could focus on the most crucial aspects of the subject and leave some room for the reader's own interpretation and exploration. This way, the reader would be more actively involved in the reading process and would likely have a more positive experience.

Overall, while the article has its strengths, the issue of exhausting the subject needs to be addressed to enhance its effectiveness and appeal to the reader.

I absolutely loved that way of breaking the contract with reality, if it can be called that.

Showing all the possibilities of a story, its craftsmanship, its fictionality, but without the easy recourse of having a narrator-writer talking about how he writes and those kinds of things.

It was a refreshing and innovative approach that really made me think about the nature of storytelling.

Instead of relying on the traditional methods of exposition and explanation, this way of presenting a story allowed the reader to explore and discover the different elements on their own.

It added an element of mystery and intrigue that kept me engaged from beginning to end.

I would highly recommend this style of writing to anyone who is looking for something new and exciting in the world of literature.

I can understand how some individuals might not have an affinity for this book. It's also conceivable that someone could completely despise his entire body of work. Even though I regard myself as a devoted fan and have perused nearly everything he has ever published, I am not blind to his imperfections.

He has the tendency to be whiny, tiresome, repetitive, and a bit overly confident. Moreover, he doesn't possess the same narrative prowess as, for example, Mario Vargas Llosa.

I wasn't even overly enthusiastic about his (widely regarded) masterpiece, American Pastoral.

However, I am also well aware that every time I pick up one of his books, there will inevitably be a chapter, a page, or perhaps even just a single sentence that will halt me in my tracks.

And indeed, he has an uncanny ability to craft a perfect sentence.

So instead of a comprehensive review, here is a brief quote from this book:

"England's made a Jew of me in only eight weeks, which, on reflection, might be the least painful method.

A Jew without Jews, without Judaism, without Zionism, without Jewishness, without a temple or an army or even a pistol, a Jew clearly without a home, just the object itself, like a glass or an apple."

It is truly very disappointing and fails to meet his typical standards. I believe this is the sixth Roth book that I have read, and it is easily the least enjoyable among them. It lacks the robust character development that one would ordinarily expect and usually gets. Instead, it tediously gets bogged down in the whole aspect of Jewishness. There is a lack of a coherent plot, and it is notably devoid of much of his dark humour that could have lifted it up. There are significantly better works of his available. Significantly. One wonders what went wrong with this particular piece. Was it a momentary lapse in inspiration or a misstep in his creative process? Whatever the reason, it is a pity that this book does not measure up to the high standards set by his other works.