Funambolico Roth!

Roth is an amazing funambolist. He has a unique talent for walking on the tightrope with great skill and confidence. His performances are always a spectacle to behold.

When Roth steps onto the tightrope, it's as if he enters a world of his own. He moves gracefully, balancing with ease and showing no sign of fear. The audience watches in awe as he performs daring tricks and stunts, holding their breath at every moment.

Roth's passion for funambolism is evident in every performance. He has dedicated his life to perfecting his craft and entertaining others. His shows are not only thrilling but also inspiring, as he proves that with hard work and determination, anything is possible.

In conclusion, Funambolico Roth is a true master of his art. His performances are a must-see for anyone who loves excitement and adventure. If you haven't seen him perform yet, make sure you do so soon!

What a trip this was!

It was truly an unforgettable adventure. From the moment we set off, every moment was filled with excitement and anticipation. We explored new places, met interesting people, and experienced things we had never done before. The scenery was breathtaking, with mountains, valleys, and rivers stretching out before us. We took countless pictures to capture the memories. Along the way, we also faced some challenges, but we overcame them together, which made the trip even more meaningful. As the trip came to an end, we were filled with a sense of gratitude and fulfillment. This trip will always hold a special place in our hearts and we will cherish the memories for a lifetime.

Roth's work is a complex and thrilling tightrope act.

The fundamental themes of the Rothian universe (sexuality, the writing profession, illness, interpersonal relationships) are dominated by the overarching and all-consuming theme of Judaism.

This metafiction explores identity and the search for it. Can one be a secular Jew? What is the importance of anti-Semitism and Israel? What are the limitations and duties of a writer? How does one position oneself between chastity and sexuality?

These are big questions that Roth (through his protagonist Nathan Zuckerman) navigates brilliantly, with a fierce sarcasm that sometimes borders on cruelty, a clear and engaging writing style, and perfect dialogues.

I would have liked to read this novel before Roth's major works, as it is a perfect map of the author's poetics and his obsessions, and would have helped me understand more about him.

(As usual with the carelessness that characterizes Italian publishers, Einaudi continues to flood the market with Roth books at a rather per-kilo rate, without any logical or chronological order.)

Always impressed to read a really novel novel (I guess not really true). But this one was kind of next level in terms of the extent of the send-in basically in every aspect. Even, surprisingly, self-awareness, which I hadn't imagined was really his thing. But the number of times it comments on itself is, well, very big. My favourite being when he describes reading 'Nathan Zuckerman' as talking to someone who won't go away.

Potentially, I have never been so convinced that a given author should spend their entire life writing, even if just inexhaustibly writing the same things the whole time. Potentially, I haven't read anything so unflinching, psychologically comprehensive, even if compulsive, neurotic, whatever else the characters themselves accuse one another of, but brilliantly so in each of those ways since El Jestio. I couldn't write this if I had a million years.

Literally choosing at random one of the probably two hundred joke lines I underlined: “One wonders if in fact the passion to live and the strength to prevail might not be, at their core, [italicised—] quite stupid.”

Bro has no chill, gas and yet Gas, fair play to him and to Paterson x.

(Also Portnoy’s gets a retrospective 3 stars and The breast gets a retrospective two stars less than whatever I gave it)

This book has the potential to offend just about everyone in here. It gives the impression of being several books rolled into one, much like many of Roth's works. At times, it feels more or less as if someone is simply speaking about their thoughts, with the characters sort of existing in the background. However, despite these aspects, it is still a powerful book.

It manages to capture the reader's attention and draw them in, even if the narrative style may seem a bit disjointed at times. The author's ability to explore complex themes and ideas through the thoughts and conversations of the characters is truly remarkable.

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, those who are willing to look beyond the initial impressions and engage with the text on a deeper level will find that this book has a lot to offer. It challenges the reader's assumptions and makes them think about things in a different way.

Overall, it is a book that is well worth reading, even if it may cause some discomfort or offense along the way.

Wow!

What an amazing sight! It's truly fabulous.

The beauty before my eyes is simply breathtaking.

Every detail seems to be carefully crafted, as if it were a work of art.

The colors blend together perfectly, creating a vivid and enchanting scene.

I can't help but be in awe of this wonderful creation.

It makes me feel so small and insignificant in the face of such grandeur.

But at the same time, it also fills me with a sense of wonder and excitement.

I want to explore every corner of this place and soak up all its beauty.

It's a moment that I will surely remember for a long time.

Fabulous indeed!

I have a deep affection for Philip Roth’s The Counterlife. It stands out as one of those infrequent books that has the remarkable ability to evoke a plethora of emotions within me, catching me completely off guard. It is truly a rarity for books to have such an impact and to present unexpected plot twists. This book, however, accomplishes all of this.

In the initial stages, this book managed to offend me. I was incensed by its raw and raunchy nature. I despised the character of Henry. He repulsed me. I loathed the way he abandoned his family for an affair. I detested the manner in which he risked his life for a dangerous and unnecessary heart surgery solely to avoid impotence and continue his sexual liaison with his dental assistant. I abhorred his immoral behavior. I also disliked the book's seemingly unfiltered and sexual tone. I must admit, though, that my initial reaction might have been somewhat biased. I read this book as part of the required reading for Dr. Jesse Zuba’s The American Novel class. During the first week of reading, I was selected to lead the class discussion on it. The chapter, Basel, delved into Henry’s sex life (or lack thereof) in great detail, resulting in a rather uncomfortable class discussion, to put it mildly.

The second chapter, Judea, both amused me and expanded my perspective. I found it fascinating how Henry, after his surgery, decided to journey to Judea in an attempt to transform himself into an overly zealous Jew, discarding everything in his life for the sake of his religion and a chance to connect with his ancestral heritage. I appreciated the discussions about identity and the questions that were raised. Does our ancestry or heritage truly matter? How do we define ourselves? Is our identity determined by our blood or by our lifestyle? I had never really given these questions much thought, but Roth presents an interesting argument. Indeed, I have Irish, Scottish, and German blood – but is this truly a part of my identity? I am proud of my heritage, but I'm not entirely certain that I identify with it. My identity is that of an American. America is all that I have ever known. I have never visited Scotland, Ireland, or Germany. I cannot begin to tell you anything about them because I have no personal experiences with these places.

Gloucestershire serves as the climax of the novel and the moment when I realized just how precious this novel truly is. In this chapter, we discover that everything we were led to believe previously was a complete fabrication. We were never actually reading about Henry’s life at all; rather, it was Nathan’s life fictionalized as Henry’s. We were reading the first few chapters of Nathan’s novel. Suddenly, Nathan no longer seemed as innocent or revolutionary to me. I HATED him. How dare he write such things about all of his family members! I was furious! But then I stopped and thought to myself – he is a writer. This is what writers do – they create fiction. They make things up. But was what he was doing ethical? Was it right?

I, too, am a writer, much like Nathan. When I read about the way Nathan disguised his own life in his writing by pretending that these events occurred to others in his life, I began to question the ethics of writing. Would I have done the same thing? It's difficult to say. Most of what I write, whether it's fiction or non-fiction, has been influenced by the people I know in real life. I have written fictional stories in which real people engage in extreme actions. I have written fictional stories based on real-life events that have been exaggerated, just as Nathan did. Although I am outraged and offended by Nathan, I realize that there have been many times when I have done very similar, if not the same, things as he did. Nathan is simply a typical writer using his writing as a means to express himself and perhaps say things that he wants to say but doesn't know how to. With writing, a person can don a mask. They can reshape life and tailor it to be exactly as they envision it or desire to see it. Looking back, although I was initially offended by it, perhaps this isn't such a significant problem after all. Writing is a creative endeavor. It allows us to transform ourselves and those around us into whatever we wish them to be. The danger does not lie in writing itself, but rather in life when it comes to role-playing and identity creation. When we attempt to be or make others into something that they are not in real life, that becomes a genuine problem. It is best to simply let those things remain within the fictional worlds of the written word.

The Counterlife earns a full five-star rating from me for presenting thought-provoking questions about life and ethics that I had not previously considered, surprising me in ways I could never have anticipated, and enabling me to reexamine and reevaluate my own life. Not many books possess as much power as this one does, making it a truly outstanding and precious gem.

I completely disagree with the idea that this is his best book.

In fact, out of all the Zuckerman novels, it is my least favorite one.

I deliberately left it until last to read.

For some reason, it just didn't resonate with me at all.

The story didn't grip me, the characters didn't seem real or engaging enough.

I found myself struggling to get through it, and when I finally did, I was left feeling disappointed.

Maybe it's because my expectations were too high, or maybe it's just that this particular book didn't suit my taste.

Either way, I can't help but think that there are other Zuckerman novels that are far superior to this one.

My second encounter with The Counterlife has been truly eye-opening.

This novel is firmly within my top-5 Philip Roth works and yet, it remains one of his most unjustly underrated masterpieces.

The story weaves a complex tapestry of identity, choice, and the consequences that follow. Roth's prose is as sharp as ever, cutting through the layers of the characters' lives and exposing their deepest desires and fears.

With each page turn, I find myself more and more immersed in the world he has created. The Counterlife challenges our assumptions about what it means to live a fulfilling life and forces us to consider the countless paths not taken.

It is a work that demands to be read and reread, a literary gem that continues to shine brightly long after the final page has been turned.

I highly recommend this novel to anyone who appreciates great literature and is willing to embark on a thought-provoking journey.

My first encounter with Philip Roth's work was through "The Counterlife," and I have to say I wasn't overly impressed.

The concept of the book was quite interesting - presenting alternate endings and outcomes of a person's life, similar to the "choose your own adventure" stories I used to enjoy as a child, but for adults. However, the way the book was executed left a lot to be desired.

There were pages and pages of monologues that seemed highly unrealistic. I mean, who has conversations where people drone on for 20 minutes without interruption? Moreover, the book was overly philosophical and Zionist, going on and on about what a Jew should do, what they should be, and how they should live.

I found it difficult to relate to any of the characters in the book. I read it for my book club, and several members were either unable or unwilling to finish it because it became quite boring. Despite this, we all agreed that Roth is undoubtedly a talented writer, but his skills didn't shine through in this particular novel.

Perhaps I need to give Roth another chance and explore some of his other works to truly appreciate his writing abilities.

Roth's work truly has the power to make one reflect on a plethora of diverse aspects all at once.

It delves deep into the complex realm of sibling relationships, exploring the nuances and dynamics that exist between brothers and sisters.

It also confronts the difficulties associated with sexuality, shining a light on the often-taboo and challenging topics within this area.

Zionism is another thought-provoking theme that Roth presents, making the reader question and analyze this concept from different perspectives.

The role of the writer is also examined, forcing us to consider the responsibilities and influences that come with the power of the written word.

And let's not forget romantic relationships, which are explored with a raw and honest approach.

If you are not prepared to step out of your comfort zone and face these uncomfortable yet essential topics, then perhaps this book is not for you.

However, if you are ready to embark on a journey of self-discovery and intellectual exploration, then Roth's work is sure to leave a lasting impact.

Twee broers of over het schrijven van romans

Spoilers!!!! Onderstaande analyse niet lezen, voor je het boek zelf gelezen hebt, tenzij het je niet kan schelen.

What an intriguing book, a book full of pitfalls, stumbles, and double and triple bottoms, a verbal canon - yes, that's what Philip Roth is more than entrusted with -, a language tyrant, a sentence machine gun, a charmer, a word magician!

This novel from 1986 has five chapters:
Basel, about brother Henry, who dies after a heart operation.
Judea about brother Henry, who, safe and sound, has moved to a village on the West Bank, called Agor, Judea, Israel.
In the air, Nathan prevents - sort of - a hijacking.
Gloucestershire, the pastoral rural life in England, that is to say in the perspective, about the death of Nathan, after a fatal heart operation. In my opinion, the core chapter.
Among Christians, the fragile marital happiness - NOT! - of Nathan and Maria in England.

What a strange book, how those chapters are connected in a strange way! In the first chapter, Henry dies and in the next he is alive and kicking. In chapter 4, Nathan dies and it seems like a reversed chapter 1: Nathan seems to have become Henry. Four chapters are locations, one chapter doesn't even deal with Gloucestershire, unless you consider that as the green pastures after your death - which could well be. The last chapter is not a location but takes place in the green hills and misty days of the English countryside, so Gloucestershire.
The last chapter: the fragile marital happiness of Nathan and Maria is nipped in the bud, literally and figuratively; even before their child is born, it's already over. They quickly realize that they are too different.

It took me a while to figure out what this novel is really about. By the way: compared to Lolita, I find this novel still relatively understandable; it depends on me ;-). This book is about the novel, about writing a novel, about the poetics of Philip Roth. So it's understandable that Roth uses his alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Roth has written several novels about Nathan Z and even in his autobiography The Facts. The Autobiography of a Writer (1988), Nathan Z plays a major role.
Why does an author use an alter ego? Everyone knows that your alter ego represents you. Nathan Z is Philip Roth. This novel makes the necessity of using an alter ego clear. Nathan Z is needed to make Philip Roth's research into writing novels possible. Nathan Z is Philip Roth but actually much more; he is also the Philip Roth who could react differently in other situations. Nathan Z is broader than Philip Roth, but still also together with him.

Via Nathan Z and in this novel also his brother Henry, Roth can really let go with 'what if'-situations. Think of Roth's novel The Plot Against America: a 'what if'-story par excellence.

To be able to move even more freely, Nathan Z writes a novel that is based on autobiographical data: Carnovsky (read: a Zuckerman-novel). How do facts, autobiographical facts, relate to fiction? Doesn't fiction actually make the facts even better? Can certain situations, certain questions not be better investigated by making them fictional? Think of: what does it mean to be Jewish? To be a Jew in the diaspora? To be a Jew in America, the place where you were born, but your grandparents not, where the Holocaust did not take place? To be a Jew in Switzerland, in England, in Europe, where the Holocaust is still palpable but is kind of subdued (deep trauma). To be a Jew in the Promised Land (capital letters from me, see above), Israel? To be a Jew on the West Bank, an orthodox Jew, a secularized Jew in Jerusalem?

So: what does the novel look like if I, Nathan Zuckerman, Nathan - myself - and Henry let die go? What does that novel look like if I myself die and I write the novel from the perspective of Henry? What does the novel look like if I let my own 'observer's' perspective go and I plunge into a love affair with a non-Jewish woman, a goy, a shiksa? Maria is not coincidentally called 'Maria', after the mother of the Messiah; she is Christian in all her pores. (For the sake of completeness: the Messiah has not yet come for the Jews; Jews are still waiting for His coming; Jesus is the Messiah of the Christians, not of the Jews).

Then there is the other point that is closely related to this: Philip Roth's poetics. How does Philip Roth write? He writes at least with a lot of double bottoms. He writes and he reflects on his writing, he investigates with his writing; sometimes almost in one sentence. He creates confusion - so there are two Maria's, Henry's Maria in 1. Basel, a sexually liberated woman with whom he doesn't dare to leave his family. And the Maria of Nathan, a prim, reserved English woman of better background with a lot of issues. At the beginning of chapter 4, there are a few ideas about fiction that Nathan brings up: 1. there is fiction that is shot into the air with a lot of commotion; 2. there is fiction that doesn't hit, explosives that don't want to detonate; 3. there is fiction that is aimed at the inside of the writer's own skull. (more or less literal quotes, ca. p. 223, 1997, my version).

Also with this whole novel, Roth creates confusion, from which he tries to get the best for a novel but also describes the course of writing a novel. The sequel to his novel Carnovsky. The second version of Carnovsky part 2 (again duplication here!) is found by Henry and by Maria - Nathan's Maria - after Nathan's death on his desk. Henry has his reasons for wanting to destroy the pages in which he appears and where his extramarital relationships are described. His wife doesn't know and he doesn't want to put his marriage at risk. Maria is afraid that her ex, to whom she wants to return - if I remember correctly - will see her part in the life with Nathan. Maria still leaves everything as it is and thinks that she can get away with it by stating that this is a novel and everything is fiction. Later, Henry also thinks in that direction: it is a novel, it is fiction. But it nags, that relationship between fiction and reality, it chafes.

By the way, I myself am crazy about a novel that has the writing of fiction, of a story, of a novel, of the novel in question - and so you as a reader supposedly read along with the writing process - as a theme. Strangely enough, there aren't very many of them. I'm thinking here of Leon de Winter, Hoffman's Hunger (I thought, I'm doing this from memory). In poetry, it's more common to write about writing. The meta-level.

I think that this book, The Counterlife, is mainly about Philip Roth's writing of novels. His research into this: how might it be, how could it be, how do I experiment, for example with the help of 'what-if-stories'.

But there are other themes that keep coming back; in random order:
--fear of impotence; literally and figuratively! That's a recurring theme among male authors, see e.g. T.S Eliot, The Waste Land; Nabokov, Lolita. In my opinion, a very common theme in American literature. More than in Dutch literature?
--the relationship of Jewish Americans to Israel; see also Nicole Krauss, Great House.
--what does it mean to be Jewish if you're not religious and don't live in Israel? Roth has often been accused of 'Jewish self-hatred'.
--relationship to women, wives and mistresses. Roth himself has also been married several times; a 'womanizer'.
--what does it mean to be brothers? Similarities, differences? A kind of Cain and Abel? Fratricide, literally and figuratively.
--life and death - are serious matters (a piece from a Buddhist sutra...).
--'what-if-situations'.
--personality exchange: Henry becomes Nathan and vice versa; two Maria's; Zuckerman and Roth.
--double bottoms; triple bottoms.
The list is not complete.

A few more words about Roth's style. Philip Roth is a very passionate author. He writes with the pen as if it were a gun. He shoots the words, the sentences, the stories, the questions at you with full force. That's intense. He is not the author of the concise word. But he is always über-intelligent, he investigates how things are for him and how everything changes. The allusions are countless, there is a lot of intertextuality, - very educational -. He looks at things from almost all the perspectives that exist. You have to be able to handle that a bit. Also the use of all those double bottoms and not withholding his beautiful sentences, you have to grow into that, I think. The Counterlife, just like Operation Shylock, is not a novel where you should start, I think. Also the 'Jewish question' is a subject that doesn't appeal to everyone. Not easy, but very rich. I love him ;-).

Over de auteur:

Philip Milton Roth (Newark, New Jersey, 19 March 1933 – New York, 22 May 2018) was an American literary writer. He was born as the child of second-generation Jewish-American parents.

Roth obtained his master's degree in English literature in 1955, after which he fulfilled his military service. He taught literary studies at various American universities, most recently at the University of Pennsylvania. From 1992, he dedicated himself entirely to writing.

On 22 February 1959, Roth married Margaret Martinson, from whom he was divorced in 1964. Margaret died in 1968 after a car accident. In 1990, Roth married the actress Claire Bloom; in 1994, they separated. With the appearance of his novel I Married a Communist (1998), Roth was criticized by several journalists because he would have processed his breakup with Bloom in the failed marriage of his characters Ira Ringold and Eve Frame.

In November 2012, Roth announced that he was stopping writing. He died in May 2018 at the age of 85 in a hospital in Manhattan from a heart attack.

Philip Roth often wrote about Jewish identity and the political culture in the United States. He became especially famous for the sexually revolutionary novel Portnoy's Complaint (1969). The Breast, The Professor of Desire and The Dying Animal form the Kepesh trilogy, and deal with the life of the sexually liberated professor David Kepesh. Roth's most famous books are American Pastoral (1997), I Married a Communist (1998) and The Human Stain (2000), which together are called the American Trilogy because they form a kind of biography of post-war America: the first book deals with the Vietnam War and the protest generation, the second with the McCarthy era and the third takes place against the background of the Lewinsky scandal. All three books are 'told' by Roth's literary alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman.

In 2004, The Plot Against America was published, which is seen as another high point in Roth's oeuvre. This book is about a what-if-history that takes place in the US during the 1930s and 1940s, when the elections are not won by the sitting president Franklin D. Roosevelt, but by aviator Charles Lindbergh, who is known to have been approached for the presidency and whose Nazi sympathies and isolationism are documented. Under 'President Lindbergh', all kinds of anti-Semitic laws are implemented in the US, against which the Jewish family around which the novel revolves has to defend itself.

Since then, Roth has written several shorter novels, which often deal with the physical and mental decline of a person. The most famous is Everyman (2006), a short but moving novel about loss and mortality. The title is a reference to the medieval play of the same name (see Elckerlijc), in which 'the man', when he goes to die, has to account for his earthly deeds.

Bibliografie (alleen antiquarisch):

Titel: Het Contraleven
Auteur: Philip Roth
Vertaler: Rob van der Veer
Uitgever: De Bezige Bij
Verschijningsdatum: oktober 2008
Druk: 4e druk
Aantal pagina's: 429 pagina's
ISBN13 9789023421740
Categorie: Literaire romans