Tutti sanno - this is the invocation of the cliché and the beginning of the banalization of the experience. It is precisely the solemnity and the presumed authority with which people formulate the cliché that make it so unbearable. What we know is that, in a non-stereotypical way, no one knows anything. You can't know anything. The things you know... you don't really know. Intentions? Motives? Consequences? Meanings? All that we don't know is astonishing. Even more astonishing is what we think we know.

There are indelible stains, difficult ones, and the protagonist of this novel knows very well which stains have marked his life. With the alter ego of Nathan Zuckerman, with whom his readers have learned to know him, Roth drags us into the world of Coleman Silk, a respected and appreciated professor, but a prisoner of his mistakes and his "stains". With acumen, intelligence, and the usual mastery that characterizes him, Philip Roth guides us to the discovery of the paradox and the ambivalence, and of how words, lies can do harm and wound, ruining not only one's own life but also that of others. In short, the life on the verge of a man who has to start over trying to correct his life. Another masterpiece of a great author.

My favorite of his so far, I think.

There are some truly surprising twists in this work, which really keep the reader engaged. What's more, it has this wonderful generosity and warmth that has been lacking in some of his other pieces.

It also has a beautiful connection with the first Zuckerman book, creating a sort of literary universe that is both fascinating and engaging.

In fact, it outstrips "Pastoral" by a fair amount. It's interesting to note that it has a lesser reputation, perhaps because it doesn't fit neatly into a particular genre or because it challenges the reader in ways that some may find uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, for me, it is a standout work that I would highly recommend to anyone looking for a thought-provoking and engaging read.

**"The Stigma and the Quest for Purity"**

When you grow up with people, you experience these things. The human stigma... it is what it is. We leave a mark, our imprint. Impurity, hardness, evil, mistake, excess, sperm - we have no other way to declare our presence. And this stigma has nothing to do with disobedience, no relation to salvation and redemption. We all have it. It is within us. Inborn. It defines us. The stigma exists within us before it leaves its mark. It exists without its sign. It is so inborn that it doesn't require a key....any talk of purification is a fraud. And a very barbaric one at that. The fantasy of purity is terrifying. Illogical.

What is the pursuit of purity if not just another impurity?....the stigma is inevitable...

Within the history of America, the modern model of life is born. The "stigma", the commonality of evil, exists before the existence of human substance and is perpetuated within it.

A remarkable book, I would say the best of the American trilogy. Tragic irony in all its grandeur. The attempt at purification and complete self-abandonment with terrifying consequences. The inhuman being who tries to change his destiny without being able to calculate the inescapable history of the world that is evolving.

He imagined that if his escape was successful, it would last forever. Then he tragically and realistically discovered that everything has a temporary character and that history as well as the fate of events suddenly and uncontrollably change.

Professor Coleman is the man who fought with the rite of his personal purification and was defeated. Coleman is an excellent professor of classical studies. He manages as a dean in a provincial university to drastically change the quality of studies, to improve and modernize the entire academic system of the institution with his dynamic personality. He is at the peak of his achievement. An excellent family man. A respected citizen. An impeccable academic and a hero of ancient tragedy.

A tragedy that he directed alone and after committing hubris, he awaits purification without a trace of remorse or sacrifice to the gods of fate. Inevitably, personal nemesis follows.

We learn the story of the professor again from the author Nathan Zuckerman, who develops a friendly relationship with Coleman and tries to understand the professor's personality and the mystery of his death.

They meet at the height of the professor's anger shortly after the death of his wife where Zuckerman, who has withdrawn from everything, enters his life demanding that the author write a book in which he will reveal who killed his wife as ethical agents. Coleman turns over the deathly predictability of Zuckerman's life when he talks to him about his past but mainly about his tortured present.

The professor is accused of being a racist by the academic community after a linguistically ambiguous comment he makes in class. He refers to two constantly absent students whom he doesn't even know are black since he has never seen them. He is forced to resign and, losing his wife, he loses everything. Everything he had built for years on false support bases.

From there, the downward spiral begins. The war of impressions starts and the deep structures of American society that touch on recent history are uncovered. The racial discriminations, the rights of blacks, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, Clinton's fall in the Oval Office, and the turn to the so-called conservatism are all revealed.

Coleman confesses to Zuckerman that after his stigmatization and the breakdown of his family, he has entered into a love relationship with an illiterate cleaning woman who could be his granddaughter in age, and who is yet another tragic figure in this representation of purification.

However, he doesn't confess the big secret. That is his salvation and his death. The worthy Professor Coleman descends from a black family. He is a light-skinned black man who grows up experiencing racism as he is chased by the label of "Araby". He decides to be reborn as a Jew and to deny forever his mother, family, origin, race.

He rejects his stigmatized generation and the lower black society of his childhood. He keeps his origin secret even from his wife and his four children. And forty years later, he is expelled from an anti-racist society that defends its own rights. At the end of his life, modern history of equal rights accuses the black retired university dean of being... a racist.

"What is the rite of purification? How does it happen? With ostracism or by repaying blood with blood." Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus

Good reading. Humans and Humans!!

Second Reading

The act of second reading is of great significance in various contexts. It allows for a more in-depth exploration and understanding of a particular text, concept, or idea.

During a second reading, one can focus on details that might have been overlooked during the first encounter. It provides an opportunity to analyze the structure, language, and tone of the piece.

This process helps to enhance comprehension and draw out deeper meanings. It also enables the reader to make connections and associations that may not have been evident initially.

Moreover, a second reading can offer new perspectives and insights, especially when combined with additional research or reflection. It allows for a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the subject matter.

In conclusion, the second reading is a valuable tool for learning, growth, and discovery. It enriches our intellectual experience and helps us to gain a more profound appreciation for the works we engage with.

Coleman Silk's life was a complex web of choices and consequences. From his early desire for freedom, which led him to pass as Caucasian in the Navy, to his successful career at Athena College and the subsequent downfall due to a seemingly innocent comment, his story is one that explores themes of race, identity, and the power of words.

”All he’d ever wanted, from earliest childhood on, was to be free: not black, not even white--just on his own and free. He meant no insult to no one by his choice, nor was he trying to irritate anyone whom he took to be his superior, nor was he staging some sort of protest against his race or hers. He recognized that to conventional people for whom everything was ready-made and rigidly unalterable what he was doing would never look correct. But to dare to be nothing more than correct had never been his aim. The objective was for his fate to be determined not by the ignorant, hate-filled intentions of a hostile world but, to whatever degree humanly possible, by his own resolve. Why accept a life on any other terms?”

His decision to pass as white gave him opportunities that might have been denied to him otherwise. However, it also came with a heavy price. He had to cut off ties with his mother, brother, and sister, and live a life of deception.

As he advanced in his career at Athena College, he became a respected figure. But like most successful people, he also made enemies. His downfall came when he made a comment about two absent students, calling them "spooks." Unbeknownst to him, the students were black, and he was charged with racism and dismissed from his job.

The irony of his situation was that he couldn't reveal his true identity to defend himself. Even though he believed that his comment was made out of frustration and not out of any racist intent, the damage was done.

After his wife's death, which he believed was caused by the scandal, Silk went off the rails. He accused everyone he knew of being part of a conspiracy against him. But he also found a new love in Faunia, a thirty-four-year-old janitor and part-time milk maid. Their relationship was complicated, and Silk soon realized that he was falling in love with her.

However, Faunia was not interested in a relationship based on anything other than sex. She set Silk straight, telling him that he should not pretend that their relationship was something more than it was.

Despite the challenges in their relationship, Silk and Faunia continued to see each other. But their happiness was short-lived when Faunia's ex-husband, Les Farley, entered the picture. Les was a Vietnam vet who was unstable and dangerous. He was furious that his ex-wife was seeing Silk, and he threatened to kill them both.

The story is set against the backdrop of the Clinton impeachment, and Roth uses this to explore the themes of morality and hypocrisy. Silk's own indiscretion becomes magnified in a community that is already reeling from the scandal involving the President.

In conclusion, "The Human Stain" is a thought-provoking and complex novel that explores themes that are still relevant today. It challenges our assumptions about race, identity, and morality, and forces us to question our own beliefs. If you're looking for a book that will make you think, this is definitely one to read.

Philip Roth is truly at the pinnacle of his literary prowess.

Every time I pick up one of his books, I am increasingly astounded by his remarkable talent.

In "The Human Stain", Roth delves deep into the complex issues of racism and its associated politics in the 20th century.

The story follows a light-skinned negro who makes the fateful decision to "pass" as white. To achieve this, he severs ties with his family.

He enlists in the Navy as a white man, attends college as a white man, and marries a white woman, all while maintaining this false identity.

After enjoying a long and distinguished career as a college professor and dean, a single word, "spooks", uttered in the classroom, is taken out of context and snowballs into a situation that forces him to resign in disgrace from his college.

Roth masterfully weaves this scenario into an astonishing narrative that explores race, identity, desire, and hypocrisy, hitting the bull's-eye of race relations in America and highlighting the perils of criminalizing speech.

His elegant prose, engaging pacing, and rich density of information held my attention captive throughout the entire book. It is an outstanding read that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in exploring the depths of human nature and the social issues that shape our world.

Tấn trò trong "Vết nhơ của người": Làm cái con người do chính mình tạo ra

Philip Roth, một trong những người khổng lồ đã định hình bộ mặt văn chương hiện đại Mỹ, từng thổ lộ rằng nhiệm vụ của một nhà văn Mỹ là phải hướng tới hiện thực xung quanh mình. Với 51 năm cầm bút, để lại gần 30 tiểu thuyết và tuyển tập, giành được vô số giải thưởng văn chương cao quý, ông sáng tác không ngừng, đeo đuổi sự thật riêng tư, soi rọi vào đời sống con người trong tương quan với một nước Mỹ tàn bạo đầy định kiến.

"Vết nhơ của người", nằm trong bộ ba tác phẩm với người kể chuyện chính Nathan Zuckerman, thường được các nhà phê bình coi là đỉnh cao trong sự nghiệp của Roth. Cuốn tiểu thuyết này đã ông quay trở lại tâm điểm văn đàn Mỹ bằng bút pháp hài hước đầy cuồng nộ, phơi bày hiện thực tàn khốc nơi con người với những lời nói dối nho nhỏ trình diễn trong vở kịch cuộc đời với nước Mỹ là sân khấu, và nhân vật chính khao khát mỗi buổi sáng thức dậy có thể tạo ra chính mình.

Câu chuyện mở đầu vào mùa hè 1998 với hai sự kiện khiến dư luận cộng đồng phẫn nộ. Một ở một thị trấn của bang Massachusetts, Coleman, một giáo sư văn học Hy La ở đại học Athena, dan díu với một nữ lao công bằng nửa tuổi mình. Còn ở thủ đô Washington, tổng thống Bill Clinton rơi vào vụ bê bơi với nữ thực tập sinh Monica Lewinsky. Sau cái bối cảnh mùa hè oi nồng ấy, độc giả được giới thiệu về số phận mỉa mai của nhân vật chính Coleman, người đã bị sa thải một cách bất công và bị bôi nhọ vì tình cờ gọi hai sinh viên da màu vắng mặt trong lớp học là "ma", được quy kết là phân biệt chủng tộc.

Bằng một bi kịch ngẫu nhiên vừa hài hước vừa đáng căm phẫn, Roth đẩy người đọc vào những hồi tưởng và tưởng tượng, nơi quá khứ của Coleman lần lượt hiện ra. Cuối cùng, độc giả nhận ra Coleman chính là nạn nhân của phân biệt chủng tộc. Ông bản chất là một người da đen nhưng quyết tâm sống như một người da trắng trong cộng đồng người da trắng. Nhưng tất cả đều từ một lời nói dối nho nhỏ đã định đoạt số phận của ông.

Cả cuộc đời Coleman là một màn trình diễn về căn tính. Ông chọn tự do, không phụ thuộc vào chủng tộc, chỉ đơn giản là Coleman Silk. Nhưng điều này cũng đã dẫn đến thất bại thảm hại của ông. "Vết nhơ của người" là một cuốn tiểu thuyết về cuộc đời một người đàn ông trải qua nhiều đau khổ, từ bỏ gia đình để tự kiến tạo đời sống, mang theo bí mật về chủng tộc. Nhưng chính bí mật này đã trở thành khởi đầu và kết thúc cho ông.

Bằng thứ văn xuôi hùng hồn, trùng điệp, tinh tế, Roth mời gọi người đọc chiêm nghiệm thân phận các nhân vật chính trên nền nước Mỹ đầy bức bối và nghiệt ngã. Ông chỉ ra một cách rõ ràng và sâu cay, nước Mỹ tưởng là nơi thỏa nguyện giấc mơ lại là nơi lịch sử và hoàn cảnh thắt chặt sợi dây thòng lọng lên những cá nhân cố tìm cách vượt thoát.

Hey Roth, I know you have a great vocabulary. However, I have to say something. Just tell me a damn story.

Let me explain further. I just read a very positive review of this book which stated that Roth has such an expansive vocabulary, and every word seems painstakingly chosen, and so on. But that is exactly what I hate about this book! A narrative is supposed to flow smoothly, not make you feel like you have to study the dictionary more meticulously.

For the record, I do have a pretty good vocabulary myself, and I thoroughly enjoy creative uses of the English language. But I despise the use of overly academic and deliberately "highbrow" language when something simple would convey the story better. The problem is not that I didn't understand this book. The real issue is that the plot just does not flow at all. I really, really dislike this book.

It seems that this is a rather unpopular opinion, but oh well. I just had to express my true feelings about it.

I am sure that I would have rated it with 5 stars immediately after reading it 20 years ago. It was somewhat difficult to read in parts, but I was completely fascinated by the plot, the entire sequence of events, the description of the characters and their inner depths. And even today, I have to say that this novel is still quite vivid in my memory, which surely speaks for its quality.

Why only 4 stars then?

As much as I liked the novel, something about Roth's style prevented me (or did not motivate me enough) from becoming a real fan of his works.

Partly, it could be due to the occasional verbosity and also to the plots that are very US-centric and often quite extensive (well over 500 pages). For example, I gave up on "Plot against America".

I already knew "Portnoy's Complaint" before, and it didn't fascinate me as much. And there might be 1 or 2 others that I have completely forgotten.

And so Roth has remained on the sidelines for me over the years because his literary universe simply did not attract me (the same also applies, by the way, to Don DeLillo or Thomas Pynchon).

The author sums it up perfectly on page 81: "You are a verbal master of extraordinary loquaciousness [P. Roth]. So perspicacious. So fluent. A vocal master of the endless, ostentatious overelaborate sentence." Yup.

This book is like the Jackson Pollock of our literary time. Just splatter everything all over the page and call it art. Roth goes on and on, using every single adjective he ever learned in his SAT class, in a row. Then he completely counters every argument he just made, so he can use all the opposite words he knows. It's obnoxious. I've read reviews about how each word seems painstakingly chosen. Well, it's painful alright, for the reader. I don't think the author made any choices. To choose implies you would select one word or phrase to the exclusion of another. But he uses ALL OF THEM.

This guy is the master of the triple negative (You are not so unshrewd as not to know it... p195), but not quite as good at it as he is at using ellipses, dashes, and commas to create an entire page of a run-on sentence that is, nonetheless, grammatically correct. And here's the real skill - it's also pointless. He makes Melville seem to the point and full of rich colloquialism and contemporary dialect.

He goes on for a full page to discuss a scene he has already earlier described about milking cows. He uses every verb and adjective that can even be remotely related to a cow, then proceeds to contradict himself (as he does often) just to put in more words, negate the meaning of the word immediately preceding it, and then relate it to sex and subjugation.

".. the human and bovine, the highly differentiated and the all but undifferentiated, to live, not merely to endure, but to live, to go on taking, feeding, milking, acknowledging wholeheartedly, the enigma that it is, the pointless meaningfulness of living - all was recorded as real by tens of thousands of minute impressions. The sensory fullness, the copiousness, the abundant - superabundant - detail of life which is the rhapsody." Bullshit. Pointless meaningfulness? Full, copious, abundant, and then we needed superabundant - as if his point wasn't already unclear? Well, his point is unclear. This is the rhapsody? What rhapsody? I don't know if he's trying to show off, or insult me, like I don't know what the first three mean, or maybe I have to read it three, oh, wait, no 4 times to get the point. What is this? A 9th grade vocab test? You're kidding, right?

How about this crap: "Stunned by how little he'd gotten over her and she'd gotten over him, he walked away understanding, as outside his reading in classical Greek drama he'd never had to understand before, how easily a life can be one thing rather than another and how accidentally a destiny is made... on the other hand, how accidental fate may seem when things can never turn out other than they do. That is, he walked away understanding nothing, knowing he could understand nothing, though with the illusion that he WOULD have metaphysically understood something of enormous importance about the stubborn determination of his to become his own man... if only such things were understandable." I'm pretty sure in this case the author meant to convey the character's confusion - but I'm too confused to say for sure. Did you watch? Because that's a SINGLE SENTENCE that took me forever to copy from the book, letter for letter.

The author is so obnoxious. He regularly references characters from Euripides by name only - do you know anyone familiar with the characters of Euripides' ancient Greek plays? How about Aschenback and Tadzio? Herodotus? How about some general concepts. Most people know ethos, pathos, logos, but how about "The difference between diegesis and mimesis?" He seems to be trying to satirize his characters in the book, to make them seem obnoxious, overeducated, and socially inept, secretly insecure, which requires they blather on dropping names and fancy words. It works, except that it's not just one or two characters. He does it constantly himself - in the author's own narration - as if his point wasn't already so obfuscated you have to go back through 2 pages, six dashes, a dozen commas, a handful of ellipses to find where the sentence begins and remember what he was talking about.

Philip Roth's best book is probably one of the best books I've read this year. Philip Roth is someone who can handle daily problems with his book's story in such a way that you don't get out of the story. There were many problems dealt with in this book, from the Vietnam War and the Bill Clinton incident to racial and feminist issues and more.

On the other hand, the form of narration and the knots and unknots of the story were very interesting and layered. And the rhythm of the story and its suspense are maintained until the last pages.

The translation I was reading was very old and belonged to Freydoon Moshiri. From a certain point on, I read with Zahra Taravati's translation and Nimaaz Publications, and the title of the book was translated as "Naked Human".

This is the one that should’ve won the Pulitzer!!!!

It is truly a masterpiece that stands out among the rest. The writing is so captivating and engaging, drawing the reader in from the very first sentence. The story is told with such vivid detail and emotion that it feels as if you are right there experiencing it all.

The characters are well-developed and complex, making them relatable and easy to root for. The plot is full of twists and turns that keep you on the edge of your seat, never knowing what will happen next.

This article has all the elements of a Pulitzer-winning piece and more. It is a shining example of excellent journalism and storytelling. It is a shame that it did not receive the recognition it deserved.

But regardless of whether it won the Pulitzer or not, it will always be a classic that will be read and cherished for years to come.