The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

The recent death of Philip Roth, America’s greatest living novelist, came as a shock. Although he was 85, and had written movingly of his failing health, the strength of his voice never faltered. “Old age isn’t a battle,” Roth wrote in his 2007 novel Everyman.  “Old age is a massacre.”

 A few years later, he’d made a wry joke about his forthcoming obituary: “Even in death, you get a bad review!”

 And so it was. Scarcely had news of Roth’s death registered among his millions of readers than both the New York Times and Washington Post weighed in with columns complaining of his literary sins. Both read like parodies of the kind of moralistic cant his work had always inspired.

In the Times, one Dara Horn complained that Roth failed to accurately portray persons like herself: “The Jewish New Jersey women I know are talented professionals in every field, and often in those two thankless professions that Roth quite likely required to thrive: teachers and therapists,” she scolded. Alas, the novelist “never had the imagination to give these women souls.”

Horn gave no sign of having read anything more recent than the anarchic 1969 satire Portnoy’s Complaint, leaving her roughly 30 books behind.

The Post weighed in with an essay by a male literary scholar at Notre Dame University agonizing about “the problem of aggressively heterosexual white men in American literature.”

Sigh. If the professors haven’t killed off American literature yet, it’s surely not for lack of trying.

On the other hand, maybe my kvetching about a couple of dopey columns in the face of the great outpouring of heartfelt responses Roth’s death inspired  makes me uncomfortably like one of his obsessed, irascible characters. The Times Book Review assembled a list of writers as various as Michael Lewis, Stephen King, Daphne Merkin, Richard Ford, and Joyce Carol Oates— 23 in all—to weigh in on their favorite Roth novels. 

For me, it’s My Life as a Man, along with Roth’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1997 novel American Pastoral, an elegiac saga of American lives coming apart during the Vietnam years—a psychic wound that’s nowhere close to healing. It’s the story of how a man, a family, and a city can seemingly have everything, and then suddenly nothing under the awful pressure of what Roth called “the indigenous American berserk.”

American Pastoral will be read as long as people read novels.

We’d fallen out of touch in recent years, Philip and I. Back in 1973, I’d written a review of his baseball book The Great American Novel in the Arkansas Gazette. It argued that Roth was not so much a “Jewish” writer as a New Jersey regionalist—a state perched on the ragged edge of the continent, half-immigrant and half-midwestern. Unofficial motto: “Oh yeah, who says?”

A place where everybody was on the edge of becoming something else, where chutzpah was a virtue, and aggravating specimens like Roth’s frantic onanist Alexander Portnoy were everywhere. To my surprise, Roth wrote asking how somebody in Little Rock knew so much about New Jersey.

After an exchange of letters, he invited me to visit him at his East 79th Street apartment the next time I came to Manhattan. We got on easily. Phillip was a warm, witty conversationalist. He offered to help me place an essay called “The Artificial Jewboy”—the title cribbed from Flannery O’Connor, the themes from Portnoy —about growing up Irish Catholic in a Jewish neighborhood.

“So they said things about the goyim at the Portnoy dinner table as we said about the kikes—and apparently with a good deal more frequency and less ambivalence,” I wrote. “So what? I knew that already.”

It was Portnoy’s struggles with ethnic tribalism that I’d found liberating. Jewish? Irish? Everybody’s grandma knew how to fasten a straight-jacket.

Today, the piece strikes me as pretentious juvenilia. Even so, Philip saw promise, made a few suggestions, and persuaded Moment, a Jewish literary magazine, to publish it—the only kind of periodical that could have risked doing so. He helped with other essays too, and vouched for me with editors I’d never have approached on my own.

Many owed him a similar debt of gratitude; the writers and editors Roth nurtured are legion.

A year or two later, Diane and I visited Philip at his retreat in the Connecticut Berkshires. On a walk in the woods, he complimented my wife to me—an Arkansas girl occasionally patronized to her face by New England academics. He liked it that she wasn’t awed by his fame, and hadn’t yet decided what she thought of him apart from it.

I mentioned her childhood friendship with Brooks Robinson, the Hall of Fame baseball player. Philip Roth wasn’t her first celebrity.

But America’s infamous literary misogynist had grasped her emotional integrity in a single take, and told me how lucky I was to have her. 

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Mark Levin

Politico reported Friday that John Eastman, the disgraced ex-law professor who formulated many of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, was also apparently in communication with Fox News host Mark Levin. The story gets even more interesting from there, revealing the shell game that right-wing media personalities engage in while doubling as political operatives.

A legal filing by Eastman’s attorneys reveals that, among the messages Eastman is still attempting to conceal from the House January 6 committee are 12 pieces of correspondence with an individual matching Levin’s description as “a radio talk show host, is also an attorney, former long-time President (and current board chairman) of a public interest law firm, and also a former fellow at The Claremont Institute.” Other details, including a sloppy attempt to redact an email address, also connect to Levin, who did not respond to Politico’s requests for comment.

Keep reading... Show less

Sen. Wendy Rogers

Youtube Screenshot

There have been powerful indicators of the full-bore radicalization of the Republican Party in the past year: the 100-plus extremist candidates it fielded this year, the apparent takeover of the party apparatus in Oregon, the appearance of Republican officials at white nationalist gatherings. All of those are mostly rough gauges or anecdotal evidence, however; it’s been difficult to get a clear picture of just how deeply the extremism has penetrated the party.

Using social media as a kind of proxy for their real-world outreach—a reasonable approach, since there are few politicians now who don’t use social media—the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights decided to get a clearer picture of the reach of extremist influences in official halls of power by examining how many elected officials participate in extremist Facebook groups. What it found was deeply troubling: 875 legislators in all 50 states, constituting nearly 22% of all elected GOP lawmakers, identified as participating members of extremist Facebook groups.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}