I finally got around to reading Philip Roth’s The Prague Orgy after it sat on my shelves for decades. Roth generates mixed feelings in some readers and he certain does in me. The Prague Orgy is the epilogue to his trilogy Zuckerman Bound. The story follows Roth’s alter ego, Nathan Zuckerman, on a journey to Communist Prague in 1976. Zuckerman seeks to acquire the unpublished manuscripts of a Yiddish writer but the manuscripts are held by the writer’s ex-wife who hates her former husband and refuses to release them. Zuckerman’s delicate negotiations with the ex-wife are both humorous and tragic.
The Prague Orgy presents a series of journal entries by Zuckerman. Many of the entries show the frustration and demoralization of writers in a Communist society. My major quibble about The Prague Orgy–and much of Roth’s writings for that matter–is Roth’s negative portrayal of women. It’s clear that Roth was a bitter man. What do you think of Philip Roth? GRADE: C
I’ve said before that writers who got a pass, as it were, during their lifetimes because they were “brilliant” will not continue to receive such consideration once they’re no longer around to keep stoking the brilliance machine. Norman Mailer, Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, among others, may have written work considered brilliant, but I’m guessing they’ll eventually fall into obscurity because sometimes you can’t separate the dancer from the dance.
Deb, Roth, Bellow, and Mailer all had “issues” with and about women that got reflected in their works. That alone will sink them in the sands of History.
Another thing I’ve mentioned before is that today most English/Literature majors are women (Victoria, who got degrees in both English and Philosophy, said that her Lit classes were about 80/20 females to males, while in her Philosophy classes that ratio was reversed males to females) and this is simply not a generation of women who are going to read the works of a writer who had such high-profile bitterness, hostility, and vindictiveness toward women.
Deb, when I was working on my PhD. in the English Department at SUNY at Buffalo, that percentage–80/20–was fairly constant in all my seminars. I’m with you on Roth’s bitterness and hostility towards women, both real and fictional.
I can’t think of any writers today that will be remembered in 100 years, can you? Some don’t produce enough work (Eugenides), some produce too much (Oates). I am not sure that Roth’s sins are enough to sink a pretty impressive body of work. The rest were not as good as he was. Bellow’s work seemed narrow and dusty even in his lifetime although Phil liked him a lot. If Steinbeck, O’Hara, Wolfe, Lewis, Updike and Cheever didn’t survive their era, I doubt these guys will. Faulkner turns out to be the most robust. And women are keeping Flannery O’Connor, Toni Morrison, Carson McCullers and Shirley Jackson on syllabi, I think. Maybe being Black or a woman will turn out to be a saving grace.
Patti, I agree any contemporary writer who will be read 100 years from now is likely to be a woman and/or a minority. Their writing captures our Times.
Could never get into Roth and many of his ilk. Also could not get into Cheever and many of his ditto. In addition, I’m getting more and more pissed at misogynistic writers and ultra women fem-lib writers, as well as the problems of the white middle class writers. I am a cranky old man who looks first for story. Get off my lawn!
Jerry, like you I love story-tellers. I’m not in the mood to be lectured to about politics, sexuality, or social issues.
Never cared for Bellow, but I became a fan of both Roth and Mailer in the Sixties and stuck with them to the end. Mailer was never a very good novelist but I think the best of his non-fiction will survive, certainly THE EXECUTIONER’S SONG, possibly the best book of it’s kind anyone has written. And I’d agree with Patti that Roth’s best work is just too good to be taken down. At least Roth never stabbed anyone. Of the writers who emerged in the second half of the last century I’m going to go with Don DeLillo as the one most likely to survive.
Michael, THE EXECUTIONER’S SONG is Mailer’s best book. Love it! Mailer reminded me of the antics of Harlan Ellison…on steroids!
I just don’t see any comparison between Mailer and Ellison. None at all.
I don’t think Steinbeck is forgotten or abandoned. I only read two of Roth’s books, it was enough, not because they were bad, but because they weren’t good.
Rick, both Mailer and Ellison had that attention-seeking personality. Both did outlandish actions. Both wrote off-beat books that attracted a lot of loyal readers.
I agree with you and Michael on The Executioner’s Song, a brilliant book. I’ve read a few others by Mailer and they have their moments, but not enough of them. Could never get into Bellow, sorry.
As for Roth, the best of his will continue to be read. I read Nemesis fairly recently (his last novel) and thought it worthwhile. But The Plot Against America was the one that spoke to me (I read it before Trump was elected), though he might have lost interest. He certainly funked the ending.
I have to second Michael on Mailer. I never warmed to Roth. I have probably read about 4 or 5 of his novels over a 50 year period. Bellow and Updike have pretty much disappeared. Steinbeck, Hemingway and Fitzgerald (due mostly to Gatsby) are still being read. Faulkner seems to be faring well.
When I was in college the Literary classes were about 40/60 male vs female.
Women writers tend to be more kind to men in their fiction than vice versa. I once thought Virginia Woolf hated men but than come to realize she just hated readers.
Who knows who will be popular 199 years on. Who would have H.P. Lovecraft would still be widely read.
I agree that it’s difficult to say who Will be read, or even who’s read now…Is Lovecraft read all that widely, or simply scored off of by a variety of current writers? Are Cheever and Steinbeck all that abandoned? Was Mailer ever not mostly a machismic joke…Hemingway even more drunk? (I haven’t read THE EXECUTIONER’S SONG, but that’s mostly because I have read THE ARMIES OF THE NIGHT and some of his other nonfiction. I suppose I’ll get to it.)
Even the books that sell are not necessarily the ones that are read. As, for example, David Foster Wallace and Jonathan Franzen and William T. Vollmann repeatedly demonstrate, or so I suspect to the extent that they sell. Books furnish a home.
Todd, I’m a big fan of William T. Vollman, but I don’t know anyone else who reads him.
Steve, I think Lovecraft will be read 100 years from now. And any other “unique” writers like A. Conan Doyle.
I haven’t read that much by Philip Roth and it would have been years and years ago. But I found this a very interesting discussion.
Tracy, I’m always pleased when this blog’s commentators explore a topic. I learn so much!
Not sure why you chose a novel for short story day… but the discussion has been lively.
This “novel” is 96 uncrowded pages long in its paperback edition, at least.
Todd, my paperback edition of THE PRAGUE ORGY is very slim. I read it in an hour.
Rick, THE PRAGUE ORGY is a novella.
I read Portnoy’s Complaint and thought it was idiotic! So much for Roth!
Bob, PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT sold millions of copies. Plenty of people thought the book was great. But I’m with you on this one.
I think that American Pastoral will be read in the future. But not sure what other Roth’s will be. I think Nemesis is terrific too. Maybe genre writers survive longer because their readers are more devoted/passionate. (Doyle, Christie, Lovecraft, etc. )
Agree (see above) on Nemesis.
I’ll make it unanimous on NEMESIS, a fine note to end on. Also love AMERICAN PASTORAL. My favorite, though, is SABBATH’S THEATER. Like PORTNOY, it’s filthy and funny.
Michael, I’ve had SABBATH’S THEATER on my Read Real Soon stack for years. Perhaps it’s time to move it closer to the top…