“Wait, isn’t he dead?” was my first thought. Of course, I had to look. Nice scoop. And perhaps good for Oates too. I didn’t know she had a substack. The interview is fine and interesting; it’s interesting the way they touched on sex, gender, trans-sexuality. But not extraordinary. And nevertheless, wonderfully refreshing to read, and makes one toy with the idea of getting interested in literature again. So many stultifying cultural fashions and prohibitions nowadays makes one hesitate to risk a contemporary novel. You’re afraid you will find your worst expectations met, and walk away depressed.
I was young when Roth started writing, and didn’t read him for a long time, because of his reputation as “sexist.” or “anti-woman.” When I finally read a few of his novels I was so pleasantly surprised. First, he was so funny. And it was impossible to feel offended by anything he wrote. Yes, he was sometimes offensive, but I never reacted to that by being offended. (Although I’m quite capable of taking offense when I want to.) In his depictions of his monumental battles with his romantic partners, I always had the sense, concerning his males heroes, that he, Roth, at least, and perhaps the heroes as well, were always fully aware of the vanity and ridiculousness of the male half of the relationship.
Wasn’t he cancelled, or semi-cancelled, before he died? No matter, people won’t stop reading him.
I have only read one novel of his, The Human Stain (2000?), which is an early exposition of modern cancel culture. Brilliant.
Margaret TC
1 year ago
My attention was caught, no doubt as Oates intended, by ‘gender fluidity’ a trendy phrase Roth probably never used. The discussion actually highlights how such fluidity is only possible in fiction. As Kathleen Stock keeps telling us, the idea you can change sex/gender is a fiction – fun to imagine as Roth does, but impossible to realise in our sexed bodies.
Graeme Archer
1 year ago
Thank you for printing this. Roth remains one of my favourite writers, one whose canon I devoured. Any woke young who avoid him for the usual, stupid reasons give themselves the punishment they deserve by denying themselves access to his art. ‘The Human Stain’ is so amazingly ahead of its time — read it, the next time some identity politics rave-up consumes the news.
Davy Humerme
1 year ago
Great article which to me focuses more on Roths playful and sexual humour, which JCO is interested in. His state of the nation novels are also compelling For me American Pastoral, the Human Stain and the Plot Against America are three of the best American novels of the century. They are prescient and penetrating perspectives on how America is now, written mostly in the 90s. The first drew a picture of the solid citizen confronted by his daughter and his country’s radicalism.but it also describes the de-industrialisation and decay of urban America. The way Roth describes characters is both thrilling and chilling. The second is about the decline of academia into a playpen for the not very bright and highly aggrieved. The Plot..is about real anti semitism and it’s consequences and contradictions. The novel is also brightly portrayed in a TV box set. Treat yourself.
Dermot O'Sullivan
1 year ago
The novels are much better (and more interesting) than this article.
Mark Falcoff
1 year ago
The three worst words in the English language are Joyce Carol Oates.
I did a double-take when I read the headline. Hadn’t Roth died, and, like, four years ago? I knew Oates had near-supernatural powers, but I didn’t think communicating with the dead was one of them. But for a “Roth was” than a “Roth is,” the reader would assume he was still among us.
Elizabeth dSJ
1 year ago
Roth was symbolic of American decline.
He rose to prominence writing about masturbation, a formerly and justly taboo topic. That anticipated the coming vulgarization and sexualization of every aspect of society.
His most enduring work, The Plot Against America, reads as a post-9/11 ‘with us or against us’ neocon screed. Sixty years after WWII white, gentile America had to be demonized for their historical resistance to entering WWII.
Roth defamed a real American (indeed world) hero like Charles Lindbergh. Fitting to the omnipresent hypocrisy of Roth’s worldview, FDR, who of course infamously interred Japanese Americans based solely on race, is the national savior in the work.
SIMON WOLF
1 year ago
Like a great musician or painter in Roths best writing there appears to to be no distance between him and his main characters.
Michael Walsh
1 year ago
It’s like watching Jurassic Park.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
I’ve only read Portnoy’s Complaint, When She Was Good, and The Humbling, the last named in, strangely, French translation – I was on holiday in the Canaries and the bookshop didn’t have anything decent in English. I recently decided only to read novels by white men until the legacy publishing industry starts publishing novels by white men again, and am tempted to revisit the Roth opus.
“Wait, isn’t he dead?” was my first thought. Of course, I had to look. Nice scoop. And perhaps good for Oates too. I didn’t know she had a substack. The interview is fine and interesting; it’s interesting the way they touched on sex, gender, trans-sexuality. But not extraordinary. And nevertheless, wonderfully refreshing to read, and makes one toy with the idea of getting interested in literature again. So many stultifying cultural fashions and prohibitions nowadays makes one hesitate to risk a contemporary novel. You’re afraid you will find your worst expectations met, and walk away depressed.
I was young when Roth started writing, and didn’t read him for a long time, because of his reputation as “sexist.” or “anti-woman.” When I finally read a few of his novels I was so pleasantly surprised. First, he was so funny. And it was impossible to feel offended by anything he wrote. Yes, he was sometimes offensive, but I never reacted to that by being offended. (Although I’m quite capable of taking offense when I want to.) In his depictions of his monumental battles with his romantic partners, I always had the sense, concerning his males heroes, that he, Roth, at least, and perhaps the heroes as well, were always fully aware of the vanity and ridiculousness of the male half of the relationship.
Wasn’t he cancelled, or semi-cancelled, before he died? No matter, people won’t stop reading him.
I have only read one novel of his, The Human Stain (2000?), which is an early exposition of modern cancel culture. Brilliant.
My attention was caught, no doubt as Oates intended, by ‘gender fluidity’ a trendy phrase Roth probably never used. The discussion actually highlights how such fluidity is only possible in fiction. As Kathleen Stock keeps telling us, the idea you can change sex/gender is a fiction – fun to imagine as Roth does, but impossible to realise in our sexed bodies.
Thank you for printing this. Roth remains one of my favourite writers, one whose canon I devoured. Any woke young who avoid him for the usual, stupid reasons give themselves the punishment they deserve by denying themselves access to his art. ‘The Human Stain’ is so amazingly ahead of its time — read it, the next time some identity politics rave-up consumes the news.
Great article which to me focuses more on Roths playful and sexual humour, which JCO is interested in. His state of the nation novels are also compelling For me American Pastoral, the Human Stain and the Plot Against America are three of the best American novels of the century. They are prescient and penetrating perspectives on how America is now, written mostly in the 90s. The first drew a picture of the solid citizen confronted by his daughter and his country’s radicalism.but it also describes the de-industrialisation and decay of urban America. The way Roth describes characters is both thrilling and chilling. The second is about the decline of academia into a playpen for the not very bright and highly aggrieved. The Plot..is about real anti semitism and it’s consequences and contradictions. The novel is also brightly portrayed in a TV box set. Treat yourself.
The novels are much better (and more interesting) than this article.
The three worst words in the English language are Joyce Carol Oates.
The vicious and even evil Gore Vidal said that.
I did a double-take when I read the headline. Hadn’t Roth died, and, like, four years ago? I knew Oates had near-supernatural powers, but I didn’t think communicating with the dead was one of them. But for a “Roth was” than a “Roth is,” the reader would assume he was still among us.
Roth was symbolic of American decline.
He rose to prominence writing about masturbation, a formerly and justly taboo topic. That anticipated the coming vulgarization and sexualization of every aspect of society.
His most enduring work, The Plot Against America, reads as a post-9/11 ‘with us or against us’ neocon screed. Sixty years after WWII white, gentile America had to be demonized for their historical resistance to entering WWII.
Roth defamed a real American (indeed world) hero like Charles Lindbergh. Fitting to the omnipresent hypocrisy of Roth’s worldview, FDR, who of course infamously interred Japanese Americans based solely on race, is the national savior in the work.
Like a great musician or painter in Roths best writing there appears to to be no distance between him and his main characters.
It’s like watching Jurassic Park.
I’ve only read Portnoy’s Complaint, When She Was Good, and The Humbling, the last named in, strangely, French translation – I was on holiday in the Canaries and the bookshop didn’t have anything decent in English. I recently decided only to read novels by white men until the legacy publishing industry starts publishing novels by white men again, and am tempted to revisit the Roth opus.