Talk:Philip Roth

Revert

Just to explain my revert. The last edits by anonymous User:69.210.106.253 amounted to removing all of the links in the article with no substantive additions. --Polynova 18:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hysterical Realism

I'm removing the association between Roth and Hysterical Realism because his writing is definitely not an example of that genre of literary fiction. As someone who's read most of James Wood's essays over the last several years (including the one in which he coined the term hysterical realism), I know for a fact that Wood is a Roth admirer, and so it is highly unlikely he would include him in a category of fiction he was seeking to demolish.

Less subjectively, Roth's novels do not display any of the characteristics of hysterical realism, such as use of a plethora of subplots and minor characters, ostentatious display of encyclopedic knowledge on the part of the author, "multi-cultural" characters composed out of nothing but a collection of quirks and unlikely coincidences, etc. Roth is a pretty conventional practitioner of naturalism/literary realism who has added strong elements of meta-fiction to his work in the last half of his career.

Jewish-American?

Must Wikipedia refer to American Jews as "Jewish-American"? Most Jews I know reject this phrase, not wanting to compromise or express any sort of ambivalence about their Americanness, and not wanting to contribute to the ethnic balkanization that some on the far left and right would foist on us (see esp. David Hollinger, Postethnic America, rev. 2000). -- Mark Satin, Washington DC USA

I agree, but I only see a reference to "Jewish-American" in the second section, which I've changed slightly. I believe that it needs to be noted that Roth is Jewish as so many of his books revolve around Jewish themes, but I agree that "Jewish-American" is an awkward phrase. See the change I made. Moncrief 04:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• "Jewish-American" is no more awkward than "African-American," "Irish-American," "German-American," or "Native-American," and they are ALL commonly used phrases -- it seems that Jews love to celebrate their unique cultural heritage and ethnic separateness among themselves yet don't like to actually talk about it in public. Bring it out into the open; I'm doing my part and putting it back in. --64.12.116.196 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)*
  • it seems that Jews love ... -- lovely anti-semitic sentiments there. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"anti-Semitic"?

Really?

It is somewhat of a puzzle that this claim is made without any demonstration of whence the "anti-" component arises. It would make as much sense to claim that the sentence, "It seems that the moon shines at night." is "anti-lunar".

As noted literary critic, John McEnroe, said, "You can not be serious!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.100.102 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. The term African-American is appropriate because originally their roots come from Africa. Irish-Americans came from Ireland. Native-American are native to America. Jewish-American gives me the indication that there would be a country that "Jewish-Americans" came from. Since Jews have been scattered throughout the world for so long I find it rather foolish to call them Jewish-Americans. Cptnspoon19 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it back out. How often do you hear of a Jewish-French or a Jewish-German author?I'll do my part, whenever I see it I'm taking it out. I think it is appropriate to mention his ethnicity (not "religion," because he is obviously secular) - in the first paragraph of the biography. Philip Roth is, first and foremost, an American author. The idea that all of his novels center around Zionism, infra, is similarly banal, but I won't remove the content. What about The Plot against America? (this explanation not signed)

May 18th, 2006: added it back in -- "Jewish-American" is certainly not awkward as it is used in academia and elsewhere all of the time; here are a few books (largely written and/or compiled by American Jews in and outside of academia) that prove this:

[NOTE: copied/pasted from Wiki-page Jewish American literature]:

• Chametzsky, Jules, et al. Jewish American Literature: A Norton Anthology. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. ISBN 0-393-04809-8
• Fried, Lewis, Ed. Handbook of American-Jewish Literature: An Analytical Guide to Topics, Themes, and Sources. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. ISBN 0-313-24593-2
• Kramer, Michael P. and Hana Wirth-Nesher. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish American Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-521-79293-2

So, I say it should remain and will continue to switch it back, especially given that nearly all of Roth's books involve Jews and his peculiar brand of "American Jewishness." --205.188.117.10 02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Philip Roth has repeatedly stated, "I don't have a religious bone in my body." In his memoir PATRIMONY he says many times that he is totally, completely secular. Because of that, we have to suspect that he would not enjoy or prefer being referred to as "Jewish-American." Far from it. And since Jews come from countries all over the world, it is NOT the same as calling someone "African-American." Which, by the way, some Americans of African descent have begun to object to. Nor is it convincing for User:205.188.117.10 to refer to examples of "Jewish-American" usage in academics or other writers' novels. These are irrelevant to the preferences of Philip Roth. 70.226.165.172 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Martinson the Monkey?

I'm very skeptical about this assertion, currently at the end of the second paragraph of Roth's 'Life and Career':

Specifically, Martinson is the inspiration for female characters in several of Roth's novels, including Mary Jane Reed (aka "the Monkey") in Portnoy's Complaint.

I have never seen Margaret Martinson mentioned as a model for The Monkey, and I'd be very surprised if she was. We do know that she was the model for Maureen Tarnopol, the wife of protagonist Peter Tarnopol in My Life as a Man, a fact long assumed, and then confirmed in Roth's memoir The Facts. This character, with her solid build, tree-trunk legs, and lack of interest in sex, more closely resembles Portnoy's Pumpkin, Kay Campbell, than The Monkey, who is sexually voracious, and has a "hard little handful of a model's ass."

Of course, I'd be very intrigued to see a source which states otherwise.

-David Gooblar (August 30, 2005)

"confirmed in Roth's memoir The Facts" - I'm not 100% sure that this is a memoir; it may instead be a pseudo roman a clef. Same goes for Patrimony: A True Story. The claim to factuality in the title/subtitle may be deception. Does anyone know? Perhaps the two books would therefore be most comfortable under the "Roth novels" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.32.30 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to believe that the two books mentioned "would be most comfortable under the 'Roth's novels' heading," since Roth has repeatedly identified them as factual memoirs in the most unambiguous terms. There is nothing confusing, mysterious or hard to understand about the title "Patrimony: A True Story." Younggoldchip (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The link to "Letting go" is to a wrong page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.179.200 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Philip Roth is arguably the most decorated American writer of his era

That seems like a subjective, unsupportable statement to me. Is he more "decorated" than John Updike? I don't think so. A more neutral "Roth has won numerous prestigious awards" would be more appropriate, in my opinion. 207.69.139.7 19:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're somewhat right about that statement. It is true that it is arguable as he's about neck and neck with Updike when it comes to decorations. I think it can be stated however that he is ONE of the most decorated American writers of his era. There's no doubt he is highly decorated and it can be substantiated that there are not many other writers than have been lauded as highly as Roth. Cptnspoon19 08:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, the sentance is both objective and supported. No other author has received a Pulitzer Prize AND two National Book Awards AND a WH Smith Literary Award AND received designation from the Library of America. In addition, Roth is the only author to win three PEN/Faulkner Awards. Moreover, in the New York Times survey described in the article, Roth was, by a wide margin, the author with the most novels mentioned, and the author with the most mentions over all. By any standard, this supports the statement that Roth is "arguably the most decorated American writer of his era." Indeed, it would be accurate to drop the word "arguably" from that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed "one of the most acclaimed writers in modern literary history" from the lede. The "arguably most decorated" epithet should suffice, as it is more easily proven and less POV. "Most acclaimed" is vacuous, as is some reference to "modern literary history," whatever that could mean. Grunge6910 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I restructured the first paragraph. It was too much of an understatement, reading like "George Washington was an American politician." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Not sure how far back the two line "criticism" section goes, but it seems rather silly to me atm. General languange ("Some have criticized Roth heavily") currently reads as though this is somehow a common view, but then cites one critic; the article then segues awkwardly into awards and honors section. Obviously, any major novelist is going to have critics on both sides of the fence, but Roth is a case where praise has been nearly universal. IMO the article would be better if the Crit and A&H sections were merged into something like "Critical Reception", and the prose was NPOV tempered a bit better to show that Roth, while heavily praised (by X, Y, etc. for reasons X, Y) has also had his detractors (X, Y, for reasons A, B) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.239.166 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

where's the criticism section? i know the above comment claims that roth is "universally" praised, but that is certainly not true and i'm guessing it was written by a fan of roth's. there has been much criticism of his work as juvenile, solipsistic, pedantic, and shock for shock value. i am a fan of his work, but this article makes it seem like he is not a polarizing figure, which anyone in the literary world knows to be untrue. please expand the criticism section if this article is to be able to be used as a resource for students of his work.99.135.92.240 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"American Jews of Ukrainian descent"

Does Philip Roth belong in this category? At the time his ancestors left Europe, they would have been living in Austria-Hungary, not Ukraine which wasn't an independent nation at the time. There's no evidence that the Roths were ethnically Ukrainian either. In what sense is he "of Ukrainian descent"? —D. Monack ^talk 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the category from this article. —D. Monack ^talk 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Non Believer

In an interview on the October 3, 2010 episode of CBS Sunday Morning, Roth said, "I don't have a religious bone in my body," and in response to the question "Do you feel there's a god out there?" he answered "I'm afraid there isn't, no." He also said, "when the whole world doesn't believe in god, it'll be a great place." I'm sorry I don't know how to cite this or if it's worth using. Thanks. 71.193.165.73 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Philip Roth.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Philip Roth.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with Wikipedia

Should we add this in?

• Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.138.33 (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia told Philip Roth he's not "credible source" on book he wrote http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/09/wikipedia-told-philip-roth-hes-not-credible-source-on-book-he-wrote/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • the story clearly shows why Wiki now losing its editors *face-palm* (Idot (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Why? Span (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Becuase I thought it might be relevant to include information about a personal spat he had with Wikipedia on his biography on Wikipedia? But I've noticed since I first suggested this it's already on the Human Stain article and there is something about not duplicating information on Wikipedia, right? So I assume we don't need to add this now, correct? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text of the open letter to wikipedia he wrote [[1]] (September 7, 2012, An Open Letter to Wikipedia, Posted by Philip Roth; last access 2012, oct 21th) -- 84.180.126.248 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I vote yes. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Google search result

When I searched for this page on Google the first sentence that was given as an example of what is written on the page was this: "Philip Milton Roth (born March 19, 1933) is a well-known asshole and novelist." Is there something Wikipedia can do about this or not?--Tomvasseur (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that malicious edit and warned the user. Google must have spidered the change and will no doubt update the result shortly. Esowteric+Talk 11:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, Esowteric. It's my understanding that someone from the Washington Post is currently writing an in-depth piece about this talk page with contributions from Roth himself. I think that's a really good answer and I would ask you not to delete it or allow any other user to delete it. This page is getting an incredible number of hits btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.58.210 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. If you click on "View history" you can still see the details (and you can also request that offensive edits are hidden from the public). BTW, the article on the author R. J. Ellory also makes interesting reading, perhaps as a counterpoint. Esowteric+Talk 21:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Philip Roth's case is perhaps an exception to a general rule: that generally speaking, secondary independent sources are more reliable than primary or self-published sources. Editing one's own biography or articles about one's own books can lead to possible conflicts of interest. Above all else, common sense should ultimately prevail, and that's something that is enshrined in Wikipedia's own policy, even if we sometimes get there in a rather convoluted or testing way. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 21:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it puzzling why they're making such a big deal about this. First they complain about anonymous edits by users to biographies. Now they're complaining because we don't just take the word of any anonymous editor who claims to be acting under someone famous.

Even if the alleged biographer's identity was confirmed (which he never bothered to do so), information exchanged through personal communications is not available to the public, making it impossible to verify for the readers. The information that previously existed wasn't even from Wikipedia, but as Roth said from "literary gossip", i.e. literary critics and reviewers. He should've corrected them, not Wikipedia.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds sort of sensible, but isn't really. You have to remember that Wikipedia is the top Google link for practically anyone and anything you write about. As such, Wikipedia has a responsibility to get things right. There is a profound difference between an error in an obscure book or ephemeral press article, and that same error elevated to perennial wisdom in the article that is the top Google hit for someone, their work, or their company. Wikipedia does a very poor job indeed living up to that responsibility. Anonymous editors post malicious, incompetent or biased material every day. Wikipedia announced the flagged revisions feature years ago that would have ensured that each edit made by a new anonymous editor would be scrutinised by a more established editor before being shown to the public; yet even that minimal quality control feature was never implemented. JN466 14:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is not implemented? In the WP where I correct a lot, there is a difference between "current" and "revised" pages (showing me, when logged on, that an article has to be revised). Check once visiting the WP wihtout logging on, and try out the article and news of the day (the most often changed).--Mideal (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The ironic thing about your comment is that the user who claimed to be Roth's biographer is an anonymous editor. Hence why we didn't just take his claims at face-value and explicitly asked for a verifiable source. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand he wrote to UTRS; the man is a Pulitzer finalist and Roth's official biographer. He is not an anonymous nobody. JN466 15:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And how would you reference an OTRS ticket? <ref>Just trust us, he wrote to Wikipedia and said so!</ref>? Would that help our credibility more? Especially given how prominently Broyard is mentioned in verifiable independent sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He asked for faulty information to be omitted. You do not need to reference information that is not included in the article. (OTRS agreements are sometimes mentioned on the article talk page, and/or in a non-displaying comment added to the article itself.) I don't know what happened, but the admin might have negotiated a different solution, such as taking this info out of the article's lead, and covering it as a minor point in the Reception section. As it was, the erroneous information about Broyard and Roth's rebuttal of it took up nearly half the entire article at the time the conflict began, if you discount the synopsis. In such a short article, this was grossly undue weight to give to erroneous speculation. And subsequently, even more was added, in an exercise of reflexive contrariness. JN466 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor concerned, Barbara Osgood has been blocked by Floquenbeam indefinitely for repeated BLP abuse. Esowteric+Talk 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth and bodily functions

I assume that if I put this in someone would take it right out as unsourced, but maybe someone has a source.

Roth, while not an erotic writer, became known, or in the popular mind is linked with, bodily functions, including masturbation and bowel movements. This started with Goodbye Columbus, seconded by Portnoy's Complaint. If this is unfair I don't know, but for the association alone it should be in there. I do think that of major twentieth-century American writers he is the most into things like this. And in contrast with Henry Miller, Anais Nin, and John Updike, his characters think a lot about intercourse, and would love to have it, but there isn't as much of it. deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Atheist writers

This article is listed in Category:Atheist writers, which is supposed to be used for people who write about atheism. Obviously Roth was both an atheist and a writer -- but I'm not convinced that he warrants inclusion in this category. However, I haven't read everything he wrote, so I'd appreciate some informed opinions on the subject. Thanks in advance. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The category seems to be Category:American atheist writers. But I don't think he wrote much about atheism per se. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Several edits

I am noting several of my edits which, hopefully, helped improve this article for readers:

1. In the first section following the intro, I created spacing for readability.
2. I also removed an erroneous and unsourced sentence at the end of this section. According to his obituary, Roth was injured during basic training and received a medical discharge. He did not spend 2 years in the army.
3. I removed the section tag - this section has enough references.
4. I also added a new section title -"Academic career" - again for readability. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories again

Hi User:Seqqndlyfe, why do we need both ‎Category:Jewish American novelists and Category:Jewish writers? Surely the later is a parent Category for the former? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)