The Counterlife by Philip Roth, pages 1 - 140

[George]

Please comment here on Counterlife by Philip Roth, pages 1 - 140. (Part 1 Basel & Part 2 Judea).

[George]

Whilst the first half of the novel is good, the second half of the novel has some interesting plot twists and is more thought provoking.

The book starts off with Henry deciding to have an operation as he cannot have sex. Henry concern isn't so much that he can't have sex with his wife, Carol, but more that he can't have sex with his mistress, Marie! After page 49, the end of part 1, the issue of sex takes a backseat and the novel focuses on the issue of the jews in Israel. At the end of part 2 I thought, this has been a good reading experience, but not a five star read! and then....(see my comments on pages 141 to end).

[Irene]

I started this over the weekend. I was glad to see part 1 end. 50 pages about some guy obsessing over his limp dick was more than I could take. The disregard for his wife, his vulgar attitude toward sex with his mistress made me really dislike this guy. I was so glad to see part 2 introduce issues of politics and religious identity and belonging and other such topics that don't revolve around a penis.

[George]

Yes, Henry is not a nice guy.

I enjoyed some of the witty and humorous moments in 'Part One - Basel'. For example on page 33:
"For most people, the mouth is secret, it's their hiding place. Just like the genitals............men are more vulnerable, particularly if they've lost teeth....A tooth for a man is a mini-penis."......... "Well, what do you think of the sexual prowess of a toothless man? ...

[Irene]

I know that much of the humor in this book is flying over my head. That line you just quoted did not strike me as the least bit funny. That said, there are some funny passages such as Jimmy's attempt to hijack the plane.

Although I am very glad that the book has shifted away from Henry's sex life, Henry is not getting any more likable. He abandons his wife and children emotionally so he can chase one sexy girl after the next. Then he abandons them physically so he can pursue some elusive sense of his heritage. I know this novel is supposed to be engaging questions of what makes a Jew a goode Jew. But, Henry is so lousy that his quest is not sympathetic. Plus, I think I need a primer on some of the issues motivating these characters. I grew up in central Jersey surrounded by a large population of Jews but never heard anyone asking the sort of questions that seem to be behind this novel.

[George]

Good to read your comments. I read Roth as stating that the questions asked in Israel on the Jewish question aren't discussed in New York. In New York Nathan and Henry haven't had to deal with being Jewish. They're not practising Jews, unlike their father. In Israel Nathan is confronted with direct questions on his 'jewishness' which he tries to ignore. As the novel continues the point is made that being a Jew in New York is different to being a Jew in Israel and being a Jew in England.

Henry is having a mid life crisis. We learn at the start of part two that Henry had bypass heart surgery and became badly depressed after it. Presumably the surgery was a life or death situation. In part two Henry seems a more subdued character than Nathan's fictionalised portrayal of Henry in part one! Just how much has Nathan in his 'short novel' (part one Basel) exaggerated Henry's adultery? Nathan's Marie is not Henry's Marie so is Henry's Marie a fictional character?

I thought the couple of sentences in Nathan's letter to Henry, (p 145 of my Vintage International paperback edition), neatly states one of Roth's ideas in this novel.

"The treacherous imagination is everybody's maker - we are all the invention of each other, everybody a conjuration conjuring up everyone else. We are all each other's authors."

[Irene]

Yes, that sentence, which I totally missed, set us up for the next section. I don't want to comment here so that I don't give away any spoilers, but the turn taken in a later section makes me really confused about what is going on in the Judah section. Is this really about the questions of identity that living in Isreal forces one to face, questions that diaspera living does not force one to confront? Is Henry or Nathan having the mid-life crisis? Is there any connection between geography and the types of issues being argued? And, what does the airplane section add to this greater conversation? Besides some comic relief and a lull for Nathan to write his thoughts out, is it about passive compliance? Is Roth suggesting that every Jew is somehow guilty of participating in the greater story of Isreal or the actions of radicals acting in the name of Isreal, simply by sitting in the same time or by engaging the conversation? Or is he suggesting that every Jew is going to be implicated whether or not s/he is guilty?