The Counterlife by Philip Roth Pages 141 to the end

[George]

Please comment here on The Counterlife by Philip Roth, pages 141 to the end.

[George]

This is such a cleverly written, intelligent, witty read. It's told in five parts. In part one the famous author, Nathan Zuckerman, aged 45 is writing a fictional account of the death of his brother, Henry, aged 39. In part two, Nathan is in Israel for a long weekend trying to understand why Henry has left his dental practice in New York and his wife and 3 children, to live in Israel, studying The Torah and following a radically pro-Israel man named Lippmann. There is very good, interesting dialogue between Henry and Nathan on the issue of zionism and jewishness (sic). Parts 3, 4 and 5 involve some excellent dialogue on Jewish fanaticism, the give and take in marriage relationships, being a Jew living in the USA and the UK and the art of the novel.

I have now read 19 Roth novels and The Counterlife is easily in my top ten favourite Roth books. If you are new to Roth I recommend the short, Everyman as a good introduction to Roth's smooth writing style to find out whether 'Roth' is an author you will enjoy reading. (Other Roth books that are good starting points are American Pastoral or The Human Stain).

[George]

In part 3 we have an exciting terrorist episode on a plane. In part 4 we learn that Nathan, the character who was the protagonist in the parts 2 and 3, is dead after an operation. Henry is alive! Sounds crazy, but it works brilliantly! We learn that parts 2 and 3 are chapters in Nathan's draft novel. Initially in part 4 I was confused as Nathan's operation is similar to Henry's in that Nathan is having the operation so that he can become a father. Also confusing is that Nathan's partner's name is Marie. The same name as Henry's mistress as per Nathan's draft book of part 1. Towards the middle of part 4 Roth clears up the confusion.

It's a very readable novel, very thought provoking.

[Irene]

Well, I am 80% through this novel. It is fairly easy to read, but I can't agree that it is easy to understand. What is Roth trying to explore in this novel? We have this book inside a book. Nathan uses the names of his family members and certain condemning details of their life that could seriously harm them, but then creates ficticious scenarios for all of them, some of which make these family members look even worse. Imbedded into this exploitation of family is lots of ficticious dialogue about Jewish identity and the state of Isreal. Is there supposed to be some interpretive key connecting these strained family dysfunctional bonds and Jewish connection to Isreal? Estranged family relations, family betrayal, the callous exploitation of others for personal gain, these are not particular to Jewish families living outside Isreal. So why make these Jewish questions loom so large? To what extent does Jewish identity and these family dynamics connect or inform each other as we read this book? Maybe the last 20% will make things clearer for me.

[George]

I found the following excerpt from a book review of The Counterlife by William B. Gass in The New York Times, 4 January 1987 a very interesting:
"Normally there is a contract between the author and the reader that only gets torn up at the end of the book. In this book the contract gets torn up at the end of each chapter: a character who is dead and buried is suddenly alive, a character who is assumed to be alive is in fact dead, and so on. This is not the ordinary Aristotelian narrative that readers are accustomed to reading or that I am accustomed to writing. It isn't that it lacks a beginning, middle and ending; there are too many beginnings, middles and endings. It is a book where you never get to the bottom of things - rather than concluding with all the questions answered, at the end everything is suddenly open to question. Because one's original reading is always being challenged and the book progressively undermines its own fictional assumptions, the reader is constantly cannibalizing his own reactions.

In many ways it's everything that people don't want in a novel. Primarily what they want is a story in which they can be made to believe; otherwise they don't want to be bothered. They agree, in accordance with the standard author-reader contract, to believe in the story they are being told - and then, in "The Counterlife," they are being told a contradictory story. "I'm interested in what's going on," says the reader, "only now, suddenly, there are two things going on, three things going on. Which is real and which is false? Which are you asking me to believe in? Why do you bother me like this!"

Which is real and which is false? All are equally real or equally false. Which are you asking me to believe in? All/none. Why do you bother me like this? In part because there really is nothing unusual about somebody changing his story. People constantly change their story - one runs into that every day. "But last time you told me . . ." "Well, that was last time -this is this time. What happened was . . ." There is nothing "modernist," "postmodernist," or the least bit avant-garde about the technique. We are all writing fictitious versions of our lives all the time, contradictory but mutually entangling stories that, however subtly or grossly falsified, constitute our hold on reality and are the closest thing we have to the truth.

Why do I bother you like this? Because life doesn't necessarily have a course, a simple sequence, a predictable pattern. The bothersome form is intended to dramatize that very obvious fact. The narratives are all awry but they have a unity; it is expressed in the title - the idea of a counterlife, counterlives, counterliving. Life, like the novelist, has a powerful transforming urge."

[Irene]

Interesting, I never thought of the book as a series of revised stories. But, I was wondering by the end of the book last night, if it was about the contrast between who we are and who we think we are, both individually and collectively. This is going to be a hard book to rate. The writing is excellent. The dialogue is outstanding. But it left me confused. I read the last page three times hoping the light bulb would go off. But I went to bed in the dark.

[Mary]

George wrote: "This is such a cleverly written, intelligent, witty read. It's told in five parts. In part one the famous author, Nathan Zuckerman, aged 45 is writing a fictional account of the death of his brothe..."

I wasn't able to read "The Counterlife" this month. I did read "American Pastoral" last summer and it's now on my Top 10 all-time fiction favorites. I'll read "The Counterlife" for my next Philip Roth's novel.