“Then
turn me inside out over your cock. Like somebody peels off a glove”. The puppet
master speaks. Is this literature of the highest order, or pornography that
aims to shock rather than entertain and inform? That was the main question that
faced a full house of book readers of similar age who wondered where it had all
gone wrong. Perhaps it had gone right?
The host and proposer suggested
Philip Roth was surely not to everyone’s
taste, but was very highly regarded in the USA. This was confirmed by the
proportion of favourable reviews, both professional and amateur, on the
e-verse. Some thought him shallow, some offensive, but most admired his quality
of writing. One who did not admire his work was Carmen Calli, a feminist who
resigned when Roth won the Booker International prize in 2011. Claire Bloom,
his former wife had described him as a "self-involved, all-controlling
misogynist". Not one for the
ladies perhaps? Was he a man who writes for men and one who portrays his female
characters as less than human? Was Nikki less than human in Sabbath’s Theater? Did
the characters come alive? What about Drenka? Nikki was no-one till she came
alive as an actress and as Mickey's muse.
Overall, we did not subscribe to Calli’s
idea of a woman, but maybe many women are less than Calli’s idea of a woman,
irrespective of their portrayal by Philip Roth. If ever a book group needed a
mixture of the sexes in discussing a book this was the time. One member noted
that his wife had commented 'Are you reading that'? Had she read it, we
wondered? Did she know it by experience or reputation?
As with many books, the proposer felt
that it really should be read again; he had read much more into it second time
round. Another found the outrageous
sex scenes very funny. He liked the Dickensian comments on life, and the
tirades against the several targets. He suggested that Roth was skilled in
portraying loss, death and bereavement. The book was clearly humorous. There
were brilliantly funny scenes throughout, for example the wonderful rummaging
about in Deborah’s drawers,
in among the panties looking for the Polaroids when Norman or Rosa the maid
came in.
Again, like other books, there was a
feeling that this book could be judiciously edited (like these comments ...
Ed.), and as such could be a greater work. There was an element of overdrive in
the book, producing purple passages of prose and then away, free in one bound.
Such brilliant passages ranged from sex to death to manipulation of people as
puppets. They were very effective descriptions, with some of the most erotic
writing in the canon. Some made comparisons to Chaucer. In those days people
were much more liberal; it was much easier to write about sex.
Hold on, not everyone agrees! An
alternative view was that Sabbath was a self-aggrandising s**t. Roth was, as
usual, working in his own character. Another echoed that he did not enjoy the
book. As he considered himself a bit puritanical, he felt exposed to the book,
rather than enjoying it. Another wondered if the language was that used in a
homosexual group. He compared his experience of the language in the book to
meeting such a group. He also suggested that favourable criticism was jumping
on the bandwagon. A discussion ensued. Was the explicit sex a shield against
criticism because criticism of the writer or book would be taken as prudery?
Another wondered if criticism would be construed as anti-Semitic. Was this used in the USA as a protection; was it more difficult to prosecute Jewish writers?
We turned to the main themes of the
book in our view, sex and death. In the frequent visits to Drenka’s grave by a variety of suitors
as well as Sabbath, these themes were explicitly linked. “Birth,
and copulation, and death. That's all the facts
when you come to brass tacks.” (This taken from T.S. Eliot, not the book!) Other
strong themes included addiction, alcohol and drug dependency. Was this more to
do with obsession rather than addiction? Another suggested that, really, this
was more to do with completely amoral and selfish behaviour. However, the theme
of the book in suggesting that so many characters enjoyed such behaviour was
subversive. Perhaps the theme of the book was the regret of lost sex, and the
need for death as desire fades, as there was no sense of purpose.
Was this just porn? Certainly the
telephone sex passage was written to arouse. It was also very funny and a
successful literary device. In the trial scene, Roth satirised himself as the
judge dismisses the 'art' defence out of court. This was an extremely well
written scene, funny and sharp, and sad as the brave girl who defended
pornography as art was bullied by the lawyer. Roth rehearsed his own
literary defence for posterity, as he drew the parallel between the puppet
master and real life.. There were ~45 references to Rabelais, Miller, Lawrence,
etc. justifying Mickey's life and art, and by extension Roth's.
So this book was considered close to
the bone of sexual perversion. Which other books had similar notoriety? One of
us had bought “The Story of
O” at the Church Jumble
Sale, so that was obviously well endorsed. Another contemporary example that
came to mind was the film 'Shame', with Michael Fassbinder as a similarly
obsessed male. None of our book group was under 17, so we could all read the
book and see the film. This book also explored taboos, e.g. people p***ing on
each other and drinking the product. Roth addressed the issues of old people
having sex. As Mickey says, you can only be young once, but you can be immature
forever.
Could Mickey establish a long lasting
relationship with women? His later inability through arthritis to manipulate
puppets was linked to his loss of control of the female characters. The book
further explored other elements of old age and loss of function.
What of Matthew, the policeman,
Drenka’s son, a force for
good, a noble character or the village idiot? The last passage is ironic.
Matthew calls him a “filthy
sick son of a bitch” maybe
echoing the feminist, and some of the group’s,
view on Roth. Mickey could not f**ing die, he could not leave, everything he
hated was here. Do you know the addictive feeling?
Someone suggested to the proposer
that a book cannot be considered good if it has to be read twice. Wow, that is
some generalisation! By extension, this book should have been edited and given
structure. Slightly differently, the English Literature graduate suggested a
good book was enjoyed at the first read, and yet more was achieved in each
reading. This was not an easy book. Can we have an easy book? Can we have a
short book? Please?
Turning again to Roth’s motives, why was it written?
One suggested it was just written for literary position? Was it about excess?
Was it a joke on the public to see what the public would take? Could he get
away with it? The general view did not support this argument.
Next, there was a pernickety
diversion; perhaps so much talk about sex was becoming difficult. Can a
Mitchell B25 really fly at 4848 miles per hour? Aha, so we spotted the Ferrari
in Ben Hur – gotcha!
(Actually, there was no Ferrari, just tyre marks... Ed.)
As the discussion concluded, a
detractor suggested that Roth’s
problem was to write from a very limited perspective. For example, Graham
Greene would travel, meet people, absorb the atmosphere and hence write new
material. Perhaps Roth would benefit from 'getting out more'?
So the overall conclusion was a lack
of a conclusion. Taking a straw poll, two or three thought the book definite
rubbish; two or three were very impressed with the prose, the humour, the
tilting at taboos; and the others sat on the fence. There was a uniform
distribution of opinion. You will just have to read it yourself.