“I write
fiction and I’m told it’s autobiography,” complains the male protagonist of Deception, “I write autobiography and
I’m told it’s fiction, so since I’m so dim and they’re so smart, let them decide what it is or it isn’t.” Now
who says this: Philip Roth the character or Philip Roth the author? Or both? Or
is it a meaningless question?
In Deception (1990) an American
middle-aged, married novelist called Philip Roth is having an adulterous affair
with a married Englishwoman. They meet in a room to have sex and talk about
their problems, their lives and what drove one to the other. The novel was
written by an American middle-aged, then married (now divorced) novelist called
Philip Roth. What is the deception the title alludes to? The cheating done by
the two adulterers on their spouses? Or the trick the author plays on his
readers?
For better
and for worse Philip Roth’s fictional oeuvre is stranded in the mire of
self-referentiality. It was not always like that; his first three books – Goodbye, Columbus; When she was Good;
Letting Go – were no more self-referential than the typical literature that
ordinarily borrows some ideas from the author’s life experiences to get a
start. But since Portnoy’s Complaint
(1969) Roth hasn’t been able to deflect the charges that all his writing is
just a thinly-veiled reportage of his personal life, romans à clef. When Roth wrote about this novel disguised as a
sexually-messed up Jewish patient’s confession to his psychiatrist, many
instead preferred to see it as confession disguised as a novel. Rather than
insisting in getting these stubborn critics to get the facts right, Roth
started creating a daedal tapestry of references, alter egos, and facts mixed
up with fiction in order to confuse rather than clarify the limits of his
identity.
The epitome
of this game was Nathan Zuckerman, the protagonist of several of his books and
considered by critics to be Roth’s alter ego. Ironically Nathan Zuckerman did
not first show up in The Ghost Writer
(1979), first part of the Zuckerman Bound trilogy, but in My Life as a
Man (1974), as the alter ego of another
Roth alter ego, Jewish novelist Peter Tarnopol. Tarnopol is a writer trying to
escape the trauma of a horrifying marriage to a neurotic and manipulative
woman, Maureen, and Zuckerman is a character he creates as part of a book he’s
writing to use literature to exorcise her demonic influence upon his life. Another irony is
that Tarnopol was also created by Roth as a way of dealing with his first and very
daunting marriage.
Then Nathan
Zuckerman resurfaces, as a character autonomous unto himself, in The Ghost Writer and the sequels.
Zuckerman is a Jewish novelist from Newark who has achieved national notoriety
thanks to a scandalous novel called Carnovsky
(obviously modelled after Portnoy’s
Complaint), a novel that many, including his parents and brother, think is
based on his own life. The story of Zuckerman is in fact the story of
Zuckerman’s estrangement from his family and his inability to make up with his
father and his brother, Henry. The Counterlife (1986) was the coda
to Zuckerman’s life that the rather irrelevant The Prague Orgy had failed to be. In this novel Zuckerman deals
with the death of his brother and considers his own mortality by imagining his
own death. Roth had taken Zuckerman as far as he could take a fictional
character and I suppose we could say he had written himself into a literary
corner. The logical step was for Roth to muddle the waters even more, and so he
wrote himself, or at least wrote a
Philip Roth, into a novel.
Roth did
indeed live in England for a while, and he was married to an Englishwoman,
namely the actress Claire Bloom (they married in 1990, the same year the novel
was published). These facts are true. Everything else that happens in the novel
is up to the reader to decide if it’s true or not. Although what happens in it
does not interest me very much. I admit Deception
is not one of my favourite Roth novels. Adultery is a time-honoured theme of
literature, and when you’re being compared against Flaubert, Tolstoy and Eça,
you better bring something new to the table, and I fear Roth fails at that.
What I truly admire in it is Roth’s courage to portray himself in a negative
role, a womanizer, a cheater, a slightly neurotic and insensitive man. There’s
a passage that illuminates one of Roth’s recurrent preoccupations. “As though
it’s purity that’s the heart of a writer’s nature. Heaven help such a writer!
As though Joyce hadn’t sniffed filthily at Nora’s underpants. As though in
Dostoevsky’s soul, Svidrigailov never whispered. Caprice is at the heart of a writer’s nature. Exploration,
fixation, isolation, venom, fetishism, austerity, levity, perplexity,
childishness, et cetera. The nose in
the seam of the undergarment – that’s
the writer’s nature.” I’m not sure it is, not completely, but Roth has a point that
writers spend a lot of their time pursuing disreputable interests, being
selfish, wallowing in filth, and leading marginal lives. At least this used to
be truer in the past when writers were associated with the Bohemian lifestyle.
The novel
is composed mainly of dialogue, and this deprives it of many of Roth’s talents
as a master stylist who understands the rhythms and cadences of prose. He’s
also a great writer of dialogue, exceptional at it considering he’s not a
playwright, and his dialogues always flow organically and are impressed with
the marks of their speakers’ personalities. But for me Roth is better when he’s
modulating between prose and dialogue.
Thematically
adultery is new ground for Roth. In the past he explored sexual obsessions,
hedonism (in the guise of another alter ego, David Kepesh) unhappy marriages
and stormy family relationships. This novel shows two people trying to find
happiness in each other. Roth isn’t necessarily unhappy; at least he doesn’t
attribute ‘domestic dissatisfaction’ as the reason he fell in love with this
woman. As for his partner in adultery, she is a bit unhappy:
“What’s
the matter?”
“Oh, nothing. Two nannies, two children, and
two cleaning women all squabbling, and the usual English damp. Then my
daughter, since she’s been ill, has taken to waking me up at any time, three,
four, five. What’s tiring is I’m responsible to all my responsibilities. I need
a holiday. And I don’t think we can continue to have a sexual relationship. The
day’s too short.”
“Is that right? That’s too bad.”
Sex isn’t
even an outlet for them. The mundane world gets too much in their way, takes
the pleasure away and leaves only the sense of shame for neglecting their
‘front’ life for the hidden one. The problem is that neither character ever
comes fully to life, Roth’s gifts for characterisation didn’t work very well
here. Another problem is that too many things happen in this novel. At times it
feels like Roth is doing a list of all the things that interest but he doesn’t
stop to pick up an idea and explore it. There are scenes about the alleged
misogyny of his novels, then nods to his self-referentiality - “Oh, I know a
bit about you. From reading your books.” – then his views about the role of the
writer, then the toll of fiction on his personal life (the woman becomes
jealous of a sketchbook on which he jots down erotic ideas for a novel), and of
course the ghost of Zuckerman haunting the novel. At one point Roth is telling
the woman that he’s writing a novel about the death of Zuckerman: it would be
about Zuckerman’s biographer interviewing several people connected to the dead
writer in order to learn about him but always getting a different picture of
his life (shades of Citizen Kane?)
and slowly coming to hate Zuckerman for making his biographer’s job difficult.
(
In the
novel Roth also imagines a novel where Zuckerman dies (93) as if officially
recognizing he has moved on. Indeed NZ only shows up as a narrator in the
trilogy and finally in Exit Ghost,
the novel touted as the final NZ novel. The novel is about his biographer
trying to create a picture of his subject and meeting many different views (Citizen Kane). This was a touch I liked
because it’s Roth acknowledging Zuckerman had to pass away in order for Roth to
go on. (Roth gave a proper farewell to Nathan Zuckerman in the aptly-titled Exit Ghost.)
Besides
this I fear the novel is only of interest to Philip Roth aficionados who care
to follow the development of his work. Deception
was a transitional novel that led to two superior novels: Operation Shylock and The
Plot Against America. Both use Philip Roth as protagonist too. These two
novels are more fascinating because they showcase Roth’s underappreciated gits
for bizarre plotting and storytelling and also because they stretch the
credibility of the Roth figure. In Operation
Shylock Philip Roth chases his doppelganger all over Israel, a mysterious Roth-lookalike
preaching that Jews abandon Israel en masse, amidst a geopolitical thriller
involving spies, soldiers, terrorists, dictators, plastic penises and the 10
Tenets of Anti-Semites Anonymous. The Plot Against America is an alternative history book: the author
imagines what would have happened to young Phil Roth if he had grown up in an
America where aviator
hero and alleged Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh was President. It’s like
Roth was saying, in jest, “I created a fictional alter ego to whom realistic
things happened and everyone thought I was writing facts; now I’ve put myself
in the story and I challenge you to believe any of this is true.” Compared to
the flamboyance of these novels, the realistic domestic drama of Deception will only leave the reader
bored.

Great commentary Miguel.
ReplyDeleteAs you know I am fan of Roth but I have not read this novel. In terms of Roth using himself and his life as source material, I detect a reoccurring them in his work that seems to be contending that to some degree all artists do this but that public perception of the phenomenon is grossly oversimplified and distorted. In Roth's case however, using his own self and experiences seems to be extreme.
Brian, what you say reminds me of a lecture David Kepesh is writing in The Professor of Desire; he's telling his students that they've been taught literature is not self-referential, but he's going to show them examples of that. I agree with Kepesh that biographist analyses of literature have been undervalued in recent decades in lieu of whatever fashionable -ism Academia is riding on at the time.
DeleteBut I also think this doesn't explain anything about creativity and imagination.
I just downloaded the audio edition of this one. I am looking forward to it despite your lukewarm endorsement -- but I am a completist when it comes to Roth so like the idea of seeing the developmental link to Operation Shylock, which is coming up on my TBR stack.
ReplyDeleteGlad I found your blog!
Dear Gilion, thank you for visiting!
DeleteSo you're a Roth fan too?