Ooh, this one is . . . uncomfortable. Roth has teasingly drawn from his life before, and or at least seems to be in a constant game with the reader daring them to figure out how much of what he is writing is autobiographical and how much is simply an informed and exaggerated variation (a game that can admittedly get tiring after a while for people who want to read a story and not pay the author to subject us to a detailed psychological examination of his flaws, or lack thereof) but this one gets fairly intense when you realize that several of the events in the book mirror things that happened to him during his first marriage. I'm not sure if that classifies the novel as a exorcism of sorts, or a bizarre form of revenge therapy or just a cold-hearted "boy this will sure move numbers" attitude but it does, like it or not, cast a different shade on the work, which has a different feel than most of his other novels in that vein. Not personal but more . . . to the bone? Like when you're kidding around with friends and then somehow crosses a line that nobody really knew existed and then suddenly the joking around gets deadly serious. It feels like that.But not at first. At first it feels like one of Roth's innumerable games where Nathan Zuckerman stands in for whatever aspect of his life he's cleverly attempting to convince us he's fictionalizing. Only he takes it one step further this time, giving us two stories about Zuckerman but written by another author, Peter Tarnopol. The two Zuckerman stories are variations on a theme, where poor Zuckerman gets trapped into two different relationships, the second of which seems to be at the hands of an honestly crazy person. That's the first section "Useful Fictions" and when that gives way, we move into "My True Story" which is supposed to be Tarnopol telling us the story of his disastrous marriage and even more disastrous separation (and failure to divorce) his wife Maureen.Tarnopol is basically another version of Roth's first person narrators, in the vein of Alexander Portnoy (or Zuckerman himself), erudite, a sometimes adversarial relationship with his family, and very complicated relationships with women, most of whom seem like absolutely nutty people in the eyes of said narrator. Jumping back and forth in time, Tarnopol relays to us both how he meets Maureen and gets tricked into marrying her (apparently similar to how Roth married his first wife) and the women he meets subsequent to leaving her even as she refuses to divorce him, much of which causes Tarnopol no end of stress. A lot of the novel, much like "Portnoy's Complaint" is given to us from the psychiatrist's couch, although unlike that novel the doctor is allowed to get a word in edgewise. It covers much of the same ground, infidelity, relationships, the intertwining of the artist and his life, and a lot of it comes across as so ridiculous at times that it could almost be funny.Except . . . it's not. Maybe Roth has dug so far down here that the only thing coming up is the thickest of black crude but as a whole the novel feels far more savage than his other works. Most of this comes from the utterly toxic relationship between Peter and Maureen, who have passed from nitro and glycerin to something new and far more dangerous. Maureen seems to be actively psychotic (an early scene where she tearfully lambastes Tarnopol for answering a question about how his editor is with the editor at his publisher instead of her tells you a lot of what you're in for), spending most of the time saying crazy things or lying or manipulating, acting like a time bomb that keeps resetting itself every time it goes off. It's harrowing watching the two of them go at it, even more so as the marriage winds towards its inevitable end and matters get ramped up to a degree that is actively unsettling. It's riveting but with both characters fairly unpleasant it's probably a fair question to ask why we need to subject ourselves to it.And it is a valid question. Stripped of the voyeuristic aspect of wondering just how much of this was reflected in Roth's own life, you're left with a narrator who is a hysterical coward, getting pushed into situations that no rational person would see themselves getting into and then twisting himself into psychological knots attempting to justify both his reasons for staying and going. To Roth's credit, all of the other characters seem more than capable of calling Tarnopol out on his crap, but it's cringeworthy watching him make one bad decision after another even as people warn him of the consequences of his bad decisions. The fact that Maureen is an unrelenting lunatic gives you an upclose look at what it's like to live with an actual madwoman but it also slants the book so much that it's hard to feel any sympathy for Tarnopol to any degree beyond basic human decency about not wanting to see a guy get screwed constantly. She's so terrifying that you want to feel bad but when he ignores good advice to stay with her anyway after a while you stop being sorry for him and wonder who's going to bleed first (it's sort of a tie).Saying the book is narratively biased is probably putting it mildly. To that end that book feels less like a story than a nightmare Roth is trying to wake himself up from. With most of the women stripped of their nuances (lover Susan is inactive to the point of being a paperweight, passive beyond sanity and another damaged case, although one can suppose she's in good company) and Tarnopol surrounded by people smarter than he is despite his inability to recognize that, you wind up marveling more at the car wreck aspects of it than any kind of emotional investment in the story itself. It's brutal and uncomfortable to read, though probably not half as much as it was to experience it in real life, but the more you find out how much of it was based in reality (I didn't know until after I read the book), the more you start to wonder if this is another example of Roth playing a clever game to blur the line between life and art and fiction, or just a way for him to present the evidence and say, "Look, see, none of this was my fault . . . what else could I do, she was crazy!" Drawing from all aspects of the real world is an admirable trait of any writer but here at points it feels more like Roth had decided what he wanted to do, and then wrote a book to try and justify it.
1. Roth is one of the best writers of our time and speaks to the zeitgeist that he wrote in. 2. His easy, conversational prose is seductive and more difficult to duplicate than it appears. 3. I really, really hate all the characters in this novel and at times I wanted to close the book and never pick it up again. These 3 points are why this book leaves me feeling so mixed. On the one hand, the writing is a punch to the gut. This is probably the most autobiographical of Roth's novels and the way he lays it out is impressive. First, we get two Zuckerman short stories that give two origin stories of Young Nathan up to his early manhood. Then we get introduced to Peter Tarnapol the author of the two short stories and another thinly veiled standin for the author a la Zuckerman. The story is relatively chronological but does jump back and forth in some sections. Essentially he goes from young Jew from good family to college to famous first novel then he meets Maureen and everything falls on his head. Peter and Maureen has easily the most tumultuous and unhealthy relationship I've come across in fiction. They hate each other but won't leave each other. She traps him into marriage pretending to be pregnant and he gets sucked in by it because of the idea of the moral person he believes he is. She's a shrew, nag, and impossible to be with and he stays with her while complaining every second. This dynamic is the crux of the story and it makes the novel truly distasteful to experience. There's a ton of bickering and whining. They're both delusional and won't let go of each other fully. When Leo finally leaves Maureen she stays latched to him not granting him a divorce and squabbling over alimony. Leo continued to be controlled by her through these battles and uses her as the subject of his now stalled writing career. They both go under analysis and Leo starts a new relationship, this time with a rich, beautiful Gentile but he still stays in the feud. The rich, beautiful Gentile is broken in her own way, ofcourse. This novel is a glimpse into the unpleasant married life of Roth and the mysterious older women he disdains. It's courageous for Roth to tackle it but it also feels self indulgent. At some point it seems to leave fiction and be more a confession. He leaves the idea of writing for an audience and it becomes more therapy for him. Moreover, we get only Peter's point of view and who knows how true his perceptions are. In other words, the narrator is truly unreliable. The writing is good, the dialogue is crisp and parts of it sing but the characters are awful which makes the reading painful. But any writing that can tap into my emotions, even a negative one, deserves respect. This is a part of human experience and Roth gives it to us in spades.
What do You think about My Life As A Man (1994)?
De una crudeza implacable y una sinceridad desgarradora, las variaciones sobre el mismo tema que Philip Roth presenta en Mi vida como hombre suponen cada vez una nueva vuelta de tuerca alrededor de cómo un hombre puede echar a perder su propia vida sabiendo bien lo que hace y cómo lo hace. Una historia contada de una forma totalmente inverosímil, y a la vez de una autenticidad tan descarnada que por fuerza tiene que contener elementos autobiográficos reales.El narrador-protagonista (sea Nathan Zuckerman o Peter Tarnopol) nos cuenta con todo detalle cómo vivia una existencia completamente literaria que le hacía feliz, y cómo ese afán por la literatura le llevó a elegir una esposa como un personaje de ficción. Este narrador habla de sí mismo como de una Madame Bovary masculina y moderna, que en vez de haber llenado su imaginación de novelas románticas la había llenado de la mejor literatura universal, y a causa de ello llegó a creer que su vida tenía que responder a ciertas pautas de comportamiento transcendentes: sus acciones debían estar llenas de sentido, su pareja no podría ser una persona cualquiera sino alguien con un pasado, con una experiencia vital significativa. Para, finalmente y siempre en sus propias palabras, acabar siendo el protagonista de escenas dignas de un culebrón. Impresionante.Las narraciones "ficticias" de Nathan Zuckerman del principio son bastante superiores desde el punto de vista literario a las narraciones "reales" de Peter Tarnopol de la segunda parte. La elaboración literaria de los hechos vitales les va a dar una dimensión artística de la que va a carecer la confesión, por muy sincera que sea y muy bien escrita que esté Pero la fascinación continúa en cualquier caso hasta el final, Peter Tarnopol es una figura tan magnética como sin duda lo es su propio autor.
—Carmen Daza Márquez
“Bisogna sempre fare le cose nel modo giusto. Farle nel modo sbagliato, figliolo, non ha alcun senso!Peter Tarnopol è un giovane scrittore emergente figlio amatissimo di orgogliosi genitori ebrei. La storia ruota intorno al suo matrimonio non voluto con Maureen, reduce da due matrimoni falliti, una psicopatica che occuperà, provocando devastazioni e disastri, la vita di Tarnopol, per renderla la “vita di uomo di Maureen”, non più figlio amato, scrittore emergente, fratello affettuoso, professore preparato di letteratura inglese, ma soltanto … marito di Maureen travolto da lei e con lei nella nevrosi e infine nella follia. Come al solito Roth ci fa riflettere, ci chiediamo, insieme col professor Tarnopol, quale sia la radice di questo insano e torbido rapporto: lui, per poter vederci chiaro, scrive due racconti con protagonista Nathan Zuckerman, che raccontano la sua adolescenza e poi le nozze di Zuckerman con Lydia, anch’essa una psicopatica, reduce da un matrimonio fallito con una figlia a carico, una donna priva di qualsiasi attrattiva per il professor Zuckerman. Può essere il forte narcisismo di Tarnopol nato dall’ansia di castrazione suscitata dalla madre nell’infanzia, dalla quale il giovane si è difeso coltivando un forte senso della propria superiorità, la convinzione di essere un uomo speciale e come tale di doversi comportare in modo eccezionale, sottomettendosi senza ribellione alla follia di Maureen? Questa è la tesi sostenuta dal dottor Spielvogel, lo psicoterapeuta che lo cura (che convince proprio poco). O non è forse spiegabile con il forte senso del dovere che i genitori gli hanno instillato, che lo ha spinto a fare la cosa giusta, cioè sposare quella donna derelitta, senza una famiglia alle spalle, abbandonata dai suoi primi due mariti, che ha sempre dovuto cavarsela da sola nella vita? “Non c’è nulla cui io tenga di più che la mia reputazione morale” dice Peter Tarnopol ad una giovane studentessa del suo corso di inglese, con la quale ha iniziato una relazione per disintossicarsi dalla tossica relazione con Maureen, con in sottofondo un tono di compiacimento perché la sua vita somiglia tanto ad uno dei drammi letterari letti con gli studenti. Così che il fallimento della sua vita matrimoniale rappresenta la sconfitta sia dell’uomo che dello scrittore.Non è il Roth di Pastorale americana e de La macchia umana, ma è pur sempre un immenso Roth.
—Sandra
This book is scary for how good a read it is. Clearly, a set up for masterpieces like American Pastoral and The Human Stain. And the depths of metafiction that Roth is so good at - where the line of fiction and fiction becomes hazy. The starts as a couple of Zuckerman narratives - the very birth of Zuckerman as a Roth alias - but this Zuckerman is really the ficitonal guise of Peter Tarnopol, a writer tortured by his own ambiguity about his manhood throughout his hellish relationship with his wife, Maureen. This novel smacks of all the heavy and insightful work of the great Zuckerman novels: deep-seeded psychologies (and psychopathologies), and a brave exploration into those psychologies. Roth is unafraid to test the limits of our sympathy and our tolerance (if Portnoy's Complaint hasn't taught you that much about him, then I can't tell you much more), as Maureen is complex in her pathology and Tarnapol is a writer with one successful book (successful enough to get him recognized by cabbies), but otherwise collapsing in his identity (a journey helped along greatly by Maureen). The later Zuckerman books would infuse more successfully the sense of history and American culture that coincides with these deep psychologies, but this book is monumental for seeing where Roth's talents got exercised on their way to perfection - the birth of Zuckerman, and the start of the ambiguous biographical nature of Roth's fiction. Tarnopol as Zuckerman as Roth - what an intricate web.
—Richard
