Larry, what is there about this topic that makes you so strident? I have said here that I have found some of his works impossibly bad, but that I enjoyed some of his work. Is that grounds for a fight or what?
sorry to hear that...are you an abuzzer?
we lost some posts due to adjustments made to the site...was no biggie.
I finished the Roth book last night--a huge disappointment. I
think his basic mistake was telling the story of an American political convulsion from a child's POV. He is forced to resort to a "historical" summary in the last third of the novel just to explain the "facts", because the child narrator can't do so. Also, it ends in a very weak and undistinguished way, as if Roth couldn't be bothered to come up with a strong ending. I still have no idea why he wrote the book at all--the alternative history is ludicrously improbable, and he says nothing about his childhood that would interest anyone except him.
Larry - your review has much in common with other reviews of that book I saw elsewhere. Quite apart from the fact that Lindbergh is a hero to all pilots (including those only part-time, like me) I'm tired of haghiographies of Franklin Roosevelt - best testimonial to whose presidency is the constitutional amendment barring anyone from being elected more than twice. Thank you.
Talk about a foregone conclusion, Lar! You were talking negatively about the book as soon as you heard what it was about, so I guess it's not too surprising you disliked it. Fair enough.
HofT: Is it Roth you dislike or Roosevelt? One suspects the latter. As for the critics, the NY Times Book Review gave it a glowing review. And the New Yorker has been favorable, too.
The New Yorker agreed with larry that the ending flagged.
D'Artagnan - risking charge of pedantry wish to request you to add that particular traitor's first name before his last name, so as to avoid any risk of confusion with the real President Roosevelt, naturally a Republican, namely Theodore.
On Roth I've no opinion, and doubt that literary history will bother with one.
Calling Roosevelt a traitor is the the stupidest statement I have read in a month at least. I won't highjack the thread, however.
On Roth, I will probably not get his book in the immediate future, because I have a list of higher priority reads ahead of it.
It's all right, Edgar, I don't want to highjack the thread either.
Careful Helen...that abuzz snide don't wash here.Edgar's infirmity is no cause for ridicule.
Whew. I bet you get really tore to shreds on the political threads.
I'm terribly sorry, thanks for telling me - had no idea there was an infirmity involved. Will go back quickly and delete the previous entry.
Done. I hope you get better, Edgar, my recollection was you got well and I really didn't know there were any lingering effects. Sorry.
You're very gracious...I respect that.
Thanks, Panzade, and nice to meet you.
I actually like Edgar very much, though our politics diverge somewhat <G>
I work a forty-plus hour week at a pace that could run a youngster ragged. Not bragging, only suggesting that rumors of my impending infirmities are greatly exaggerated. I still have a touch of the skin cancer lingering, but it's a mop-up operation now. If I had to I could possibly kick Philip Roth's ass now.
Anybody who calls FDR a traitor should be required to prove such an insane charge, and then when he cannot should be promptly barred from all civilized company, including A2K.
Now we're on the same page, Larry.
