Who else thinks Roth is over rated?

Question

When you've got guys like McCarthy challenging the very notion of grammar and highlighting humanity with stories and minimalist language, or O'Brien teaching the effects of war on the soul of man and society, or Ellis highlighting the self indulgent nature of America with every run on sentence, or DeLillo noting the effects of mass media on psyche of individuals and the loss of identity the nation suffers with every major advertising campaign, or Palahniuk fusing prose with poetic devices and forcing the country to deal with the nightmares created from it's own negligence, or any of the countless other greats out there writing superb literature, do we even need Philip Roth filling the shelves with narratives centering around the mundane illnesses of their protagonists? Is anyone really still falling for the pseudo-academic/intellectualism that he has been force feeding the reading public for countless years now? Aren't we just better off he bows out in grace and lets the new guard take over? I mean, thank the man for his uninspired but significant contributions to American Literature but let's encourage the dying dog to lay finally. This man is no Vonnegut, he's no Faulkner, in short his time has passed. Agree?

Answer 1

u sound like a nerd no offence

Answer 2

Dude, I'm sorry to say this, but after I finished reading your question, I couldn't help but think that the real purpose of this question was to show the YA community how clever you think you are. And I'm sure you are a very bright guy with a wide knowledge of literature, but I detect a note of vanity in your words as you parade on about how you know all of these famous writers and what issues they're grappling etc. This question is as much a tribute to your own supposed linguistic "prowess"  as it is an actual question.

If I've completely misread you, my apologies. It;s just that your question really irritated me!

Answer 3

You know, I've always been fairly sanguine about Roth, if somewhat disinterested in recent years. I read his early work in my youth and I liked it well enough, though I was never an enormous fan. He has his talents and his moments but it has seemed to me in recent years that he has been resting on his laurels and living a sort of "lifetime achievement award" authorial existence. He has that right, I suppose, and I have never grudged him it, until lately. The reason I am grudging it to him now is the recent spate of fanatics that have popped up here on Answers.

I have a problem with anyone who feels they have the right to crown the one best, or only living, author, particularly when the person bestowing that honor is clearly quite youthful. It takes a lot more than a couple adult years of reading to give a person the right to make that sort of judgement, and in my experience the longer one reads the less likely one is to be inclined to judge so absolutely. The world of literature is a house with many mansions indeed, and we are all best served by their exploration, not their razing.

All that being said, I agree with your statements on the authors you named, and on Roth. I could add a list of my own, with editorials, but I won't because I am already achieving the tedious length which is the hallmark of my answers.