• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Literary vs. Theatrical Shakespeare"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Shakespeare's Contemporaries"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: "Roth on Verse"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Roth on Verse"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2330  Thursday, 14 December 2000

From:           Tom Cartelli <cartelli@hal.muhlberg.edu>
Date:           Wednesday, 13 Dec 2000 15:59:07 -0500
Subject: 11.2309 Re: Roth on Verse
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2309 Re: Roth on Verse

Re: Herman Gollob's remarks on Philip Roth.

Why seek so far a field for Roth's inspiration?  Roth is arguably our
most "literary" writer; the broadly allusive nature of his work has been
evident since his earliest published work.  Though your own work sounds
very exciting, you would do well to consult James Bloom's 1997 book, THE
LITERARY BENT (UPenn Press), which provides the most thorough and astute
account of Roth's "Shakespearizing' to date.  For now, take this tidbit
from Bloom's account of Shakespeare's circulation in PORTNOY'S
COMPLAINT:  "After asking, Can you beat that for a serpent's tooth?",
Alexander Portnoy, Roth's most notorious surrogate, summed his life as
'some farce version of King Lear, with me in the role of Cordelia.'"

Tom Cartelli

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Literary vs. Theatrical Shakespeare"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Shakespeare's Contemporaries"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: "Roth on Verse"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Roth on Verse"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]