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

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.2342  Friday, 15 December 2000

From:           Herman Gollob <gollobh@idt.net>
Date:           Thursday, 14 Dec 2000 15:24:06 -0500
Subject: 11.2330 Re: Roth on Verse
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.2330 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.'"

Mr.Cartelli,

Many thanks. I agree-- Roth is one of our few Men of Letters (along with
Styron and Bellow-- by the way, did you read Roth's New Yorker piece on
Bellow?)

And thanks also for tipping me to Bloom's book. I'll order it post
haste.

Herman Gollob

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