Clive of Canberra again
Leonard Bast links to the “teaser” for Clive James’ review of Philip Roth’s new novel (what’s the title again?). This might be the first time I’m relieved not to have the full thing. After the title comes the sub-editor’s lines of introduction summing up the review: “Philip Roth has conjured up an alternative America � but fantasy is the wrong form for a writer uncannily able to find real life fantastic“.
In what way is this book fantasy that, say, The Counterlife, which features similar tricks, isn’t? James recommended this novel as his book of the year when it was published; it was why I read (and loved) it. And anyway, isn’t even the most relentlessly realistic novel fantasy?
Could James’ pro-war opinions be making him extra-sensitive to the power of lots of little lies to produce one big truth?
Other Splinters posts of interest:
- The other counterlife
- Re-Drawn and Quarterly
- Roth on NPR, Naipaul on BBC
- The art of concision
- Philip Larkin There hasn�t been much to say latel…
