What do you think?
Rate this book
Deception
"With the lover everyday life recedes," Roth writes - and exhibiting all his skill as a brilliant observer of human passion, he presents in Deception the tightly enclosed world of adulterous intimacy with a directness that has no equal in American fiction.
At the center of Deception are two adulterers in their hiding place. He is a middle-aged American writer named Philip, living in London, and she is an articulate, intelligent, well-educated Englishwoman compromised by a humiliating marriage to which, in her 30s, she is already nervously half-resigned.
The book's action consists of conversation - mainly the lovers talking to each other before and after making love. That dialogue - sharp, rich, playful, inquiring, "moving", as Hermione Lee writes, "on a scale of pain from furious bafflement to stoic gaiety" - is nearly all there is to this audiobook, and all there needs to be.
At the center of Deception are two adulterers in their hiding place. He is a middle-aged American writer named Philip, living in London, and she is an articulate, intelligent, well-educated Englishwoman compromised by a humiliating marriage to which, in her 30s, she is already nervously half-resigned.
The book's action consists of conversation - mainly the lovers talking to each other before and after making love. That dialogue - sharp, rich, playful, inquiring, "moving", as Hermione Lee writes, "on a scale of pain from furious bafflement to stoic gaiety" - is nearly all there is to this audiobook, and all there needs to be.
208 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
About the author
Philip Roth
257 books6,779 followersPhilip Milton Roth was an American novelist and short-story writer. Roth's fiction—often set in his birthplace of Newark, New Jersey—is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its "sensual, ingenious style" and for its provocative explorations of American identity. He first gained attention with the 1959 short story collection Goodbye, Columbus, which won the U.S. National Book Award for Fiction. Ten years later, he published the bestseller Portnoy's Complaint. Nathan Zuckerman, Roth's literary alter ego, narrates several of his books. A fictionalized Philip Roth narrates some of his others, such as the alternate history The Plot Against America.
Roth was one of the most honored American writers of his generation. He received the National Book Critics Circle award for The Counterlife, the PEN/Faulkner Award for Operation Shylock, The Human Stain, and Everyman, a second National Book Award for Sabbath's Theater, and the Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral. In 2005, the Library of America began publishing his complete works, making him the second author so anthologized while still living, after Eudora Welty. Harold Bloom named him one of the four greatest American novelists of his day, along with Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo. In 2001, Roth received the inaugural Franz Kafka Prize in Prague.
Roth was one of the most honored American writers of his generation. He received the National Book Critics Circle award for The Counterlife, the PEN/Faulkner Award for Operation Shylock, The Human Stain, and Everyman, a second National Book Award for Sabbath's Theater, and the Pulitzer Prize for American Pastoral. In 2005, the Library of America began publishing his complete works, making him the second author so anthologized while still living, after Eudora Welty. Harold Bloom named him one of the four greatest American novelists of his day, along with Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, and Don DeLillo. In 2001, Roth received the inaugural Franz Kafka Prize in Prague.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 303 reviews
January 4, 2021
warning to the wise: some spoiler-y content ahead...
I finished my 2020 reading year with Philip Roth's magnificent debut collection Goodbye, Columbus, and consequently dubbed him a mensch. All the while I had this nefarious, impudent novel on its way to me, and I knew the compliment probably wouldn't apply for long.
The book brags that it's "erotically original". Well, I already read his Portnoy's Complaint in which Monsieur Portnoy jerks off in the bathroom while his hysterical mother screams from the other side. Sigh. Dick Lit. A little something told me that I just might want to throw this book at the wall. Mensch, shmensch.
But I was intrigued, because I'm... me. It'd been a year or two since Roth had annoyed me. Besides, I really wanted to read a book comprised of conversations taking place pre and post coitus between two lovers who were married to other people. So, I was willing to take the risk.
The verdict? It's really a mixed bag. Written in 1990 when Roth was 57, with over a dozen novels under his belt, it's evident he was at a point in his career where he was free to do what he wanted, to experiment a bit. That's what he was doing here. He decided, "I'm gonna write a book with only dialogue, dammit." The novel is pretty much all dialogue, similar to Nicholson Baker's Vox. But very little sex talk, which is unlike Nicholson Baker's Vox. For a book that's being touted as "erotically original", there is precious little eros here. Huh.
The conversations vary between one or two lines, to pages and pages of talking. At first we find out the man is a writer. Hm. Then we find out one of his characters is called "Zuckerman". Hmmmm. About two thirds of the way in, our writer man is finally given a name - it's "Philip". Meow. Cat's outta the bag!
The conversations are between two people who have been having an affair that spans years. He, as I've already mentioned, is writer-man, "Philip". She, an English woman in her 30s, is particularly unhappy. Her husband has a girlfriend. She feels nothing for him but she's terrified to leave. She struggles with the dishonesty of her affair. He, "Philip", does a lot of listening.
Except, of course, when he's talking about his Jewishness and complaining about the way English people treat Jews, how they lower their voices when they say the word "Jew" in the same way that they would if they were saying "shit". Yep, that's Roth! He also spends many a page discussing Israeli politics, which just didn't seem to fit here. I mean, again, I hate to repeat myself or sound shrill, but isn't this supposed to be "erotically original"?
There's also chapters that confused me, and I still don't quite get what was going on there. In these chapters some guy is having conversations with a Czech prostitute. Is the guy the same guy from before, "Philip"? Or is this someone else? I don't like feeling confused, so I got annoyed. (I knew I'd get there eventually, Roth!) I didn't understand the Czech prostitute parts, so I started to skim whenever they came along. I wanted to get back to my conflicted lovers!
Then, we witness a conversation between "Philip" and his wife, and the whole shebang becomes very meta. She's furious, having read these conversations in his notebook, and is convinced he's been unfaithful. He's bewildered, doesn't she know he writes fiction?
This bit of meta actually saved the book for me, because it's HERE that lies the "deception" alluded to in the title. It's not really the deception of adultery. That's old, everyone knows about that. No, it's the deception fiction plays on the reader. Are all these conversations just notes for his next book? Is "Philip" the writer Philip Roth, or is that just a game he is playing? Were we just reading a book in the traditions of fiction that we're used to, or was this all the notebook that his wife stumbled upon in his study? Are the conversations ones that took place in real life or his imagination? Are we, the readers of this novel, turned into a jealous wife? What can the reader ever know?
Well, that's original.
What the reader can know, thank the good lord, is their own reaction to reading a book. And as for THIS reader, I was at times beguiled, at times bored, at times irritated, and at times quite impressed by this audacious little novel. Pretty standard Roth experience, I'd say.
Now, go read Goodbye, Columbus!
I finished my 2020 reading year with Philip Roth's magnificent debut collection Goodbye, Columbus, and consequently dubbed him a mensch. All the while I had this nefarious, impudent novel on its way to me, and I knew the compliment probably wouldn't apply for long.
The book brags that it's "erotically original". Well, I already read his Portnoy's Complaint in which Monsieur Portnoy jerks off in the bathroom while his hysterical mother screams from the other side. Sigh. Dick Lit. A little something told me that I just might want to throw this book at the wall. Mensch, shmensch.
But I was intrigued, because I'm... me. It'd been a year or two since Roth had annoyed me. Besides, I really wanted to read a book comprised of conversations taking place pre and post coitus between two lovers who were married to other people. So, I was willing to take the risk.
The verdict? It's really a mixed bag. Written in 1990 when Roth was 57, with over a dozen novels under his belt, it's evident he was at a point in his career where he was free to do what he wanted, to experiment a bit. That's what he was doing here. He decided, "I'm gonna write a book with only dialogue, dammit." The novel is pretty much all dialogue, similar to Nicholson Baker's Vox. But very little sex talk, which is unlike Nicholson Baker's Vox. For a book that's being touted as "erotically original", there is precious little eros here. Huh.
The conversations vary between one or two lines, to pages and pages of talking. At first we find out the man is a writer. Hm. Then we find out one of his characters is called "Zuckerman". Hmmmm. About two thirds of the way in, our writer man is finally given a name - it's "Philip". Meow. Cat's outta the bag!
The conversations are between two people who have been having an affair that spans years. He, as I've already mentioned, is writer-man, "Philip". She, an English woman in her 30s, is particularly unhappy. Her husband has a girlfriend. She feels nothing for him but she's terrified to leave. She struggles with the dishonesty of her affair. He, "Philip", does a lot of listening.
Except, of course, when he's talking about his Jewishness and complaining about the way English people treat Jews, how they lower their voices when they say the word "Jew" in the same way that they would if they were saying "shit". Yep, that's Roth! He also spends many a page discussing Israeli politics, which just didn't seem to fit here. I mean, again, I hate to repeat myself or sound shrill, but isn't this supposed to be "erotically original"?
There's also chapters that confused me, and I still don't quite get what was going on there. In these chapters some guy is having conversations with a Czech prostitute. Is the guy the same guy from before, "Philip"? Or is this someone else? I don't like feeling confused, so I got annoyed. (I knew I'd get there eventually, Roth!) I didn't understand the Czech prostitute parts, so I started to skim whenever they came along. I wanted to get back to my conflicted lovers!
Then, we witness a conversation between "Philip" and his wife, and the whole shebang becomes very meta. She's furious, having read these conversations in his notebook, and is convinced he's been unfaithful. He's bewildered, doesn't she know he writes fiction?
This bit of meta actually saved the book for me, because it's HERE that lies the "deception" alluded to in the title. It's not really the deception of adultery. That's old, everyone knows about that. No, it's the deception fiction plays on the reader. Are all these conversations just notes for his next book? Is "Philip" the writer Philip Roth, or is that just a game he is playing? Were we just reading a book in the traditions of fiction that we're used to, or was this all the notebook that his wife stumbled upon in his study? Are the conversations ones that took place in real life or his imagination? Are we, the readers of this novel, turned into a jealous wife? What can the reader ever know?
Well, that's original.
What the reader can know, thank the good lord, is their own reaction to reading a book. And as for THIS reader, I was at times beguiled, at times bored, at times irritated, and at times quite impressed by this audacious little novel. Pretty standard Roth experience, I'd say.
Now, go read Goodbye, Columbus!
April 5, 2021
Deception
Cercavo Janet Hobhouse fra le pagine di questo breve romanzo, e l’ho trovata (inequivocabilmente lei - «E dov'è il mio libro? - Quale libro? - Il libro dove ci sono dentro io. Quello mi va a genio. - Mia cara, dovrai fare qualcosa di interessante che io possa ficcarci dentro. - Lo sto facendo. Probabilmente sto morendo.»), ma ho trovato anche quel fottutissimo genio di Philip Roth che, spiazzando tutti, con un gioco di specchi e alter ego, di rimandi autobiografici e un taccuino sul quali il protagonista con il suo nome annota i dialoghi che gli serviranno per scrivere uno dei suoi romanzi (in realtà precedentemente scritto e pubblicato, La controvita), riesce a ingannare tutti, forse persino se stesso, protagonista nudo e mascherato del gioco di finzione più vero che c’è.
E poi, le solite irresistibili, istruttive e interessanti riflessioni sull'ebraismo e sull'essere ebrei:
«- È stata un’esperienza strana leggerlo, molto strana. Perché non avevo dubbi su quali parti fossero state scritte solo per me. Magari mi sbagliavo, eppure non avevo dubbi. E non ne avevo neanche su quali pezzi invece non mi riguardassero, forse li riconoscevo meglio ancora degli altri.
- Sono sicuro che non ti è sfuggito niente di tutto questo. D’altronde quella era la nostra vita, così come io pensavo che avrebbe potuto essere. La nostra vita, anche.
- L’avevo capito. Sì, l’avevo capito. È una storia così strana.
- Lo so. Nessuno ci crederebbe.»
Cercavo Janet Hobhouse fra le pagine di questo breve romanzo, e l’ho trovata (inequivocabilmente lei - «E dov'è il mio libro? - Quale libro? - Il libro dove ci sono dentro io. Quello mi va a genio. - Mia cara, dovrai fare qualcosa di interessante che io possa ficcarci dentro. - Lo sto facendo. Probabilmente sto morendo.»), ma ho trovato anche quel fottutissimo genio di Philip Roth che, spiazzando tutti, con un gioco di specchi e alter ego, di rimandi autobiografici e un taccuino sul quali il protagonista con il suo nome annota i dialoghi che gli serviranno per scrivere uno dei suoi romanzi (in realtà precedentemente scritto e pubblicato, La controvita), riesce a ingannare tutti, forse persino se stesso, protagonista nudo e mascherato del gioco di finzione più vero che c’è.
E poi, le solite irresistibili, istruttive e interessanti riflessioni sull'ebraismo e sull'essere ebrei:
«Sono stato ad ascoltarlo per una buona mezz'ora, poi ho deciso che aveva bisogno di una piccola lezione di storia. Gli ho detto: «Tuo padre, all'inizio del secolo, aveva tre scelte.
Uno: sarebbe potuto rimanere con la nonna nella comunità ebraica in Galizia. E, se fosse rimasto, cosa sarebbe successo? A lui, a lei, a te, a me, a Sandy, alla mamma, insomma a tutti noi? Okay, questo era il numero uno: saremmo finiti tutti in cenere.
Numero due. Sarebbe potuto emigrare in Palestina. Tu e Sandy avreste combattuto contro gli arabi nel 1948 e, se anche uno di voi non si fosse fatto addirittura ammazzare, di sicuro qualcuno ci avrebbe rimesso almeno un dito, un braccio, un piede. Nel 1967, io avrei combattuto la Guerra dei sei giorni, e almeno un piccolo "shrapnel" me lo sarei beccato. In testa, per esempio, con il risultato di perdere la vista da un occhio. I tuoi due nipoti avrebbero combattuto in Libano e, be', tanto per non esagerare, immaginiamo che solo uno di loro due ci avrebbe lasciato le penne. Questo per quanto riguarda la Palestina. La terza possibilità che gli rimaneva era quella di venire in America. Ed è quello che ha fatto. E qual è la peggior disgrazia che può capitarci, qui in America? Che tuo nipote sposi una portoricana. O vivi in Polonia e subisci le conseguenze del fatto di essere un ebreo polacco, o vivi in Israele e subisci le conseguenze di essere un ebreo israeliano, oppure vivi in America e subisci le conseguenze del fatto di essere un ebreo americano. Dimmi tu quale preferisci. Dimmelo, Herm.» «Okay, - ha ammesso lui - hai ragione, hai vinto! Non dico più niente!».
April 25, 2018
"How could you be humiliated by something that isn't so? It is not myself. It is far from myself--it is a play, it's a game, it is an impersonation of myself! Me ventriloquizing myself. Or maybe it's more easily grasped the other way around--everything here is falsified except me. Maybe it's both. But both ways or either way, what it adds up to, honey, is homo ludens!"
- Philip Roth, Deception
Roth is experimenting with dialogue. Think of this book as the pre- and post- coital conversations between a man and his mistress, interspersed with dialogues with other women and his wife. The narrator is named Philip Roth, just to confuse things (the first time Roth uses his own name and not some stand-in like Portnoy, Kepesh, or Zuckerman) even more. To complicate matters, Roth also throws in a lot of REAL accounts (trips to Czechoslovakia, etc) that most certainly are more true than fiction. He pushes the boundaries of fiction to the point where the snake indeed eats the tail of the snake. I'm just not sure if the head is fiction or the tail. And I'm sure Roth (both the ficitional Roth and the real) would have it no other way.
- Philip Roth, Deception
Roth is experimenting with dialogue. Think of this book as the pre- and post- coital conversations between a man and his mistress, interspersed with dialogues with other women and his wife. The narrator is named Philip Roth, just to confuse things (the first time Roth uses his own name and not some stand-in like Portnoy, Kepesh, or Zuckerman) even more. To complicate matters, Roth also throws in a lot of REAL accounts (trips to Czechoslovakia, etc) that most certainly are more true than fiction. He pushes the boundaries of fiction to the point where the snake indeed eats the tail of the snake. I'm just not sure if the head is fiction or the tail. And I'm sure Roth (both the ficitional Roth and the real) would have it no other way.
September 3, 2020
Sì, questa è la vita ed è un peccato distorcerla con della cattiva letteratura
Nel commento al lamento di Portnoy scrissi che Roth era il Franco Baresi della letteratura (sempre in lizza e mai premiato con il pallone d'oro). Leggereste gli stati d’animo e le impressioni di Kaiser Franz in merito alle sue partite più significative dalle giovanili alla Champions, passando per la cadetteria? Lo fareste senza essere tifosi del Diavolo? Ecco, credo che la lettura di questo libro sia indicata per coloro che abbiano letto e apprezzato tutto il Roth possibile e non ne siano ancora sazi. Il vero inganno è nei confronti del lettore. Segnatevi che SI TRATTA DI UN LIBRO SCRITTO SOTTO FORMA DI DIALOGO. Non è certo una commedia, semmai è il copione scartato di un film di Woody Allen, un libro piatto come la Pianura Padana, di una noia da film cecoslovacco (non ci sono i sottotitoli in tedesco, la protagonista è proprio ceca di nascita). In una commedia i personaggi sono introdotti in maiuscolo nel libro di Roth ogni volta bisogna capire chi sta parlando e chi risponderà: sarà lo scrittore squattrinato, sua moglie, la milf ceca, il marito inglese, Zuckerman oppure PHILIP in persona? La virata a meta-romanzo ha stroncato le mie resistenze residue già provate dall’immancabile, reiterata, trattazione della questione ebraica, questa volta basata sul parere, in merito, attribuito agli inglesi
– Quindi in realtà, alla fin fine, comportarsi con classe non aiuta granché rispetto al comportarsi a livello di mercato rionale, quando si tratta di un ebreo. A meno che quest'uomo non possegga dieci milioni di sterline e non sia capitano di una squadra di cricket, in pratica qualunque manifestazione di attività sociale da parte di un ebreo tende a far diventare ipersensibili gli altri. Rende «nervosa» la gente.
Si salva una divertente disquisizione sull’adulterio costruita sul modello di Madame Bovary di Flaubert
– Dicevo sempre ai miei studenti che non c'è bisogno di tre uomini per passare attraverso tutto il calvario che percorre lei. Di norma uno basta e avanza sia nella parte di Rodolphe che in quella di Leon e poi di Charles Bovary. Prima il rapimento e la passione… Poi col tempo…
Perché proprio l’adulterio in letteratura (la vita è sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura secondo Roth) sarebbe il tema principale di questo esperimento letterario di cui da lettore mi sono sentito cavia e non fruitore.
Non ero a San Siro quando ritirarono la maglia di Baresi, non tifo Milan, non sono il tipo di lettore che può apprezzare una pubblicazione come questa.
Nel commento al lamento di Portnoy scrissi che Roth era il Franco Baresi della letteratura (sempre in lizza e mai premiato con il pallone d'oro). Leggereste gli stati d’animo e le impressioni di Kaiser Franz in merito alle sue partite più significative dalle giovanili alla Champions, passando per la cadetteria? Lo fareste senza essere tifosi del Diavolo? Ecco, credo che la lettura di questo libro sia indicata per coloro che abbiano letto e apprezzato tutto il Roth possibile e non ne siano ancora sazi. Il vero inganno è nei confronti del lettore. Segnatevi che SI TRATTA DI UN LIBRO SCRITTO SOTTO FORMA DI DIALOGO. Non è certo una commedia, semmai è il copione scartato di un film di Woody Allen, un libro piatto come la Pianura Padana, di una noia da film cecoslovacco (non ci sono i sottotitoli in tedesco, la protagonista è proprio ceca di nascita). In una commedia i personaggi sono introdotti in maiuscolo nel libro di Roth ogni volta bisogna capire chi sta parlando e chi risponderà: sarà lo scrittore squattrinato, sua moglie, la milf ceca, il marito inglese, Zuckerman oppure PHILIP in persona? La virata a meta-romanzo ha stroncato le mie resistenze residue già provate dall’immancabile, reiterata, trattazione della questione ebraica, questa volta basata sul parere, in merito, attribuito agli inglesi
– Quindi in realtà, alla fin fine, comportarsi con classe non aiuta granché rispetto al comportarsi a livello di mercato rionale, quando si tratta di un ebreo. A meno che quest'uomo non possegga dieci milioni di sterline e non sia capitano di una squadra di cricket, in pratica qualunque manifestazione di attività sociale da parte di un ebreo tende a far diventare ipersensibili gli altri. Rende «nervosa» la gente.
Si salva una divertente disquisizione sull’adulterio costruita sul modello di Madame Bovary di Flaubert
– Dicevo sempre ai miei studenti che non c'è bisogno di tre uomini per passare attraverso tutto il calvario che percorre lei. Di norma uno basta e avanza sia nella parte di Rodolphe che in quella di Leon e poi di Charles Bovary. Prima il rapimento e la passione… Poi col tempo…
Perché proprio l’adulterio in letteratura (la vita è sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura secondo Roth) sarebbe il tema principale di questo esperimento letterario di cui da lettore mi sono sentito cavia e non fruitore.
Non ero a San Siro quando ritirarono la maglia di Baresi, non tifo Milan, non sono il tipo di lettore che può apprezzare una pubblicazione come questa.
October 15, 2020
A Deception on the Reader?
As the title suggests, I think Roth is pulling a deception not only on his wife and his lovers, but also on his readers in this book which reads like a radio play for want of narration, action, or scene depiction.
At first the novel seems like a peep-show into an adulterous affair. The man, a 51 year-old American writer living in England is called Philip by his 34 year-old English lover. She is married with a child, a job, a nanny, and a husband who parades his mistress in her face. She is severely conflicted about everything and is contemplating divorce. He is suffering the alienation of an American in England. They meet regularly for sex and talk, in his studio. This talk is the subject matter of the book. Occasionally, they stray into other pet Roth subjects like fathers, mothers, misogyny, his work, and the Jews.
But then the talk shifts to other female voices: a jet-setting Czech prostitute who wants Roth to help her write a novel; a 33-year old Polish woman with a child who also wants him to help her write; an English woman from his past in New York who is suffering from cancer; his wife who accidentally discovers his notebook with all these “conversations.” Roth defends his notebook, saying that all the women recorded within are fictional characters. He sums it up as, “But then I am not the only man who thinks about imaginary women while in the bedroom with the woman he regularly sleeps with. There may even be women who behave just as impurely in their bedrooms with the men they regularly sleep with. The difference is that what I impurely imagine, I am impelled to develop and write down. In my imagination I am unfaithful to everybody, by the way, not just to you.”
During these post-coital periods of euphoria and unburdening, he postulates about adultery and the life of a writer with pearls of wisdom such as:
1) “One of the unfair things about adultery, when you compare the lover to the spouse, the lover is never seen in those awful dreary circumstances, arguing about the vegetables, or burning toast, or forgetting to ring up for something, or putting upon someone or being put upon. All that stuff, I think, people deliberately keep out of affairs.”
2) “By the time a novelist worth his salt is thirty-six, he’s no longer translating experience into a fable—he’s imposing his fable onto experience.”
3) When asked where he stands : “Yes, somewhere between desire and disillusionment on the long plummet to death.”
4) When asked why he likes East Europeans (in real life Roth was helping dissident Eastern Block writers at the time) he says: “Displaced persons have things to tell me. I’m interested in suffering.” One wonders whether that is true of his lovers too.
5) On the role of the writer: “The nose in the seam of the undergarment—that’s the writer’s nature. Impurity.”
6) “But discretion is, unfortunately, not for novelists. Neither is shame.”
Other Roth creations flit in and out of the narrative: writers Lonoff and Zuckerman, for instance. In fact, Roth claims he is writing Zuckerman’s biography, the fictional writer having died at age 44 after writing only 4 novels—we know that Roth changed his mind on Zuckerman later, for this alter-ego rose from the dead to write many more novels.
So what is this novel all about, then? First of all, it is Roth further exploring the prime subject in all of his books: himself. Second, it covers a period in his life when he was feeling displaced and diminished as an expatriate and took refuge in adultery. Third, it shows his passion for digging up people’s stories and fictionalizing them. And finally he was trying out a new form – dialogue with no attributions, just voices plumbing into human nature and unearthing disturbing truths. I don’t think he had much consideration for the reader – if you are able to follow who is saying what to whom and when, then well and good, if not… put it down to another deception on the part of the author.
His (fictional?) lover sums him up well in the end: “You love your typewriter more than you could ever love any woman.”
As the title suggests, I think Roth is pulling a deception not only on his wife and his lovers, but also on his readers in this book which reads like a radio play for want of narration, action, or scene depiction.
At first the novel seems like a peep-show into an adulterous affair. The man, a 51 year-old American writer living in England is called Philip by his 34 year-old English lover. She is married with a child, a job, a nanny, and a husband who parades his mistress in her face. She is severely conflicted about everything and is contemplating divorce. He is suffering the alienation of an American in England. They meet regularly for sex and talk, in his studio. This talk is the subject matter of the book. Occasionally, they stray into other pet Roth subjects like fathers, mothers, misogyny, his work, and the Jews.
But then the talk shifts to other female voices: a jet-setting Czech prostitute who wants Roth to help her write a novel; a 33-year old Polish woman with a child who also wants him to help her write; an English woman from his past in New York who is suffering from cancer; his wife who accidentally discovers his notebook with all these “conversations.” Roth defends his notebook, saying that all the women recorded within are fictional characters. He sums it up as, “But then I am not the only man who thinks about imaginary women while in the bedroom with the woman he regularly sleeps with. There may even be women who behave just as impurely in their bedrooms with the men they regularly sleep with. The difference is that what I impurely imagine, I am impelled to develop and write down. In my imagination I am unfaithful to everybody, by the way, not just to you.”
During these post-coital periods of euphoria and unburdening, he postulates about adultery and the life of a writer with pearls of wisdom such as:
1) “One of the unfair things about adultery, when you compare the lover to the spouse, the lover is never seen in those awful dreary circumstances, arguing about the vegetables, or burning toast, or forgetting to ring up for something, or putting upon someone or being put upon. All that stuff, I think, people deliberately keep out of affairs.”
2) “By the time a novelist worth his salt is thirty-six, he’s no longer translating experience into a fable—he’s imposing his fable onto experience.”
3) When asked where he stands : “Yes, somewhere between desire and disillusionment on the long plummet to death.”
4) When asked why he likes East Europeans (in real life Roth was helping dissident Eastern Block writers at the time) he says: “Displaced persons have things to tell me. I’m interested in suffering.” One wonders whether that is true of his lovers too.
5) On the role of the writer: “The nose in the seam of the undergarment—that’s the writer’s nature. Impurity.”
6) “But discretion is, unfortunately, not for novelists. Neither is shame.”
Other Roth creations flit in and out of the narrative: writers Lonoff and Zuckerman, for instance. In fact, Roth claims he is writing Zuckerman’s biography, the fictional writer having died at age 44 after writing only 4 novels—we know that Roth changed his mind on Zuckerman later, for this alter-ego rose from the dead to write many more novels.
So what is this novel all about, then? First of all, it is Roth further exploring the prime subject in all of his books: himself. Second, it covers a period in his life when he was feeling displaced and diminished as an expatriate and took refuge in adultery. Third, it shows his passion for digging up people’s stories and fictionalizing them. And finally he was trying out a new form – dialogue with no attributions, just voices plumbing into human nature and unearthing disturbing truths. I don’t think he had much consideration for the reader – if you are able to follow who is saying what to whom and when, then well and good, if not… put it down to another deception on the part of the author.
His (fictional?) lover sums him up well in the end: “You love your typewriter more than you could ever love any woman.”
September 4, 2020
“Stiamo parlando di un taccuino, di un brogliaccio, di un diagramma, e non di esseri umani!”
Questa strana opera di Philip Roth sfugge a una precisa definizione: si presenta come una serie di dialoghi privi di raccordo che sembrano in effetti (come proclama a sua difesa il narratore P.R. alla moglie che lo accusa di tradimento) una sorta di sperimentazione narrativa, una frammentata sceneggiatura, talora anche un po’ stucchevole nel ritornare ossessivamente sui temi tante volte sviluppati dall’autore (l’ebraismo, il rapporto di coppia, la malattia, il sesso soprattutto).
Ma, come il titolo stesso del libro suggerisce, si insinua a poco a poco fra le pagine fino a rendersi nell’ultima parte manifesta, l’ingannevole (?) sensazione che la realtà, cioè la vita, si sia sostituita alla finzione letteraria o viceversa e i virtuosistici ribaltamenti finali di prospettiva avallano tale percezione ma anche il suo contrario.
Nell’acceso litigio coniugale in sottofinale non sappiamo più a quale versione credere: è la cronaca di una serie di spregiudicate infedeltà o un esercizio di spunti narrativi, la bozza di un’opera colta nel punto di forza della prosa di Roth, cioè il dialogo, che finisce qui per fagocitare l’intero romanzo?
L’ultima conversazione fra gli ormai ex amanti contribuisce a reiterare il gioco degli equivoci e porta all’estremo l’illusorio binomio arte/vita, realtà/finzione dando retrospettivamente significato e solidità a un “romanzo” che fino a due terzi appariva, specie se confrontato con le opere maggiori di Philip Roth, come un divertissement un po’ fine a sé stesso. Ci restituisce fugaci lampi dello stile dell’autore confermandone la statura anche quando sembra essersi preso una vacanza.
Questa strana opera di Philip Roth sfugge a una precisa definizione: si presenta come una serie di dialoghi privi di raccordo che sembrano in effetti (come proclama a sua difesa il narratore P.R. alla moglie che lo accusa di tradimento) una sorta di sperimentazione narrativa, una frammentata sceneggiatura, talora anche un po’ stucchevole nel ritornare ossessivamente sui temi tante volte sviluppati dall’autore (l’ebraismo, il rapporto di coppia, la malattia, il sesso soprattutto).
Ma, come il titolo stesso del libro suggerisce, si insinua a poco a poco fra le pagine fino a rendersi nell’ultima parte manifesta, l’ingannevole (?) sensazione che la realtà, cioè la vita, si sia sostituita alla finzione letteraria o viceversa e i virtuosistici ribaltamenti finali di prospettiva avallano tale percezione ma anche il suo contrario.
Nell’acceso litigio coniugale in sottofinale non sappiamo più a quale versione credere: è la cronaca di una serie di spregiudicate infedeltà o un esercizio di spunti narrativi, la bozza di un’opera colta nel punto di forza della prosa di Roth, cioè il dialogo, che finisce qui per fagocitare l’intero romanzo?
L’ultima conversazione fra gli ormai ex amanti contribuisce a reiterare il gioco degli equivoci e porta all’estremo l’illusorio binomio arte/vita, realtà/finzione dando retrospettivamente significato e solidità a un “romanzo” che fino a due terzi appariva, specie se confrontato con le opere maggiori di Philip Roth, come un divertissement un po’ fine a sé stesso. Ci restituisce fugaci lampi dello stile dell’autore confermandone la statura anche quando sembra essersi preso una vacanza.
July 18, 2020
Philip Roth is an icon of American letters for a reason. There is no denying the incredible nuance and power of his writing, which is a cut above the rest for its uncanny ability to explicate the author's obsessive mind while bending rules, blurring lines, and transcending the limits of fiction, all while remaining staunchly literary in a classically American way.
The title of this novel is apropos—continuing the thread that can be traced back as far as My Life as a Man (1974), Philip Roth shirks exposition altogether (the novel is entirely dialogue) and writes himself as the protagonist of this novel (shirking his narrative alter egos: Nathan Zuckerman, David Kepesh, et al.) about a writer having an adulterous affair and writing about it, only for us to go a level deeper and have Roth's “real” wife pick up the very book we've been reading, prompting further conversation about the “reality” of what she has read. A literary deception indeed...
Reading Roth's novels in order reveals the extraordinary interconnectedness of his novels. Beginning with The Ghost Writer (1979) Roth begins to project his consciousness into his writing, creating alternate realities which mix autobiographical tidbits with pure invention, further breaking down the wall of “fiction” and challenging the reader to determine what to believe.
Deception (1993) pushes this experiment the furthest: Roth inventing Roth inventing Roth, self-referencing, ventriloquizing, the real self cast in a world of fiction, or a fictional self enveloped by stark reality. So which one is it? Well…that’s something Roth leaves for the reader to decide.
The title of this novel is apropos—continuing the thread that can be traced back as far as My Life as a Man (1974), Philip Roth shirks exposition altogether (the novel is entirely dialogue) and writes himself as the protagonist of this novel (shirking his narrative alter egos: Nathan Zuckerman, David Kepesh, et al.) about a writer having an adulterous affair and writing about it, only for us to go a level deeper and have Roth's “real” wife pick up the very book we've been reading, prompting further conversation about the “reality” of what she has read. A literary deception indeed...
Reading Roth's novels in order reveals the extraordinary interconnectedness of his novels. Beginning with The Ghost Writer (1979) Roth begins to project his consciousness into his writing, creating alternate realities which mix autobiographical tidbits with pure invention, further breaking down the wall of “fiction” and challenging the reader to determine what to believe.
Deception (1993) pushes this experiment the furthest: Roth inventing Roth inventing Roth, self-referencing, ventriloquizing, the real self cast in a world of fiction, or a fictional self enveloped by stark reality. So which one is it? Well…that’s something Roth leaves for the reader to decide.
October 24, 2016
Philip Roth (n. 1933)
Philip Roth (n. 1933) publicou ”Engano” em 1990 – ano em que se casou com a actriz inglesa Claire Bloom (n. 1931) - um romance construído com diálogos, dois amantes, conversam antes e depois do sexo. A “acção” decorre em Londres, Philip é um escritor norte-americano que tem como amante uma mulher inglesa, sem nome.
Depois há mais amantes… e mais romances…
E eis que surge Nathan Zuckerman, o alter-ego de Philip Roth narrador de Pastoral Americana, entre outros livros, confundindo o leitor quando o Philip refere: ”Eu escrevo ficção e dizem-me que é autobiografia, escrevo autobiografia e dizem-me que é ficção (…)” (Pág. 181), é neste equívoco que a narrativa se vai construindo, com diálogos acutilantes e sedutores, por vezes, brilhantes, algumas vezes, entediantes, conversas charmosas e eruditas, que revelam a sagacidade de Philip, do Philip Roth.
No final de ”Engano” Philip invoca a sua inocência misturando realidade e ficção, enganando a sua mulher ou o leitor?
May 30, 2017
Torno a leggere Roth dal quale è veramente difficile riuscire a staccarmi. “Inganno” è un romanzo infarcito di dialoghi, un romanzo in cui sembra che non esista una vera e propria trama.
Si ha quasi paura a proseguire nella lettura. Sembra di entrare in punta di piedi in questa storia dove il lettore non fa altro che guardare e osservare dal buco della serratura. Con “Inganno”, Roth fa entrare il lettore nella vita di una coppia raccontando tutti gli aspetti, i momenti e molto altro dei due. Sono i dialoghi di una coppia che si scambia battute, espressioni su diverse tematiche: dal sesso all’amore a molto altro. Il lettore, durante la lettura, non riesce a capire se quello che sta leggendo corrisponde a fantasia o realtà. Alla fine, la fantasia e la realtà non sono altro che lo stesso specchio della vita.
“Sì, questa è la vita: sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura”.
Non si sa se ad essere ingannati siamo stati noi lettori oppure gli stessi protagonisti della vicenda. Roth ci catapulta nei meccanismi di questa coppia, nelle loro abitudini, ma c’è qualcosa che non si riesce ad afferrare del tutto, a catturare. Rimane qualcosa in sospeso e proprio per questa ragione il romanzo non riesce a entusiasmare e accendere gli animi.
Si ha quasi paura a proseguire nella lettura. Sembra di entrare in punta di piedi in questa storia dove il lettore non fa altro che guardare e osservare dal buco della serratura. Con “Inganno”, Roth fa entrare il lettore nella vita di una coppia raccontando tutti gli aspetti, i momenti e molto altro dei due. Sono i dialoghi di una coppia che si scambia battute, espressioni su diverse tematiche: dal sesso all’amore a molto altro. Il lettore, durante la lettura, non riesce a capire se quello che sta leggendo corrisponde a fantasia o realtà. Alla fine, la fantasia e la realtà non sono altro che lo stesso specchio della vita.
“Sì, questa è la vita: sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura”.
Non si sa se ad essere ingannati siamo stati noi lettori oppure gli stessi protagonisti della vicenda. Roth ci catapulta nei meccanismi di questa coppia, nelle loro abitudini, ma c’è qualcosa che non si riesce ad afferrare del tutto, a catturare. Rimane qualcosa in sospeso e proprio per questa ragione il romanzo non riesce a entusiasmare e accendere gli animi.
May 25, 2017
Come spesso accade quando leggo Philip Roth, se il romanzo non mi prende subito dalle prime pagine, poi nel finale si riscatta e mi fa cambiare idea. Questo è uno dei suoi romanzi che pensavo, fino a poche pagine dalla fine, non mi piacesse, sia per la forma insolita, un ininterrotto dialogo tra due amanti, uno scrittore americano a Londra ed una affascinante donna inglese, sia per i “soliti” argomenti cui Roth è affezionato, l’adulterio, il sesso –che qui non è così esplicito come in altre sue opere-, la morte. Poi la svolta, data dalla scoperta da parte della moglie dello scrittore di un taccuino su cui egli aveva appuntato i suoi dialoghi con l’amante. A questo punto emerge il vero “inganno” di cui lo scrittore parla, il gioco di specchi tra immaginazione e realtà, di cui si fa protagonista la letteratura. Tutto assume l’aspetto di “vita”, il vero e anche il falso, che anzi all’apparenza è più vero del reale. “Sì, questa è la vita: sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura”.
Ed anche questo Roth, alla fine, non delude.
Ed anche questo Roth, alla fine, non delude.
March 20, 2009
OK, well. Deception is not just about the deceptions of adultery, but the deceptive games writers play with their readers.
How much is fact and how much is fiction? And all that.
What I liked:
The dialogues between the two central lovers.
The beginning and the ending conversations of the book are strong and have most of the best thought-provoking material.
The occasional passages that kept me rapt in the middle portions.
What I didn't like:
The dialogues with the other two girl characters, the Czech and the Pole. These were boring and got into politics that seemed to just stop the book cold. These speakers I found dull.
The very idea of structuring the book as pure dialogue. More on that below.
The ego stroking by Roth vicariously by his alter-ego protagonist, bragging about his persuasive powers of writing convincing intimate dialogue. On that note, it has to be said that dialogue this correct and intellectualized doesn't happen much in reality.
On the whole I thought this was a misfire, with occasional strong rewards. Sorry.
So, below were my earlier impressions from when I had read only the first quarter of the book. These observations still hold true for me.
Unlike the last two Roths I read, this one is a bit like taking cod liver oil: supposedly good for you but a bit of a struggle to get down. Carried wholly by dialogue, some being very short snippets. There are the usual fascinating insights and ideas and ironies; issues of fidelity and infidelity that most all of us contend with - stuff that arises all the time in Roth's fiction [look at me, I'm such a big expert already:]. But I really, honestly don't care for this strictly dialogue approach. I almost have to take the position of not worrying who is speaking and just fixate on the nuggets of wisdom. But I kind of have to know everything that's going on around the exhortations of wisdom, and just can't grasp that all the time by having to do some sort of constantly shifting mental tally as who is speaking at any given time. I'm kind of "gah!"-ish by having to not only think of the meaning of what is being said, which is good and deep shit, but having on top of that to constantly rematerialize, shapeshift or whatever the word picture of the scene. Roth give us little help there. So instead of seeing a scene, I just mostly see blocks of words on a page.
How much is fact and how much is fiction? And all that.
What I liked:
The dialogues between the two central lovers.
The beginning and the ending conversations of the book are strong and have most of the best thought-provoking material.
The occasional passages that kept me rapt in the middle portions.
What I didn't like:
The dialogues with the other two girl characters, the Czech and the Pole. These were boring and got into politics that seemed to just stop the book cold. These speakers I found dull.
The very idea of structuring the book as pure dialogue. More on that below.
The ego stroking by Roth vicariously by his alter-ego protagonist, bragging about his persuasive powers of writing convincing intimate dialogue. On that note, it has to be said that dialogue this correct and intellectualized doesn't happen much in reality.
On the whole I thought this was a misfire, with occasional strong rewards. Sorry.
So, below were my earlier impressions from when I had read only the first quarter of the book. These observations still hold true for me.
Unlike the last two Roths I read, this one is a bit like taking cod liver oil: supposedly good for you but a bit of a struggle to get down. Carried wholly by dialogue, some being very short snippets. There are the usual fascinating insights and ideas and ironies; issues of fidelity and infidelity that most all of us contend with - stuff that arises all the time in Roth's fiction [look at me, I'm such a big expert already:]. But I really, honestly don't care for this strictly dialogue approach. I almost have to take the position of not worrying who is speaking and just fixate on the nuggets of wisdom. But I kind of have to know everything that's going on around the exhortations of wisdom, and just can't grasp that all the time by having to do some sort of constantly shifting mental tally as who is speaking at any given time. I'm kind of "gah!"-ish by having to not only think of the meaning of what is being said, which is good and deep shit, but having on top of that to constantly rematerialize, shapeshift or whatever the word picture of the scene. Roth give us little help there. So instead of seeing a scene, I just mostly see blocks of words on a page.
August 13, 2014
In my Reading Goals for 2014, I said I wanted to read Philip Roth. This is the first book of that process, and I liked it enough to read more, hopefully which I will get to before the end of the year.
This novel is told entirely in dialogue, of two people in bed, some "real" and some "imagined," although it is all fiction. It is clear the author has put himself in the novel enough to make us ask, "Is this how he is?" but I don't know enough about him to care that much. And it gets a little confusing - sometimes I thought maybe the conversations were between his wife and someone else, but I'm not quite sure.
There were some nuggets within the conversations that I liked:
"You know how women are. Suddenly she felt the terrible desire to be somebody else."
"Caprice is at the heart of a writer's nature. Exploration, fixation, isolation, venom, fetishism, austerity, levity, perplexity, childishness, et cetera. The nose in the seam of the undergarment - that's the writer's nature."
And an example of the dialogue:
"Either you're a guilty secret, which makes me deceitful in a very important argument in which I am demanding honesty and plain dealing. Or if things do degenerate, I think it'll be easier if it's true to say that I've had absolutely nothing to do with you for an extremely long time. And finally, if I end up living on my own, I ought to be emotionally freer than I am. With you."
"Okay. I will miss you. I'll miss you a lot."
"I'll often think about you too."
"It's a damn shame about you and me."
"Do you know that poem of Marvell's?"
"Which poem?"
"'It was begotten by desire upon impossibility.' That poem."
"I thought it was 'despair' - 'begotten by despair.'"
"It is. It was. Both."
This novel is told entirely in dialogue, of two people in bed, some "real" and some "imagined," although it is all fiction. It is clear the author has put himself in the novel enough to make us ask, "Is this how he is?" but I don't know enough about him to care that much. And it gets a little confusing - sometimes I thought maybe the conversations were between his wife and someone else, but I'm not quite sure.
There were some nuggets within the conversations that I liked:
"You know how women are. Suddenly she felt the terrible desire to be somebody else."
"Caprice is at the heart of a writer's nature. Exploration, fixation, isolation, venom, fetishism, austerity, levity, perplexity, childishness, et cetera. The nose in the seam of the undergarment - that's the writer's nature."
And an example of the dialogue:
"Either you're a guilty secret, which makes me deceitful in a very important argument in which I am demanding honesty and plain dealing. Or if things do degenerate, I think it'll be easier if it's true to say that I've had absolutely nothing to do with you for an extremely long time. And finally, if I end up living on my own, I ought to be emotionally freer than I am. With you."
"Okay. I will miss you. I'll miss you a lot."
"I'll often think about you too."
"It's a damn shame about you and me."
"Do you know that poem of Marvell's?"
"Which poem?"
"'It was begotten by desire upon impossibility.' That poem."
"I thought it was 'despair' - 'begotten by despair.'"
"It is. It was. Both."
May 19, 2018
Tu sei il colpevole segreto che mi rende disonesta
Conversazioni...telefonate...
e schermaglie amorose prima e dopo aver fatto l'amore
Sì ,questa è la vita
sempre una forma un po' distorta di letteratura
Conversazioni...telefonate...
e schermaglie amorose prima e dopo aver fatto l'amore
Senti,tu non puoi appropriarti in quel modo di tutto quello che una persona dice.
-Eppure l'ho fatto.Lo faccio.
-Bé, ero molto arrabbiata per questo.Un po' come quegli indigeni che non vogliono farsi fotografare,perchè sentono che qualcosa verrebbe sottratto alle loro anime.
-Non dubito che fossi arrabbiata.
-Molto arrabbiata ,sì.
-E quando ti è passata?
-Probabilmente non mi è passata.
-Ho avuto nostalgia di quando parlavo con te.
-E ti appropriavi di quello che dicevo.
-Certo.
-Bé,sai...anch'io ho avuto nostalgia di quando parlavo con te.
Ho avuto una nostalgia tremenda DI QUANDO PARLAVO CON TE.
Qualche volta parlo con te dentro la mia testa.
Sì ,questa è la vita
sempre una forma un po' distorta di letteratura
August 16, 2017
Um homem. Uma mulher. Infidelidade. Encontros secretos.
Fragmentos de diálogos, entre os dois amantes, com o despudor e a sinceridade, que é privilégio dos que nada esperam receber e nada têm para dar, além de a si próprios...
Fragmentos de diálogos, entre os dois amantes, com o despudor e a sinceridade, que é privilégio dos que nada esperam receber e nada têm para dar, além de a si próprios...
June 18, 2022
Per quanto Roth rimanga sempre uno dei miei autori preferiti, devo ammettere che qui è poca roba.
Il libro, letto solo dopo aver visto il recente adattamento cinematografico francese - Tromperie -, non ha sostanzialmente una vera trama (e fin qui non necessariamente abbiamo un problema), e soprattutto non presenta altro che dialoghi, o spezzoni di tali.
Frasi qui e là anche illuminanti, ma che sono spesso sconnesse le une dalle altre.
Pur essendo breve in alcune parti è riuscito ad annoiarmi, e credo sia uno dei rari casi in cui il film ha reso il tutto molto meglio rispetto al libro.
Di certo non partivo con chissà quali pretese, ho però constatato che le recensioni non mentivano.
Il libro, letto solo dopo aver visto il recente adattamento cinematografico francese - Tromperie -, non ha sostanzialmente una vera trama (e fin qui non necessariamente abbiamo un problema), e soprattutto non presenta altro che dialoghi, o spezzoni di tali.
Frasi qui e là anche illuminanti, ma che sono spesso sconnesse le une dalle altre.
Pur essendo breve in alcune parti è riuscito ad annoiarmi, e credo sia uno dei rari casi in cui il film ha reso il tutto molto meglio rispetto al libro.
Di certo non partivo con chissà quali pretese, ho però constatato che le recensioni non mentivano.
March 12, 2017
Comecei a ler este livro em Maio e, após umas escassas dezenas de páginas, comecei a pensar se a aquisição deste livro não teria feito jus ao título. Ontem, após terminar Os Anéis de Saturno, decidi pegar-lhe de novo, recomeçando a leitura desde o início e constatei que estava enganado no meu engano: é um livro extraordinário que prova se é verdade que somos o que lemos, a inversa não é menos verdadeira: para quase todos os livros, há momentos certos de leitura. O livro espraia-se pelos diálogos mantidos pelo autor, que é o Autor, na intimidade de um adultério e está engenhosamente tecido, dando palco a uma série de personagens que se relacionam nem sempre da maneira mais evidente. É um livro sobre homens e mulheres, despojado de hipocrisias ou de convenções politicamente correctas quer no que respeita à sexualidade, ao adultério, ao casamento, à doença, à xenofobia, ao racismo, à diferença de idades entre amantes, os temas são inúmeros. E sempre tratados com a mestria que Roth tem para construir diálogos vivos, ritmados, intensos. E assim, 7 meses depois de ter começado a leitura de Engano, li-o de uma só vez, num só dia.
April 11, 2020
Portnoy’un Feryadı, Nemesis, Öfke ve ardından Aldatma okuduğum dördüncü Roth kitabı oldu. Yazarın dilini gerçekten seviyorum fakat bu kitap beni hayal kırıklığına uğrattı. Kitap sadece kadın ve erkek diyaloglarından oluşuyor. Başından sonuna kadar hangi sesin, kadının mı yoksa erkeğin mi konuştuğunu anlamakta güçlük çektim. İki yıldız vermemin sebebi de kitabın son on sayfası diyebilirim yoksa bir puan yeterli.
April 14, 2023
Kafa karıştırıcı ama pek de olumlu anlamda değil. Kurgusunu sevdim, ne var ki diyalogların birçoğuna anlam veremedim.
February 14, 2015
Why would anyone want to have sex with Philip Roth? This appears to be the central question of "Deception." Sure, his sentences are graceful, and some of his quips are amusing, and, look out ladies, the guy can occasionally go off on a philosophical tangent that's full of neat contrary logic. But tell me, readers, and do be honest: would you ever fuck a man who was this self-aggrandizing? A man whose bad female characters exist only to ruin Philip Roth's reputation (the "courtroom" sequence is just so outrageously unfair that it's, yup, NOT EVEN FUNNY) and whose good female characters exist only to re-affirm all of Philip Roth's backward ideas on social norms? A writer who would chastise all who seek out the "dirt" in his personal life... and then write a 200 page novella all about HIS personal life, with HIM as the protagonist? A man who would likely fuck other women on the side, and then think you're some kind of idiot when you get upset, and see your getting upset as an attack on his philosophy? (Which seems to, once again, orbit around the central notion that "if the thing is good to Philip Roth, then it is good for society, and if the thing is bad to Philip Roth, OH THE WORLD IS FULL OF HARPIES WHO WANT TO CASTRATE MEN AHHHH.") A man who waits until the last 40 pages of a book to make his point, FINALLY spicing up his "fictional/non-fictional" affair with the fire of reality, and so making at least one reader wonder if the ending wasn't tacked on as a kind of justification for 150 pages of random snippets and mean-spirited hypocrisy?
Seriously, now. I love "Operation Shylock" and "Sabbath's Theater" and "The Human Stain." I thought "Portnoy" was gross, but "Nemesis" was surprisingly EMPATHETIC. Each of these books demonstrates in some way why Philip Roth IS an important writer: at his best, he is just the smoothest, funniest, most challenging interpreter of the male libido that America may ever see. But "Deception" is just bait for Roth's critics. Bait that I gladly accept with a big, hearty "Go fuck yourself, Mister Philip." Something that I'm sure the man will do. (See, everyone wins.)
Seriously, now. I love "Operation Shylock" and "Sabbath's Theater" and "The Human Stain." I thought "Portnoy" was gross, but "Nemesis" was surprisingly EMPATHETIC. Each of these books demonstrates in some way why Philip Roth IS an important writer: at his best, he is just the smoothest, funniest, most challenging interpreter of the male libido that America may ever see. But "Deception" is just bait for Roth's critics. Bait that I gladly accept with a big, hearty "Go fuck yourself, Mister Philip." Something that I'm sure the man will do. (See, everyone wins.)
May 24, 2014
Os diálogos entre dois amantes, são praticamente tudo o que há neste livro, e não é preciso mais nada...
“Continuas de algum modo, em algum recanto do teu coração, a alimentar a ilusão de que o casamento é um caso de amor?
Se sim, isso pode ser a causa de muitos problemas.”
“-Vida estranha a vossa.
-Sim, é estranha. É um disparate. Mas que queres a minha vida é assim.
-És muito infeliz?
-Isso tem períodos, acho eu. Uma pessoa tem períodos de desânimo. E depois vêm longos períodos de certa calma e amor. Durante muito tempo parecia que as coisas estavam a piorar. E a seguir houve um período curto em que tudo parecia estar a resolver-se. E agora penso que nem eu nem ele queremos entrar em grandes conflitos. Porque não levam a lado nenhum. E só tornam mais difícil a nossa vida em comum.
-Ainda dormem juntos?
- Estava à espera de que me perguntasses isso. Não vou responder a essa pergunta.”
“Há muito tempo que tenho vontade de te explicar o que me vai na cabeça. Mas sinto que talvez seja abusar de ti, e não quero isso. O que quero é nunca mais ter de te explicar todas estas merdas. Se me perguntares respondo, mas prefiro não falar no assunto.
- Mas fala. Eu gosto de saber o que te vai na cabeça. Gosto muito da tua cabeça.
“- Não estás muito falador. Aliás, quando eu aqui estou, falas sempre pouco.
-Estou a ouvir. Eu escuto. Sou um écouteur… um audiófilo. Tenho um fetiche da conversa.
-Hum. É erótico, tu aí sentado, só a ouvir. “
“-Porque é que o teu marido não te basta?
- Já te falei muito dele. Agora quero que me fales de ti. Já te falei muito de mim. Agora quero saber porque é que ela não te basta.
-Estás a fazer a pergunta errada.
- Qual é a pergunta certa?
- Não sei.
-Porque é que eu estou aqui?
-Porque eu segui a tentação até onde ela me levou.”
“-(…)há coisas a teu respeito que eu quero saber?
-(…) talvez seja melhor que um só participante numa relação adúltera se queixe das suas insatisfações domésticas. Se forem os dois a fazê-lo é natural que não sobre muito tempo para o adultério propriamente dito.”
“ Uma das injustiças do adultério (…) é que quem é amante nunca se vê naquela situação chata e desagradável de discutir por causa dos legumes, da torrada que se deixou queimar, do telefonema que não se fez, da exigência demasiada que se faz ou se sofre. Tudo isso penso eu, são coisas que as pessoas deixam deliberadamente fora das relações extra-conjugais”.
“Tentar fugir do casamento é um ingrediente do casamento. Já vi alguns em que é mesmo o ingrediente vital que o mantém vivo.”
“ Eu também senti falta de conversar contigo (…) Às vezes converso contigo na minha cabeça.”
“Continuas de algum modo, em algum recanto do teu coração, a alimentar a ilusão de que o casamento é um caso de amor?
Se sim, isso pode ser a causa de muitos problemas.”
“-Vida estranha a vossa.
-Sim, é estranha. É um disparate. Mas que queres a minha vida é assim.
-És muito infeliz?
-Isso tem períodos, acho eu. Uma pessoa tem períodos de desânimo. E depois vêm longos períodos de certa calma e amor. Durante muito tempo parecia que as coisas estavam a piorar. E a seguir houve um período curto em que tudo parecia estar a resolver-se. E agora penso que nem eu nem ele queremos entrar em grandes conflitos. Porque não levam a lado nenhum. E só tornam mais difícil a nossa vida em comum.
-Ainda dormem juntos?
- Estava à espera de que me perguntasses isso. Não vou responder a essa pergunta.”
“Há muito tempo que tenho vontade de te explicar o que me vai na cabeça. Mas sinto que talvez seja abusar de ti, e não quero isso. O que quero é nunca mais ter de te explicar todas estas merdas. Se me perguntares respondo, mas prefiro não falar no assunto.
- Mas fala. Eu gosto de saber o que te vai na cabeça. Gosto muito da tua cabeça.
“- Não estás muito falador. Aliás, quando eu aqui estou, falas sempre pouco.
-Estou a ouvir. Eu escuto. Sou um écouteur… um audiófilo. Tenho um fetiche da conversa.
-Hum. É erótico, tu aí sentado, só a ouvir. “
“-Porque é que o teu marido não te basta?
- Já te falei muito dele. Agora quero que me fales de ti. Já te falei muito de mim. Agora quero saber porque é que ela não te basta.
-Estás a fazer a pergunta errada.
- Qual é a pergunta certa?
- Não sei.
-Porque é que eu estou aqui?
-Porque eu segui a tentação até onde ela me levou.”
“-(…)há coisas a teu respeito que eu quero saber?
-(…) talvez seja melhor que um só participante numa relação adúltera se queixe das suas insatisfações domésticas. Se forem os dois a fazê-lo é natural que não sobre muito tempo para o adultério propriamente dito.”
“ Uma das injustiças do adultério (…) é que quem é amante nunca se vê naquela situação chata e desagradável de discutir por causa dos legumes, da torrada que se deixou queimar, do telefonema que não se fez, da exigência demasiada que se faz ou se sofre. Tudo isso penso eu, são coisas que as pessoas deixam deliberadamente fora das relações extra-conjugais”.
“Tentar fugir do casamento é um ingrediente do casamento. Já vi alguns em que é mesmo o ingrediente vital que o mantém vivo.”
“ Eu também senti falta de conversar contigo (…) Às vezes converso contigo na minha cabeça.”
September 1, 2016
Απο τα πρώτα βιβλία του συγγραφέα που μεταφράστηκαν στα ελληνικά το μακρινό 1993.
Η ιστορία διαδραματίζεται την δεκαετία του '80 μεταξύ Αγγλίας, Ηνωμενων πολιτειών και Τσεχίας όπου ένα παράνομο ζευγάρι σιγά-σιγά πέρα απο την σαρκική επαφή, επιδιώκει να γνωρίσει καλύτερα ο ένας τον άλλο. Αυτός ειναι ένας πενηντάρης πρώην καθηγητής πανεπιστημίου και νυν συγγραφέας και εκείνη μια τριάντα-κάτι κοπέλα απο την Τσεχία. Η σχέση τους ειναι αρκουντως περίεργη καθώς σε όλο το βιβλιο υπάρχει μια λανθάνουσα σεξουαλικη έλξη αλλά εμεις παρακολουθούμε μόνο κουβέντες τους. ΜΟΝΟ. ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΑΛΛΟ.
Δε θέλω να πω άλλα γιατι το βιβλιο είναι μικρό και δε θέλω να αποκαλύψω λεπτομέρειες. Κλασικό δείγμα του Ροθ, με πολυ βαθιές εσωτερικές αναζητήσεις και καυστικό χιούμορ. Δεν απουσιάζει η ειρωνεία για τα ρατσιστικά στερεότυπα (αναφέρω χαρακτηριστικές φράσεις: το μαύρο πραμα μόνο νταβατζής θα μπορούσε να ειναι, οι Εβραίοι οπου και να πάνε πάντα τους αντιμετωπίζουν σαν Εβραίους, κτλ κτλ...) αλλά δε μπορείς να παρεξηγήσεις τον τροπο που το λέει γιατι δε το συμμερίζεται, απλά ο ήρωας ειναι λιγο ανάποδος!
Αξιόλογο και το τέλος, δίνει μια ξεκάθαρη εικόνα για το τι έγινε τελικά...
Η ιστορία διαδραματίζεται την δεκαετία του '80 μεταξύ Αγγλίας, Ηνωμενων πολιτειών και Τσεχίας όπου ένα παράνομο ζευγάρι σιγά-σιγά πέρα απο την σαρκική επαφή, επιδιώκει να γνωρίσει καλύτερα ο ένας τον άλλο. Αυτός ειναι ένας πενηντάρης πρώην καθηγητής πανεπιστημίου και νυν συγγραφέας και εκείνη μια τριάντα-κάτι κοπέλα απο την Τσεχία. Η σχέση τους ειναι αρκουντως περίεργη καθώς σε όλο το βιβλιο υπάρχει μια λανθάνουσα σεξουαλικη έλξη αλλά εμεις παρακολουθούμε μόνο κουβέντες τους. ΜΟΝΟ. ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΑΛΛΟ.
Δε θέλω να πω άλλα γιατι το βιβλιο είναι μικρό και δε θέλω να αποκαλύψω λεπτομέρειες. Κλασικό δείγμα του Ροθ, με πολυ βαθιές εσωτερικές αναζητήσεις και καυστικό χιούμορ. Δεν απουσιάζει η ειρωνεία για τα ρατσιστικά στερεότυπα (αναφέρω χαρακτηριστικές φράσεις: το μαύρο πραμα μόνο νταβατζής θα μπορούσε να ειναι, οι Εβραίοι οπου και να πάνε πάντα τους αντιμετωπίζουν σαν Εβραίους, κτλ κτλ...) αλλά δε μπορείς να παρεξηγήσεις τον τροπο που το λέει γιατι δε το συμμερίζεται, απλά ο ήρωας ειναι λιγο ανάποδος!
Αξιόλογο και το τέλος, δίνει μια ξεκάθαρη εικόνα για το τι έγινε τελικά...
January 3, 2020
Bom dia!
No to nám začal rok dvacet bejby dvacet! Filip se zbláznil. Deception, alias česky zcela logicky Milostné rozmluvy, je totiž literární hokus pokus na téma "budu psát jen dialogy co si mezi sebou povídá čmafíta a její špuntovač." No to mi ho vyndej kámo.
Že to je špatnej nápad je jasný už od začátku. Milenci si totiž nic rozumnýho nikdy neříkají. To je pořád jen samý "pocumlej mi šprušlu," "já tě tak strašně miluju" a "tady máš pětibábu a zmizni." S tímto se maestro musí samozřejmě vypořádat tak, že udělá z milenců těžký intelektuály, kteří si při koitování citují latinu a básničky a přitom přemítají nad židovstvím. Jak jinak. Já po sexu tedy na židy nemyslím. Maximálně tak na židli, abych si po tom dvouminutovým dobrodružství trochu odpočinul.
Na závěr, páč Roth je fištrón, přichází meta twist, kterej dílo nijak nezachraňuje, páč celá ta věc je už z podstaty prostě blbost na úrovni střední školy a tím pádem Filipovi dávám čtyři bludišťáky z dvanácti.
4/10
No to nám začal rok dvacet bejby dvacet! Filip se zbláznil. Deception, alias česky zcela logicky Milostné rozmluvy, je totiž literární hokus pokus na téma "budu psát jen dialogy co si mezi sebou povídá čmafíta a její špuntovač." No to mi ho vyndej kámo.
Že to je špatnej nápad je jasný už od začátku. Milenci si totiž nic rozumnýho nikdy neříkají. To je pořád jen samý "pocumlej mi šprušlu," "já tě tak strašně miluju" a "tady máš pětibábu a zmizni." S tímto se maestro musí samozřejmě vypořádat tak, že udělá z milenců těžký intelektuály, kteří si při koitování citují latinu a básničky a přitom přemítají nad židovstvím. Jak jinak. Já po sexu tedy na židy nemyslím. Maximálně tak na židli, abych si po tom dvouminutovým dobrodružství trochu odpočinul.
Na závěr, páč Roth je fištrón, přichází meta twist, kterej dílo nijak nezachraňuje, páč celá ta věc je už z podstaty prostě blbost na úrovni střední školy a tím pádem Filipovi dávám čtyři bludišťáky z dvanácti.
4/10
December 17, 2014
Non sono una critica letteraria e non mi atteggio ad esserlo, quindi voglio precisare che i miei giudizi sono mossi da semplice passione amatoriale.
Pertanto, peccando proprio di passionalità, posso affermare che Inganno di Philip Roth è un autentica meraviglia.
Versione completa qui: http://startfromscratchblog.blogspot....
Pertanto, peccando proprio di passionalità, posso affermare che Inganno di Philip Roth è un autentica meraviglia.
Versione completa qui: http://startfromscratchblog.blogspot....
January 14, 2019
"Io non vivevo con te solo durante quelle poche ore, avevo tutta una vita da vivere con te quando scrivevo. Avevo questa vita immaginaria e la vivevo con te mentre tu non c'eri. Tutto questo era così intenso."
Mi mancava questo piccolo romanzo di Roth: in realtà sono tanti dialoghi e frammenti di dialoghi tra una coppia di amanti (uno scrittore americano a Londra ed una affascinante donna inglese). All'inizio l'andamento spezzettato mi ha infastidita, volutamente ci sono pochi punti di riferimento per inquadrare i personaggi e a chi si rivolge chi, la forma è insolita . Come però spesso accade, e da qui la stella in più, verso la fine il riscatto e il lento emergere del vero inganno, in un vero e proprio gioco di specchi tra realtà e immaginazione, fantasia e vita reale. Caro Philp anche questa volta mi hai fregata!
Questa è la vita: sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura
Mi mancava questo piccolo romanzo di Roth: in realtà sono tanti dialoghi e frammenti di dialoghi tra una coppia di amanti (uno scrittore americano a Londra ed una affascinante donna inglese). All'inizio l'andamento spezzettato mi ha infastidita, volutamente ci sono pochi punti di riferimento per inquadrare i personaggi e a chi si rivolge chi, la forma è insolita . Come però spesso accade, e da qui la stella in più, verso la fine il riscatto e il lento emergere del vero inganno, in un vero e proprio gioco di specchi tra realtà e immaginazione, fantasia e vita reale. Caro Philp anche questa volta mi hai fregata!
Questa è la vita: sempre una forma leggermente distorta di letteratura
April 13, 2023
Geniale.
November 27, 2016
Wow... I can hardly describe what I've just read. I'm a HUGE Philip Roth fan, & while Deception is not Philip Roth's greatest novel (F.Y.I.: American Pastoral is), Deception is a novel that will stay with me for a lifetime. Roth really threw down the gauntlet with this one. The novel was simultaneously exquisite & maddening, and it pushed the boundaries-- not only the boundaries of morality-- but of art & literature, as well.
I've said again & again that I wholeheartedly believe that Philip Roth is the greatest American writer of ALL TIME. He's a master when it comes to words-- each and every sentence is crafted to perfection. He depicts the human condition better than any other author (both past & present), & his work is timeless. He's able to weave history, culture, psychology, economics & the sociopolitical landscape into his storylines so seamlessly, & the results are almost always masterpieces. All other authors are just left in the dust.
It's important to note, however, that if you're new to Philip Roth's work, you should probably ease yourself into his repertoire slowly. Portnoy's Complaint, American Pastoral, Indignation & The Human Stain are probably the most palatable & reader-friendly of Roth's work. (I started off with Portnoy's Complaint, and reading that novel was an eye-opening & defining experience for me as a reader. It raised the bar so high, & it colored the way that I viewed & judged all novels that came after it).
My rating for Deception:
*4.5/5 stars*
I've said again & again that I wholeheartedly believe that Philip Roth is the greatest American writer of ALL TIME. He's a master when it comes to words-- each and every sentence is crafted to perfection. He depicts the human condition better than any other author (both past & present), & his work is timeless. He's able to weave history, culture, psychology, economics & the sociopolitical landscape into his storylines so seamlessly, & the results are almost always masterpieces. All other authors are just left in the dust.
It's important to note, however, that if you're new to Philip Roth's work, you should probably ease yourself into his repertoire slowly. Portnoy's Complaint, American Pastoral, Indignation & The Human Stain are probably the most palatable & reader-friendly of Roth's work. (I started off with Portnoy's Complaint, and reading that novel was an eye-opening & defining experience for me as a reader. It raised the bar so high, & it colored the way that I viewed & judged all novels that came after it).
My rating for Deception:
*4.5/5 stars*
June 7, 2020
DECEPTION (1990) consists of conversations which occur between an American writer named Philip and various women. One of these women is Philip's mistress. She visits him in a small flat in London. She is married and often speaks to Philip of the difficulties with her husband, who is also having an affair. Their conversations are intelligent and interesting: they talk about sex (of course), marriage, politics, Jews, and people. And about deception. The theme of deception runs throughout all these conversations.
This novel is also a deception too, the reader learns eventually. It is an exercise in writing, a clever metafictional piece. Just that. Not the best Roth, and not one I would recommend unless you love postmodernist fiction.
This novel is also a deception too, the reader learns eventually. It is an exercise in writing, a clever metafictional piece. Just that. Not the best Roth, and not one I would recommend unless you love postmodernist fiction.
January 8, 2016
Extraña novela esta, escrita en 1990, que se compone enteramente a base de diálogos bastante ingeniosos que reflejan diversas conversaciones entre el escritor y su esposa, o entre el escritor y su amante; parece mentira que escribiera esta obrita justo antes de sus indiscutibles obras de madurez. Se puede leer pero no aporta mucho más al canon Roth.
March 7, 2023
- Dov’è il mio libro?
- Quale libro?
- Il libro dove ci sono dentro io.
- Mia cara, dovrai fare qualcosa di interessante che io possa ficcarci dentro.
- Lo sto facendo. Probabilmente sto morendo.
Delizioso.
- Quale libro?
- Il libro dove ci sono dentro io.
- Mia cara, dovrai fare qualcosa di interessante che io possa ficcarci dentro.
- Lo sto facendo. Probabilmente sto morendo.
Delizioso.
October 30, 2017
Poor sample to begin a new obsession. Will pass on Roth from here on out due to this pretty pathetic example of quality writing. No longer interested in reading anything he might add to my life if given a further chance.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 303 reviews