|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
The Ultimate Ironist
| Article
# : |
11738 |
|
|
Section : |
BOOK WORLD
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1987 |
2,741 Words |
| Author
: |
Lionel Abel
Lionel Abel is professor emeritus at the State University of
New York at Buffalo and the author of Metatheatre and The
Intellectual Follies. |
According to Leonardo da Vinci, the proper distance from which to judge a building aesthetically has to be equal in length to the building's height. A structure that is very high, then, to be properly judged must be seen from quite far off. It this judgment is correct - and it seems to be - then can it apply to the proper judgment of a book? Should such a work be read from close up, or from a perspective that can range over works of the past that may be comparable to it in form?
I raise this question in connection with the recently published novel by Philip Roth, The Counterlife, and I raise it because the comments made about the book in the press so far - in the Sunday and weekday New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine - largely favorable judgments of the work, all seem to me inadequate when not misleading. Rather than looking at this new novel of Roth's from any point in past time, the reviewers looked at it from up close, without, apparently, considering any other way of looking at it. For my part, I shall try to look at the novel both ways, for I find it to be a book of too much quality to be judged without having placed it in the context of past - and comparable - works. Having located it in its own time, I shall try to set it alongside other novels of times past, which is one way of looking at a book from far off.
Review of the Reviews
But first, about the reviews I have read: Christopher Lehmann-Haupt in his New York Times (weekday) review, found that he could not decide what actually happens in the novel, and from this he concluded that Philip Roth has very little new to say. In the New York Times Sunday Book
... (1999 of 15290 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
