Philip Roth - How to Deal with Postmodern Reality,
or, Changes in Fiction Writing

von: Michael Obenaus

1. Introduction  4

2. Postmodernism – a Term  6

3. Narrativity, Moral and a Writer’s Responsibility 12

4. Philip Roth - Writer and Reality 16

5. Changes in Fiction Writing: Identity and Priority  23

6. Conclusion  28

7. References  31

1. Introduction

“By now you are a walking text“ (FACTS, 162), Zuckerman writes back to Philip Roth, having been asked whether or not Roth should publish his autobiography The Facts (1988). Zuckerman is one of the characters from Roth’s books, the hero of the trilogy Zuckerman Bound (1985) and some short stories. He is a fictional character whom Roth addresses in the prologue to The Facts, asking for advice concerning the publication of what Roth calls the result of “...writing a book absolutely backward, taking what I have already imagined and, as it were, desiccating it, so as to restore my experience to the original, prefictionalized factuality.“ (FACTS, 3) Reading Philip Roth in a context of postmodern literature in America I have come to wonder what it actually is he himself is trying to do with his writing. Comparing Roth’s early narratives to more recent works I am tempted to say that a development can be observed towards an incorporation of narrative features which can be described as ‘postmodern’, i.e. that there are strong influences of a ‘postmodern reality’ in the work of Philip Roth, although he himself can probably not be called a postmodern writer in the strict meaning of the term. Here, of course, already appears a major problem for my assumption: What is ‘postmodern writing’ at all? Are there common features shared by (all) the representatives of postmodernism which could justify the application of such a classification? And if so, what precisely are these features and how can they be described? In order to clarify these issues, I shall refer both to theoretical texts on that subject as well as to works of art, in this case fiction writing. In my analysis I want to focus on the relation between writer and reality, which will lead me to a discussion of the distinction between reality and fiction. I have chosen these aspects for obvious reasons: Because at the very heart of fiction writing we find that the relation of a writer, or narrator, towards his1 reality is what constitutes ‘fiction’ as such. This problem is especially relevant for an analysis of contemporary literature since the difference between fiction and reality has been explored, questioned and blurred at least since a modernist movement has come into existence. The literary achievements of the 20th century express themselves largely through an experimentation with the distinction between fiction and reality, a playing with narrative forms, trying to meet rapidly changing social experiences. One of the most dominant features acknowledged to postmodernism is a shift of the position of the writer towards his audience, his work and his reality – maybe even a shift in the understanding of the priority of an author over his work.

It is that shift in the perception of reality which I claim has influenced Philip Roth in his writing, both in structure as well as in contents. I will try to trace these influences in the development of Roth’s work, at the same time being aware that I cannot deliver a full-scale reading of Philip Roth in this paper. It is understood that such a development, or change, cannot be described as a linear temporal sequence throughout the years, rather always depending, as it is, on the particular subject, background and purpose a work occupies. However, I maintain that Philip Roth, this critic of postmodern writing, the “enfant terrible“ of American literature for more than thirty years now, can be shown to have adopted certain ‘postmodern’ characteristics in his writing corresponding to the literary discourse of his time.

[...]

1 I am perfectly aware that there are female writers as well and that political correctness would require the use of both female and male forms. However, for the sake of readability I will exclusively use the ‘traditional’ male form of pronouns whenever it occurs.