This was probably my least favorite Roth so far, but even so, it had more than its share of poignancy and insight. More than any of his other books so far, Eros vs. Thanantos seemed to drive the action and the thinking of the book.
David is certainly led by his' his dick, and in many instances, he is morally despicable. I really cringed when he lied about going to Consuelo's party but even more so when he lied to Carolyn about the tampon in his bathroom. This was right after he wanted to watch Consuelo menstruate after she confessed that one of her younger lovers had done so years ago. David was so eaten with jealousy that he licked the blood running down her leg. He's such a predator, making no bones about it, especially in his paean to Janie and the revolution of morals in the 60's and his own hedonistic existence. Yet also, I think, he's looking back to the circumstances of his life with very self-conscious irony. He becomes ensnared in his own traps when he is consumed with Consuelo, especially after she breaks it off with him.
George Hearn's death was one of the great scenes that I've read in the past few years, made even more poignant with the ironic coda from George's wife. Then Roth stands the book on its head with the revelation that Consuelo has reconnected with David after 8 years and is about to have radical mastectomy, with the explicit comparison between her possible death from cancer at age 32 vs. George's pending death from old age at age 70--counting life from how much time is left vs. how much time has passed. Then what to make of the ending where David's monologue is really revealed as a dialog, implying that David will give up himself if he goes to Consuelo when she needs him. He has come off as a prick all along, but then the other voice suddenly implores him to stay. Why is that?
Author: Roth, Phillip
Date Published: 2006
Length: 4hr 9min
Narrator: Stechschulte, Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment