当心白人男性罗思安人

Q2 Arts and Humanities Philip Roth Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/prs.2023.a907262
Jacques Berlinerblau
{"title":"当心白人男性罗思安人","authors":"Jacques Berlinerblau","doi":"10.1353/prs.2023.a907262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beware White Male Rothians Jacques Berlinerblau (bio) I am not one to subscribe to crude sociological stereotypes. yet i can’t help but notice that a certain type of person intensely dislikes my recent book The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race, and Autobiography (2021). Save one exception, that pattern has been evident from the peer-review process, through the pre-publication phase (see Zoller 2022; Sutter 2021), right on down to a trio of scathing reviews I will discuss forthwith. White male Rothians, it would seem, are impervious to the charms of my arguments. It is indeed better, as Gary Shteyngart once quipped, to be patronized than to be ignored. As a former book review editor for this very journal, I long ago learned that many fine monographs sit unreviewed because we couldn’t find scholars to assess them (more about that, anon). As such, I thank Professor Steven Kellman (The Forward), Professor Andy Connolly (Voegelin View), and Eric Vanderwall (Philip Roth Studies) for paying attention to this text. But fellas, respectfully, a book review is not a drive-by shooting! All professional scholars give and take their share of serrated criticism. To be an academician is to administer, and be subjected to, the learned snark of countless anonymous Reviewers Number Two. Even novelists, like Nathan Zuckerman in The Anatomy Lesson (1983), endured “the two-thousand-, three-thousand-, five-thousand-word lashing” that rankles for life (78). It’s probably best to suffer such indignities in silence—a truism borne out by Zuckerman’s ill-fated rant delivered to his bewildered tormentor, Milton Appel. In this case, however, I feel strongly—as battered authors are wont to do—that a rebuttal might be both timely and beneficial. Our world is falling down, so why not have a spirited, no-holds-barred conversation about race, sex, autobiography, pedagogy, and even scholarly mores as they pertain to book reviewing? After all, Philip Roth has passed away. His core audience is graying or dead. The market for serious literature, as the master grimly foretold, is dwindling. The humanities as a vocation teeter on the brink of extinction (Berlinerblau, “They’ve Been Scheming”). These troubled times offer scholars and lovers of fiction an opportunity to speak frankly. [End Page 82] If anything good emerges from this exchange, then it will be to arrive at a less sociologically crude definition of the White Male Rothian. ROTH AND RACE My analysis of Roth’s racial portraiture has not been warmly received. I approached my inquiry by collating every single depiction of African and African-American characters in his fiction from the 1952 “Box of Truths” to the 2010 Nemesis. This comprehensive analysis had not been performed before. I believe this is why researchers who had previously studied Roth and race drew conclusions different from my own. The patterns I discovered often surprised me. The patterns, to be frank, often troubled me. Roth’s portraits of his Black characters were frequently tasteless, bordering upon, and sometimes crossing into, racist literary depiction. When I discussed this discovery with scholars who study race, they recommended caution. Charges of racial insensitivity made against canonical figures, they advised, are either met with silence or a sort of bemused disregard. They thus counseled me to document my findings meticulously lest my first (and perhaps final) wave of reviewers claim my argument was flawed, insubstantial, non-existent, etc. I first shared my analysis of Roth’s treatment of race in a pre-publication excerpt that appeared in Salon magazine (Berlinerblau, “Philip Roth”). It was immediately rebuked by no less than Blake Bailey. In a now deleted tweet, he proclaimed my piece, if memory serves, the stupidest article he ever read about Roth. Steven Kellman—whose 1980 The Self-Begetting Novel is a work I greatly admire—was also not buying the analysis. He alleges that I quote “a few blatantly racist statements, but they are put into the mouths of bigots or else seem innocent.” Andy Connolly—whose Philip Roth and the American Liberal Tradition (2017) I reviewed rather positively on the pages of this journal (Berlinerblau, “Review”)—takes the criticism further. My calling attention to previously unnoted patterns of...","PeriodicalId":37093,"journal":{"name":"Philip Roth Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beware White Male Rothians\",\"authors\":\"Jacques Berlinerblau\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/prs.2023.a907262\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Beware White Male Rothians Jacques Berlinerblau (bio) I am not one to subscribe to crude sociological stereotypes. yet i can’t help but notice that a certain type of person intensely dislikes my recent book The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race, and Autobiography (2021). Save one exception, that pattern has been evident from the peer-review process, through the pre-publication phase (see Zoller 2022; Sutter 2021), right on down to a trio of scathing reviews I will discuss forthwith. White male Rothians, it would seem, are impervious to the charms of my arguments. It is indeed better, as Gary Shteyngart once quipped, to be patronized than to be ignored. As a former book review editor for this very journal, I long ago learned that many fine monographs sit unreviewed because we couldn’t find scholars to assess them (more about that, anon). As such, I thank Professor Steven Kellman (The Forward), Professor Andy Connolly (Voegelin View), and Eric Vanderwall (Philip Roth Studies) for paying attention to this text. But fellas, respectfully, a book review is not a drive-by shooting! All professional scholars give and take their share of serrated criticism. To be an academician is to administer, and be subjected to, the learned snark of countless anonymous Reviewers Number Two. Even novelists, like Nathan Zuckerman in The Anatomy Lesson (1983), endured “the two-thousand-, three-thousand-, five-thousand-word lashing” that rankles for life (78). It’s probably best to suffer such indignities in silence—a truism borne out by Zuckerman’s ill-fated rant delivered to his bewildered tormentor, Milton Appel. In this case, however, I feel strongly—as battered authors are wont to do—that a rebuttal might be both timely and beneficial. Our world is falling down, so why not have a spirited, no-holds-barred conversation about race, sex, autobiography, pedagogy, and even scholarly mores as they pertain to book reviewing? After all, Philip Roth has passed away. His core audience is graying or dead. The market for serious literature, as the master grimly foretold, is dwindling. The humanities as a vocation teeter on the brink of extinction (Berlinerblau, “They’ve Been Scheming”). These troubled times offer scholars and lovers of fiction an opportunity to speak frankly. [End Page 82] If anything good emerges from this exchange, then it will be to arrive at a less sociologically crude definition of the White Male Rothian. ROTH AND RACE My analysis of Roth’s racial portraiture has not been warmly received. I approached my inquiry by collating every single depiction of African and African-American characters in his fiction from the 1952 “Box of Truths” to the 2010 Nemesis. This comprehensive analysis had not been performed before. I believe this is why researchers who had previously studied Roth and race drew conclusions different from my own. The patterns I discovered often surprised me. The patterns, to be frank, often troubled me. Roth’s portraits of his Black characters were frequently tasteless, bordering upon, and sometimes crossing into, racist literary depiction. When I discussed this discovery with scholars who study race, they recommended caution. Charges of racial insensitivity made against canonical figures, they advised, are either met with silence or a sort of bemused disregard. They thus counseled me to document my findings meticulously lest my first (and perhaps final) wave of reviewers claim my argument was flawed, insubstantial, non-existent, etc. I first shared my analysis of Roth’s treatment of race in a pre-publication excerpt that appeared in Salon magazine (Berlinerblau, “Philip Roth”). It was immediately rebuked by no less than Blake Bailey. In a now deleted tweet, he proclaimed my piece, if memory serves, the stupidest article he ever read about Roth. Steven Kellman—whose 1980 The Self-Begetting Novel is a work I greatly admire—was also not buying the analysis. He alleges that I quote “a few blatantly racist statements, but they are put into the mouths of bigots or else seem innocent.” Andy Connolly—whose Philip Roth and the American Liberal Tradition (2017) I reviewed rather positively on the pages of this journal (Berlinerblau, “Review”)—takes the criticism further. My calling attention to previously unnoted patterns of...\",\"PeriodicalId\":37093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philip Roth Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philip Roth Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/prs.2023.a907262\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philip Roth Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/prs.2023.a907262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我并不是一个认同粗俗的社会学刻板印象的人。然而,我不禁注意到,有一类人非常不喜欢我的新书《我们不知道的菲利普·罗斯:性别、种族和自传》(2021)。除了一个例外,这种模式从同行评议过程一直到发表前阶段都很明显(见Zoller 2022;Sutter 2021),直到我将立即讨论的三篇严厉的评论。罗思安的白人男性似乎对我的论点的魅力无动于衷。正如加里•施泰因加特(Gary Shteyngart)曾经打趣的那样,被人光顾确实比被人忽视要好。作为本报的前书评编辑,我很久以前就了解到,许多优秀的专著没有得到评论,因为我们找不到学者来评估它们(关于这一点,匿名)。因此,我感谢Steven Kellman教授(The Forward)、Andy Connolly教授(Voegelin View)和Eric Vanderwall教授(Philip Roth Studies)对本文的关注。伙计们,恕我直言,书评可不是飞车射击!所有的专业学者都会受到尖锐的批评。作为一名院士,就要管理和接受无数匿名的第二号评论者的学术批评。即使是小说家,比如《解剖课》(1983)中的内森·祖克曼,也要忍受“二千、三千、五千字的鞭笞”,这种鞭笞会让人终生痛苦(78)。也许最好是在沉默中忍受这样的侮辱——祖克曼对他困惑的折磨者米尔顿·阿佩尔不幸的咆哮证明了这一点。然而,在这种情况下,我强烈地感到——就像遭受打击的作家们经常做的那样——反驳可能既及时又有益。我们的世界正在衰落,所以为什么不就种族、性别、自传、教育学,甚至是与书评有关的学术习俗,展开一场充满活力、无拘无束的对话呢?毕竟,菲利普·罗斯已经去世了。他的核心受众已经灰白或死亡。正如这位大师冷酷地预言的那样,严肃文学的市场正在萎缩。人文学科作为一种职业在灭绝的边缘摇摇欲坠(柏林布鲁,“他们一直在策划”)。这些困难时期为学者和小说爱好者提供了一个坦率发言的机会。如果这种交流有什么好处的话,那就是对白人男性罗思安的社会学定义不那么粗糙。罗斯与种族我对罗斯种族形象的分析并没有受到热烈欢迎。为了展开调查,我整理了从1952年的《真相之盒》(Box of Truths)到2010年的《复仇者》(Nemesis),他的小说中对非洲人和非裔美国人角色的每一个描述。这种全面的分析以前从未进行过。我相信这就是为什么之前研究罗斯和种族的研究人员得出了与我不同的结论。我发现的模式常常令我惊讶。坦率地说,这些模式经常困扰着我。罗斯对黑人人物的刻画常常是毫无品味的,近乎于,有时甚至是越界于种族主义的文学描写。当我与研究种族的学者讨论这一发现时,他们建议谨慎行事。他们建议,针对权威人物的种族不敏感的指控,要么是沉默,要么是一种困惑的漠视。因此,他们建议我仔细记录我的发现,以免我的第一波(也可能是最后一波)审稿人声称我的论点有缺陷、缺乏实质性、不存在等等。我首先在沙龙杂志(Berlinerblau,“菲利普·罗斯”)上发表的一篇出版前摘录中分享了我对罗斯对待种族的分析。它立即遭到了不止布莱克·贝利的谴责。在一条现已删除的推文中,他宣称我的文章,如果没记错的话,是他读过的关于罗斯的最愚蠢的文章。史蒂文·凯尔曼(Steven kellman)——他1980年的《自我产生的小说》是我非常欣赏的一部作品——也不认同这种分析。他声称我引用了“一些公然的种族主义言论,但这些言论都是由偏执狂说出来的,或者看起来是无辜的。”安迪·康诺利(Andy connolly)的《菲利普·罗斯与美国自由主义传统》(Philip Roth and the American Liberal Tradition, 2017)进一步提出了批评,我在本刊的评论中给出了相当正面的评价。我提请注意以前未注意到的模式……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beware White Male Rothians
Beware White Male Rothians Jacques Berlinerblau (bio) I am not one to subscribe to crude sociological stereotypes. yet i can’t help but notice that a certain type of person intensely dislikes my recent book The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race, and Autobiography (2021). Save one exception, that pattern has been evident from the peer-review process, through the pre-publication phase (see Zoller 2022; Sutter 2021), right on down to a trio of scathing reviews I will discuss forthwith. White male Rothians, it would seem, are impervious to the charms of my arguments. It is indeed better, as Gary Shteyngart once quipped, to be patronized than to be ignored. As a former book review editor for this very journal, I long ago learned that many fine monographs sit unreviewed because we couldn’t find scholars to assess them (more about that, anon). As such, I thank Professor Steven Kellman (The Forward), Professor Andy Connolly (Voegelin View), and Eric Vanderwall (Philip Roth Studies) for paying attention to this text. But fellas, respectfully, a book review is not a drive-by shooting! All professional scholars give and take their share of serrated criticism. To be an academician is to administer, and be subjected to, the learned snark of countless anonymous Reviewers Number Two. Even novelists, like Nathan Zuckerman in The Anatomy Lesson (1983), endured “the two-thousand-, three-thousand-, five-thousand-word lashing” that rankles for life (78). It’s probably best to suffer such indignities in silence—a truism borne out by Zuckerman’s ill-fated rant delivered to his bewildered tormentor, Milton Appel. In this case, however, I feel strongly—as battered authors are wont to do—that a rebuttal might be both timely and beneficial. Our world is falling down, so why not have a spirited, no-holds-barred conversation about race, sex, autobiography, pedagogy, and even scholarly mores as they pertain to book reviewing? After all, Philip Roth has passed away. His core audience is graying or dead. The market for serious literature, as the master grimly foretold, is dwindling. The humanities as a vocation teeter on the brink of extinction (Berlinerblau, “They’ve Been Scheming”). These troubled times offer scholars and lovers of fiction an opportunity to speak frankly. [End Page 82] If anything good emerges from this exchange, then it will be to arrive at a less sociologically crude definition of the White Male Rothian. ROTH AND RACE My analysis of Roth’s racial portraiture has not been warmly received. I approached my inquiry by collating every single depiction of African and African-American characters in his fiction from the 1952 “Box of Truths” to the 2010 Nemesis. This comprehensive analysis had not been performed before. I believe this is why researchers who had previously studied Roth and race drew conclusions different from my own. The patterns I discovered often surprised me. The patterns, to be frank, often troubled me. Roth’s portraits of his Black characters were frequently tasteless, bordering upon, and sometimes crossing into, racist literary depiction. When I discussed this discovery with scholars who study race, they recommended caution. Charges of racial insensitivity made against canonical figures, they advised, are either met with silence or a sort of bemused disregard. They thus counseled me to document my findings meticulously lest my first (and perhaps final) wave of reviewers claim my argument was flawed, insubstantial, non-existent, etc. I first shared my analysis of Roth’s treatment of race in a pre-publication excerpt that appeared in Salon magazine (Berlinerblau, “Philip Roth”). It was immediately rebuked by no less than Blake Bailey. In a now deleted tweet, he proclaimed my piece, if memory serves, the stupidest article he ever read about Roth. Steven Kellman—whose 1980 The Self-Begetting Novel is a work I greatly admire—was also not buying the analysis. He alleges that I quote “a few blatantly racist statements, but they are put into the mouths of bigots or else seem innocent.” Andy Connolly—whose Philip Roth and the American Liberal Tradition (2017) I reviewed rather positively on the pages of this journal (Berlinerblau, “Review”)—takes the criticism further. My calling attention to previously unnoted patterns of...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Philip Roth Studies
Philip Roth Studies Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editors' Note: Traveling with Roth Philip Roth and "My American Gang" In Medias Res Roth and Reputation versus Sex and Empowerment in The Dying Animal Hauntologies of Fiction: Reading Roth at the End of History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1