I recently visited reading group dedicated to the novel human stain (human stain) From Philip Rothpublished in 2000. In Italy he published it the following year. einaudi translated by Vincenzo Mantovani. I read it in the “pocket” edition of Einaudi Super ET.
As (almost) always, I took notes as I read, noting the most important passages, such as turning points in the story or real twists and turns, passages that I might cite in a possible review, curiosities, ideas that it would be interesting to develop in the course of reading. . reading group.
I must admit that I rarely attend these meetings, tangled up in a calendar of commitments that – for the most part – I make myself (and which, at least for the moment, I can’t complain about: that’s what I like to do). .
For a number of reasons, starting with the limited time available, which is short compared to the richness of ideas contained in the novel, the book multilayer which is very well suited for core drilling and subsequent “laboratory” analysis – only a few of those that I noted were actually considered or even touched upon in the discussion.
Wishful thinking that what I am about to write may be useful to some other reading group or individual reader, I present here some ideas, starting points for insights, reflections and discussions (the book, among other things, is a catalog of discussions ). among the various characters there are really memorable ones).
Questions and ideas
As a white European male reader with a degree in classical literature, I wondered how human stain read from other points of view: starting with the female. The frankly vulgar language of some (many) sentences did not cause me any problems, and this was not the first book by Roth that I read. Does it disturb other feelings?
On page 86, “malicious puritanism” is the definition by which lawyer Nelson Primus calls the attitude of fellow citizens towards Professor Coleman Silk – the protagonist of the novel – warning him and offering to break off relations with his young lover Faunia Farley (he was seventy-one, she was thirty-four).
Here: The gap between what can be done or be and what can be said or revealed is one of the main themes. human stainat least according to my readings.
Another key question is culture, in particular classical, the basis of European history and societies. Let’s start with a quote in a phrase taken fromOedipus rex Sophocles, Tragedy par excellence. Over the next four hundred pages, European culture emerges or remains hidden with a frequency that even the most absent-minded reader cannot escape (but human stainAgain, this is not a book for inattentive readers.) Greeks, of course (Iliad!), but also Mann de Death in VeniceShakespeare Julius Caesarand then Kundera, Dostoevsky, Sollers and Kristeva.
It is about the classics – the only quote that I want to quote in this work. Coleman’s sister will speak, now at the end of the story.
In the time of my parents, as well as in my time and his time, flaws were inherent in man. Today I’m talking about discipline. Reading the classics is too difficult, so the classics are to blame. Today the student flaunts his disability as if it were a privilege. I can’t learn it, so something is wrong.”
The topic is related to the previous one. word. It is for the “wrong” word prof. Silk is in trouble, it’s a paradox – but in retrospect, it’s not a paradox at all – for a man who has always lived and spoke with respect for words, their meaning and use. How can words be used and which ones? What are the limits of freedom of expression and what are the limits of interpretation?
on page 22 Nathan Zuckerman – type alter ego Rota – speaks of Coleman as “a great man thrown off his pedestal”, a metaphor for an action that we have seen repeated around the world in recent years. Butdemolition of statues This phenomenon, which is known to anyone who is even a little familiar with history books, is not characteristic of our time. Statues have been falling for thousands of years before such modern phenomena as Black Lives Matter AND Me too.
Movie
Other interesting ideas and topics for discussion may come from comparing the novel and the film adaptation. 2003 film director: Robert Benton, co-writer with Nicholas Meyer. I have deliberately used the term “film montage” because in some cases, as in this case, the film freezes the wealth of ideas, issues, conflicts and passions that characterize the book.
To give just a few examples: which character in the film is most similar to the original? Anthony Hawkpins as believable as Coleman Silk? AND Nicole Kidman how is faunia? Why is there such a big age difference between Silk and Zuckerman in the movie? Was the “sacrifice” of Professor Roux’s role inevitable? In my opinion, this is one of the most serious reductions in transposition. And Vietnam, where did he go?
Have you read the book and/or seen the movie? What do you think? The discussion is (always) open, even when the reading group closes.
Saul Stuchki