Philip Roth Didn't Deserve the Booker International Prize

[alice wellintown]

It's rarely if ever stunningly beautiful. Applying Nabokov's silly
formula for the great writer, we find that Roth is a master story
teller and a teacher, but he lacks that which, according to Nabokov,
"predominates and makes a major writer." Looking at my list, I find
that I've read more Roth than nearly any other American, but none
(other than_The Breast_ and  _The Dying Animal_) is stunningly
beautiful or poetic in style. Roth simply does not have real magic. He
is great story teller, though I tire of his Jewish NJ fair, and he can
instruct, but he's a sorcerer's apprentice still.



> Roth's work is stunningly great.
>
> If that's what the prize is about, then it's well-deserved.  A lot of
> times these prizes go to somebody who's relatively unknown and help
> that person's career along.  Obviously, awarding it to Philip Roth
> will not have that effect.  But sometimes it's good to be reminded how
> great somebody is, even if you already knew it.
>