Terminalcoffee discussion

http://www.avclub.com/articles/philip...

I've never read any Roth, so I don't particularly care. But it is always interesting when certain writers announce retirement and others just stop writing without making a big fuss.

No care here.

I would have been happier if he had stopped before he started grousing about the state of fiction, but it's an interesting thing that we don't really expect writers to retire. Also interesting that he says he is done reading as well. I understand if the fire to write goes out of someone, but I feel sad if he has lost his love of reading.

No idea who that is, so I doubt I care.

Portnoy's Complaint?

Not really. I've only read one of his novels and wasn't impressed. Maybe I read the wrong one.

I do agree it's sad when someone loses their love for reading.

Portnoy's Complaint was where I first found out about masturbation.

^ lol :D

Like others have said, I never really read much of his work so I don't really have an opinion one way or another.

Just thought I would post and confirm my neutrality lol

Christopher wrote: "
Just thought I would post and confirm my neutrality lol"

That helps answer the question "do we care?"

I find this very interesting. The fact of it, and the reasons for it. I have read quite a bit of Roth. Also, Roth once put his hand on my elbow. It shocks me a little, because as Sarah said we don't expect writers to retire. Why would they, unless they lost all interest in life, in writing, or got dementia or something? They're not like concert pianists, who usually do retire when their fingers can no longer achieve gymnastic perfection (Alfred Brendel) or don't but probably should have (Vladimir Horowitz). Sometimes writers who probably should have retired, as their writing faded away into dreck, didn't. I haven't read his last couple novels so I can't comment on them - but my sense is that his talent trajectory was not headed up. Whether it was headed down, or merely staying level, I can't say. The quality of his novels seemed kind of up and down, for me.

I kind of think writers shouldn't retire, but try to become better. (Tom Wolfe, I'm looking at you.) That's probably highly unrealistic.

Why are you picking on Tom?

I didn't know he was still alive, and so I guess that he's retiring is good news for him.

Ha!

Roth may have retired because he became irrelevant according to the folks at Wikipedia earlier this year! They in fact said he 'was not a credible source'.

(see link -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainme...)

Not that I put much faith in Wikipedia . . . (Yes, the previous is an intentional fragmentary construction. )

Félix wrote: "Why are you picking on Tom?"

Because he's an easy target.

CD wrote: "Roth may have retired because he became irrelevant according to the folks at Wikipedia earlier this year! They in fact said he 'was not a credible source'.

(see link -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/e..."

Yeah but he's not a credible source because Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources, only secondary sources. They would not accept information directly from Roth or one of his proxies. They would only add info to the Roth page that was a quote from another source. So Roth had to write something about himself or whatever book it was, get it published somewhere, and then have them quote from that source.

Nothing to do with Roth becoming relevant or irrelevant.

Lobstergirl wrote:
Yeah but he's not a credible source because Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources, only secondary sources.

Are you saying Wiki isn't relevant? Besides, that is not what Roth nor Wiki reported.

It does not get better than an original source when it comes to an item of this nature. Wikipedia initially promoted the view that an author did not know what they were writing about.

Wikipedia requires (or claims to anyway) information that is verifiable. How much more verifiable information about a work of fiction is there than the original author?

PS This is not meant to be all that serious as we are talking about the irrelevant.