Closer to two-and-a-half-stars. "The Anatomy Lesson" illustrates much of what I don't care for in Roth's writing (and I *do* like much of what he writes). Nathan Zuckerman--who, in the first two novels of the trilogy, comes across as a nicely-layered character, possessing both a literary-romantic's heart and a vein of silent suffering for the pain his writing inadvertantly caused his family--is rendered starkly one-dimension in "The Anatomy Lesson"; he is, in fact, little more than Roth's stock character: sexually depraved, self-centered, fond of farce and farcical philosophizing, and obnoxiously loquacious. The ceaseless talktalktalk in this novel is irritating more than enlightening, and the various subplots and supporting characters are unconvincing and, frankly, often uninteresting. By the end of the novel, I could not wait for Zuckerman to zip his yapper; an unfortunate way to conclude what is otherwise a masterful trilogy.

While I did not connect personally with the protagonist, per se, his self-pity, loathing, and utter helplessness make him somehow endearing and bewildering. Roth's humor is at its subtlest here -- very dry, sardonic.

The words rain down like a cold shower; The Anatomy Lesson is this good, Roth a mandarin modern master.

Philip Roth's THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL is a big, bulbous, brocaded, bullshooting joke whether viewed from the box seats behind home plate or way in the back row of the right field bleachers-but let me not get pulled into the alliterative traps in which Roth indulges himself by way of his narrator, one Word Smith. Through the pen of the almost ninety-year-old "Smitty," we read the sad and disturbing tale of how the Ruppert Mundys of the mythical and defunct Patriot League were forced to spend all of 1943 playing away games after their owners sold their home stadium to the War Department as an embarkation point for our brave soldiers. Is Smitty as insane as many others obviously find him? Did the Mundys really have a one-legged catcher, a one-armed center fielder, a 14-year-old second baseman and a dwarf as a relief pitcher? Just who really is the Babylonian former ace pitcher Gil Gamesh? Was there really a Communist plot to destroy America by first destroying baseball?

It is curiosity and determination to finish this too-long-by-a-third book that may keep you reading through to the end, I'm afraid I had to force myself through it. We certainly aren't supposed to like any of the characters, so that means the story better hold us. And while it's a great story with a good number of laughs, there are too many long-winded passages that just aren't as funny once you get the rhythm down-the satire is dulled by them, in fact. I submit that Roth knew this and simply didn't care: by 1973 when this book was published he had been a bestseller for over twenty years. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had a Dickensian paid-by-the-word contract for this book. Additionally, there are the letters to Smitty in the Epilogue from publishers rejecting his manuscript of the Patriot League story, one of which says, "by and large the book seemed . . . to strain for its effects and to simplify for the sake of facile satiric comment the complex realities of American political and cultural life." Now while the complex realities of American political and cultural life can never be underestimated, Roth clearly knew the monster he created. And what fun for him to slap the Great American Novel title on it all!

I really enjoyed the first couple of hundred pages of this book, and I recommend it to those who are also students of baseball history (Roth weaves many real names and situations and speeches of old into his text) and aficionados of Roth. This is only my third Roth book, his earlier works PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT is one of my favorites of all time and GOODBYE, COLUMBUS is an entertaining first novel. I'm sorry I couldn't stay as excited about this one as it lumbered on, even if that was the point. Terrific concept, though.

Whatever else this novel is, it IS NOT the "Great American Novel". Such a thing, of course, will never exist except in the minds of those who are completely ignorant of writing. What the novel purports to be is a novel about the "Great American Novel", written by one Word Smith (or Smitty). Smitty sets out to tell the tale of the forgotten Patriot League, and the final inglorious season of the Ruppert Mundys. As the other reviewers have noted, this is high farce - sometimes too broad, sometimes too cruel, but often hilarious. I can't quite recommend this as highly as some of the others (for the record, I am not a baseball fan and I think it definitely would be funnier if I were). However, there is enough talented wordplay for me to give this four stars. Not Roth's best, but far from his worst.

This novel fizzles out by the end, but before that comes some of the most hilarious and entertaining writing you can possibly read. In fact, it amazing. My friends and I have regaled each other with incidents and characters from "The Great American Novel." Maybe it really is the great American novel. Nickname Demur will never die.

"The Ghost Writer" is not a towering work of a literature and is probably destined to be overshadowed by some of Roth's more well-known and outrageous literary experiments. Yet nonetheless, it is a lean, engrossing, flawlessly-written book with striking passages on nearly every page. The simple thought-experiment Roth undertakes here is nothing short of brilliant and the characters are all beautifully realized. There is not an aspiring writer out there who will not enjoy this book and sympathize with its narrator, Nathan Zuckerman. "The Ghost Writer" is not a tour-de-force; it is not breathtaking or overly-profound. It's just a good read, pure and simple--a very solid exploration of the relationship between fact and fiction, and probably the most well-written book of Roth's I've read so far.

Philip Roth, more than any other author living today, has the power to take your breath away with a single sentence, sometimes a single word. There is an intelligence and beauty to his prose that is, at times, simply stunning. The Ghost Writer is no exception. In it, Roth begins with a relatively simple plot - the young Nate Zuckerman, an aspiring writer, spends an evening with the renowned author E.I. Lonoff, in hopes of adopting the latter as a literary mentor. From there, and in only 180 pages, Roth embarks on a tour de force that explores the nature of a writer's responsibility to society. The three main characters in the novel are all authors, and Roth masterfully juxtaposes their differing approaches to their work. Zuckerman resents his family's insistence that he not publish a story that they feel negatively portrays Jewish stereotypes (and his own family members, no less). Feeling no moral responsibility in a larger context, his views are juxtaposed against a famous writer who feels his life's work has had no profound impact and has been little more than a meaningless intellectual exercise. And both of them pale in comparison to the social ramifications of the writings of Ann Frank, who plays a prominent role as a character. In this way, Roth confirms the importance and value of literature as a social and political force. And who better to make this argument than one of the most important and influential prose writers of the 20th century?

Before I review the book, let me say that buying this one volume is sort of a waste: three of the Zuckerman novels have been collected in Zuckerman Bound (along with an epilogue) and the paperback is fairly easy to find in most used book stores.

That being said, The Ghost Writer is by far my favorite part of the trilogy. Not only is it a flawlessly written book, it contains perhaps the most astounding imaginative leap in all of Roth's fiction (I don't want to give it away: read the Femme Fatale chapter). And honestly, I prefer the lovely Jamesian prose of this slender volume to the frenetic comedy of some of his other books. The Ghost Writer is much less funny that those books, but it has wonderfully realized characters (something the other books in the trilogy lack, in my opinion) and an author who is fully in control; every part of the story is exactly where it needs to be - when Roth cuts back to Nathan's parents, or tells Amy's story, he never seems to be trying too hard.

Everything falls perfectly into place (even the open-ended conclusion seems to be the only way the story can end) and moves with a steady, controlled momentum. I'm not sure if I would call it Roth's masterpiece (I haven't read all of his books) but it's certainly my favorite of his early work. Read it - it barely takes a few hours, and will never be forgotten.

Much of Roth's later obsession with the boundaries between fiction and fact are evident in this book. FIrst we read two short stories--one funny, one more bitter, but both dark. Then we learn the two short stories are those of a struggling author who has fallen into the depths of depression after a difficult relationship. OF course the narrator pulls no punches--he is a hater of women, though I'm not sure that we are meant to take his view of the world as a given. Clearly he is messed up--even his psychologist thinks so, though the books also bashes the idea that a psychoanalyst is an impartial judge. This is fascinating, at times disturbing stuff, but well worth it. And I still love my wife.

Philip Roth's sixth novel, "My Life as a Man," first appeared in 1974, after the author spent several years trying to use the material of his first marriage (to one Margaret Martinson) in a fictionalized setting. Readers of Roth's autobiography, "The Facts" (1988), know that his brief cohabitation and extensive legal battles with Martinson were harrowing enough to leave psychological wounds the author continued to lick for decades following her death in a car accident. "My Life as a Man," according to "The Facts," was a book that took an enormous toll, both artistic and emotional, on the author. But it's a good thing he was able to write it, because what we have is a tremendously gripping, chilling, bitter and often hilarious look at the dark side of "romantic" relationships.

The first section of the book, entitled "Useful Fictions," includes two stories "by Tarnopol" documenting his carefree childhood and eventual entanglement with the psychopathic "Lydia." Then the novel itself starts, under the title "My True Story." What follows is enough to make anyone feel fortunate for a) being single or b) having a stable relationship. Martinson, who was "Lydia" in the first section, is here renamed "Maureen," and is one of the most unforgettable women in American literature. Self-loathing, neurotic, violent, manic-depressive, grasping, hateful and literally insane, her relentless attempts to control and keep "Tarnopol" (Roth) are what gives these pages such intensity. Her hatred for Tarnopol and his hatred for her make this book unputdownable. Reading "The Facts," one learns that much, if not most, of what occurs here actually took place in real life. No wonder Roth has "women issues" (or so the critics always say).

This remains one of Roth's most intelligent, finely crafted books. His use of dialogue is virtually unparalleled in modern fiction, and his sentences are as chiselled and graceful as one would expect of an artist of his caliber. In short, "My Life as a Man," though not the most uplifting book of our time, is an extraordinary (and extraordinarily bleak) accomplishment.

I promise to keep this review short because I know there is nothing more unpleasant than a long review...did he like, or not like the book?....Yes, this book is a masterpiece: this is early-middle Roth when he is just starting to discover himself as a man and a writer...A must read for anyone thinking about becoming a writer.

When I was a teenager (around 1970 or so), I read a couple of P Roth novels (Portnoy's Complaint and Goodbye Columbus, I think). They didn't make a huge impression (unlike, e.g., Tolkein's Lord of the Rings), except that I remember them as enjoyable. Roth was then off my radar for almost 30 years.

At some point, I bought his "trilogy & epilogue" from a remainder table ($2.98, according to the sticker still affixed), and eventually got to it. Here's all you need to kmow about my recommendation: halfway through this book, I was trolling through Amazon, trying to decide which Roth book to pick up next. Why I dropped him in 1970, I don't know -- it must have been the ... oh, never mind.

I found "Zuckerman Unbound" and "The Anatomy Lesson" to be the strongest of the 4 components (any can be read alone, but they're best read in sequence). I found "Prague Orgy" to be a little bizarre, and never saw how it fit in. I guess that's the only reason for the 4 rather than 5 stars.

I don't understand why so many people think Philip Roth is such an important writer, but I keep reading his books in an attempt to find out. In this spirit, I just finished _Deception_, which was recommended by a friend. But I didn't find the answer here. The dialogue in this all-dialogue novel is not at all convincing; the characters are not engaging in any way; and the "plot" (which is not revealed until the end, if indeed it is then) is too clever by half. If you're not already a Roth fan, don't bother; this is not the book that will make you one.

"Happy Birthday" "Thanks." "It's Deception by Philip Roth. You'll love it" "Sure?" "Yes" "Why?" "Because it's Philip Roth, and it's clever, and it's humane, and it's about love and about trust and about sex." "Like Portnoy's Complaint and Sabbath's Theater?" "Well, no. You see it's written completely in dialogue" "Completely?" "With one or two stage directions, but otherwise completely in dialogue" "and what's it about?" "A writer called Philip" "Philip?" "Yes, Philip. Roth doesn't bother with Zuckerman here" "So, what does Philip do?" "He talks. Just talks. To his wife. To his mistress or mistresses." "Plural?" "Yes, plural." "So he talks." ... "Just talks?" "Yes. Although it's cleverly done. In some sections you don't know if it's Philip, or a woman talking at first. Your whole perception can be changed depending on how you read these scenes." "And you liked it?" "Of course. I loved it. It's up there with American Pastoral and Sabbath's Theater. But it's distilled Roth. There's nothing unnecessary."

Deception is a smart, witty well written novel with a great twist at the end. This is a very unique all-dialogue novel that really works. I found the storyline not only intriguing but very compelling as well. Interested readers may also want to try reading VOX and FRIED CALAMARI, two other all dialogue novels that I found to be compelling and entertaining.

A smart-alecky adolescent wants to prove that if God is almighty as Jews claim, He could have impregnated Mary with Jesus. Thus, in his mind, and apparently from the author's perspective, the Jews are to blame for inter-religious strife arising from their bigoted refusal to give creedence to fundamental Christian precepts.

The Gentiles who read the story consider it a noble proclamation for religious tolerance. But the blood that spilled in the two thousand years since the death of Jesus has been the blood of Jews, hideously, brutally murdered by Christians believing they were doing the word of their lord. Roth attempts to create a totally false impression that he alone among the Jews is sufficiently wise and broad-minded to preach respect for tenets of other religions. But in fact it has always been a first principle of Judaism that any religion teaching belief in one God and charity and requiring just dealings among mankind is a valid religion. {These are the laws that the Jews' God imposed on the sons of Noah.) Christianity, by contrast, historically has deemed itself the one true faith, and many non-believers suffered awful deaths as a result.

Roth wrote this story to broaden his readership beyond the small population of Jews in America -- who would find his charicatures of themeslves funny--so that he could sell his work to wider audiences. For Roth, the royalties he sought justified his trashing the truths about his people and supplying ammunition to those who would ridicule my brothers and sisters. I detest him.

I felt that this story illustrated creative thematic continuity. The plot is precisely orchestrated. The symbolism is clear and allegoric. Both Old and New Testament allusions flow between the lines. The theme is intense and unified. The setting is literal, yet transcends figurative meanings.

The narrator's point of view is dramatic. The theme is both illustrative and moving. The style is connotative of much deeper meanings. The diction is creatively suggestive. The characters are plausible and consistent.

I think this is a masterpiece! The conclusion is strong and symbolic. Throughout the story, Roth saturates and consistently reinforces his theme in a satire of religious hypocrisy. I give you ten stars for this one! **********

Patty Stroe