Michael Hurst Histogram

A Roth Review
In the literary criticism by WILLIAM H. PRITCHARD, Philip Roth’s book Sabbath’s Theater is reviewed and analyzed in the New York Times on September 10, 1995. Pritchard begins bysaying Sabbath’s Theater is a comic creation of epic proportions, and Mickey Sabbath is its gargantuan hero. Once a scandalously inventive puppeteer, Sabbath at sixty-four is still defiantly antagonisticand exceedingly libidinous. But after the death of his long-time mistress, an erotic free spirit whose adulterous daring surpassed even his own, Sabbath embarks on a turbulent journey into his past.Bereft and grieving, besieged by the ghosts of those who loved and hated him most, he contrives a succession of farcical disasters that take him to the brink of madness and extinction. The criticismcontinues on with this quote, "A great work...Roth's richest, most rewarding novel...funny and profound...as powerful as writing can be” (Pritchard 1). The worst and best part of the book is that youconstantly want the main character to be dealt a world of pain because of his complete lack of morals. The problem is, this complete lack of morals causes him to not really care what happens to him,leaving the reader frustrated.
Agruments supporting Sabbath’s Theater as a good book | Arguments condemning Sabbath’s Theater as a bad book. |
POSITION STATEMENT:Sabbath’s Theater is a well thoughtout book that is able to make the reader understand in a variety of ways. | POSITION STATEMENT:Sabbath’s Theater is a frustrating book filled with sexual terms and descriptions that can lead the readerto a bad experience. |
Philip Roth seems to me to be saying something similarly terrifying and exhilarating about American life in 1995. (Ethos)The section concludes in what is surely the finestpassage in the novel, right down to a line from Yeats's late sonnet "Meru," as it gives a great understanding to the reader. (Ethos)Roth's genius for juxtaposing impressions, feelings and names that...