This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

An interview with great American author Philip Roth

Editor's note: Tight Spot's literary porn editor Jack Spear recently was granted a one-on-one interview with famous author Philip Roth, the author of such seminal novels as "Good-bye Columbus" and a couple of books, including some very long ones, that were never made into movies. Roth arrived at the interview, a foyer here in the offices of Tight Spot, wearing a knee-length wool coat, a white shirt, a black tie, black shoes, gray slacks, a scarf, leather driving gloves and a wool beanie watch cap wadded up and stuffed into his coat pocket. At least we guessed that's what the wad in his pocket was. It could have been something else. Roth is Jewish and many of his main characters are Jewish and many of their motivations and actions and explanations for their actions is pinned by the author on their Jewishness, so maybe the wad in his pocket was a yarmulke, which is a skullcap worn by Jewish people of all faiths, not just writers. Here, then, is a partial transcript of Spear's interview with the great Jewish-American novelist Philip Roth.
Tight Spot: Has anyone ever said you look like a hawk?
Roth: No.
Tight Spot: Fine. Then let me be the first.
Roth: Be my guest. Knock yourself out.
T.S.: You know, as the literary porn editor here at Tight Spot, I get to read a lot of steamy stuff. Do you write about sex very much?
Roth: No.
T.S.: Except that Sabbath book.
Roth: Sabbath's Theater. Yes. I wrote that book 15 years ago.
T.S.: No shit? I just read it. It's pretty good!
Roth (glancing at his watch): Thanks.
T.S.: There's some pretty nasty language in there.
Roth (silent):
T.S.: I mean Tight Spot is a family-oriented blog, so I won't be able to repeat some of the words you used when I ask you about certain scenes. I'll use euphemisms instead. For instance, in one scene, Mickey Sabbath, the arthritic puppeteer and the protagonist of the novel -- like I have to tell you that! -- fires the surgeon general while lying atop the grave of his former lover. Why?
Roth (furrowing his brow): Why what?
T.S.: Why's he painting the ceiling on a grave site?
Roth: 'Painting the ceiling?'
T.S.: You know! Choking the chicken?
Roth: Masturbating?
T.S.: Hey! C'mon! My kids read this!
Roth: But what you are referring to is when Sabbath masturbates on Drenka's grave.
T.S. Yeah.
Roth: I don't know. It's just his way of remembering her.
T.S.: I would have thought there was more to it than that.
Roth: There isn't.
T.S.: Who's your favorite female novelistic pornographer? There are some women out there doing some really fine work.
Roth: 'Novelistic porn'? Is that what you think 'Sabbath' is?
T.S.: Not really. You use the language but you don't go into the juicy details. Except for when Drenka is doing that -- what was it? -- a university professor? But Jane Smiley, you ever read anything by her? She's hot.
Roth: I'm not familiar with her work.
T.S.: Really? You should read Jane Smiley. "Ten Days in the Hills?" It's pretty much non-stop sex -- in detail.
Roth (furrowing brow and glancing at watch): ?
T.S.: McGuane does some pretty good stuff, but not Jim Harrison.
Roth: I'm not familiar with her work.
T.S.: Those are guys, Phil. Tell me about Zuckerberg. You wrote a trilogy about the creator of Facebook before Facebook was even created. Fascinating!
Roth: Zuckerberg? You mean Zuckerman?
T.S.: Was it Zuckerman? Is that a Jewish name?
Roth: The character was Jewish, yes.
T.S.: OK, another Jewish guy. Now, I'm not pretending like I've read every book you've ever read, but I'm wondering now what the deal is with all these Jewish guys you write about! Are these guys all actually you? If so, what's your wife think about some of the wild stuff you did with Drenka and some of these other babes? I mean she's got to look at you a little differently after reading some of that stuff. I'm talking here about the backdoor business, the lesbian menage trois -- good stuff, but I think someone forgot to tell you the best literary porn leaves a little bit to the imagination, Phil.
Roth: I'll remember that.
T.S.: OK, great. Listen, I got to run, man, but thanks for stopping by. Where to next? Some kind of Jewish ritual or something?
Roth: I'm off to bang this one chick every which way possible, during which I'll have a detailed discussion about my length and breadth, the texture of her you-know-what and it will all be narrated by a Yiddish-sounding guy who will be matter of fact but also somehow pissed off at the entire world, particularly women and gentiles or maybe some Puerto Ricans. Then I'll piss on somebody's grave. I'll drive some weak-willed child to despicable acts. Throughout, I'll burrow deep into my own psyche, my own torment, the twisted, menacing core of my sensibilities, and revel in them and explore them in excruciating detail without reaching a meaningful conclusion. Afterward, inexplicably, I'll enjoy some gentleman's time in the shower, arguing, as it were, with Henry Longfellow, cuddling the kielbasa, baby.
T.S.: OK, great. Thanks Phil.
Roth: Thank you.

New study raises the hopes of men threatened with lima-bean-shaped prostates

A new study out from a nonpartisan think tank finds that men who drink three gallons of black coffee a day are 15 percent less likely to come down with a condition that causes their prostates to become asymmetrical.
Asymmetry in prostates have been a concern for men for many years. Asymmetry in the prostatal zone of a man's biological mainframe has been linked with frequent and sometimes painful urination. What happens is the prostate, which isn't an organ but might be a gland, which is kind of a smaller version of what we think of as a typical organ, becomes misshapen, changing from the traditional football-shaped bulb to a more kidney-shaped lima bean-like, well, mass. This new shape pushes on a guy's bladder and makes him want to piss like a racehorse.
"We're still not entirely sure what the prostate is -- organ or gland or gristle or whatever -- but we do know that it will asymmetricize over time unless a guy drinks a shitload of coffee," lead researcher Trevor Schmidt said in a brief phone interview.
"Time lapse photography of like this one guy's innards showed that prostate thingy changing from a football to a lima bean and then the guy just starts pissing. But another camera taking pictures of another guy's fleshy interior revealed no change whatsoever! Football shape from birth to death! Turns out that second guy drank three gallons of black coffee a day."
Pressed for acknowledgement that his research was just a bunch of bullshit, Schmidt said that it was true that the coffee drinking subject, code-named Jacked to the Hilt, indeed pissed way more than his lima-bean-shaped prostate counterpart, code named TeaTotaler.
"So, yeah, I guess I'm full of shit and this whole study is just a bunch of shit, too," Schmidt replied. "But if we can make heavy coffee drinkers like Jack feel better about themselves, then I think we've done our job.

Fighting for redemption

For months now I've helped myself fall asleep by trying to make up situations where people were faced with really difficult decisions, the kind of decisions that drive fictional narratives but are not cliche.

An example of a cliche would be the decision a boxer faces when he has a chance to fight for the title and a million dollar prize and the restoration of his dignity even though doctors have said there is a chance he will go blind if he fights again. Should he enter the ring?

Let's say this fighter is an honest man but earlier in his career he was wrongly accused of "throwing" a fight and is now widely regarded as a cheater. Of course, he has a wife and a child. The wife knows the truth about him -- that he didn't "throw" the fight, or else threw the fight for other honorable reasons (to help his wife's father get out of debt or something).

And the child -- probably a little boy -- also believes in his father's basic integrity, but must face the daily taunts of his classmates about how his father cheated. Poor kid. He doesn't deserve that. Especially since he is skinny, weak and has to wear those thick glasses. What that kid deserves is a hero! But a blind one? Maybe not.

To make the decision even harder, we learn that there is no guarantee the fighter will go blind. He could get in there and fight valiantly and emerge with his vision intact. But to beat this particular foe, he has to fight the kind of match that makes him vulnerable to a blinding blow. He can't win otherwise.

So what does he do? He has the love of his wife and boy, shouldn't he just walk away and be satisfied that he is a good man who did the right thing? And what if he doesn't fight? He might always be remembered as a the sap who threw a fight. Is it better to be a blind, rich, redeemed quasi-hero or a quietly honorable man, content with his own actions and conscience, who is so confident in himself that he is willing to carry around a stigma for the rest of his life? At least he will be able to see his son grow up, and let his gaze linger on his wife's beautiful smile. Ahhhhh.

You can go back to Greek philosophers to read about character and reputation. I think it was Epicticus who wrote that a man cannot always control his reputation but he can control his reaction to his reputation. There are often factors outside your control that dictate what people think of you, and Epicticus and the other Stoics believed that you needed to disregard things that were outside your control. Happiness comes from within.

Stoics did not build Hollywood, however, so naturally our fighter enters the ring, loses his eyesight halfway through the battle but still overcomes his rival to win the match and the eternal adoration of his wife and son. Miraculously, when the swelling goes down, the fighter's eyesight returns and everybody lives happily ever after.