Uncategorized
Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on
(JTA) — Next Sunday marks the 90th anniversary of Philip Roth’s birth. In celebration of the famed novelist’s work, a scholarly conference titled “Roth@90,” sponsored by the Philip Roth Society, will be held starting Wednesday at the Newark Public Library. That will be followed by a weekend of high-profile events — staged readings, panel discussions, a bus tour of Roth’s old Newark neighborhood — co-presented by the library and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center.
Exactly 10 years ago, we commemorated his 80th birthday in a similar fashion. Dozens of Roth scholars made learned presentations about his work, of which Roth attended exactly zero. Later that week, the author read aloud from his novel “Sabbath’s Theater” in front of hundreds of fans, friends and well wishers. The proceedings were televised on C-Span.
Roth was being acclaimed for having just wound down an exemplary career. With the exception of the Nobel Prize, what garland evaded him? Was there a high-culture literary platform where his name wasn’t a virtual watermark? Could he publish any novel without hundreds of reviews being written in newspapers across the world? Was there a serious fiction writer out there with greater renown?
So much has changed in the decade between the two conferences. To begin with, Roth died in 2018. In that same span, the country witnessed the election of Donald Trump and the fissure it exposed in society in general and the Jewish community in particular. America endured one convulsive racial reckoning after another. Finally, in October of 2017, the #MeToo movement gained massive public salience.
All of those events, along with digital media’s indomitable ascent, have combined to affect and reshape Roth’s literary legacy. That legacy is far less assured than all the (justified) praise and lionizing that will occur this week might suggest.
Let’s start with Jews. The Trump era yielded two seemingly irreconcilable data points. On the one hand, Jewish-Americans endured the Charlottesville riot, the Tree of Life synagogue attack and a stunning rise in antisemitic incidents. On the other, there was staunch support for Trump among Orthodox Jews and supporters of Israel’s right wing.
Leaving that conundrum for others to parse, I simply note that Orthodox Jews and right-wing Zionists are almost completely absent in Roth’s fiction. A young Roth wrote a sensitive portrait of Holocaust survivors who want to start a suburban yeshiva in “Eli the Fanatic.” He also sketched a militant religious-nationalist Zionist in “The Counterlife,” Mordecai Lippman, who, according to Roth biographer Blake Bailey (about whom more below), was based on Elyakim Haetzni, one of the so-called founding fathers of the settlement movement. In the same novel, a version of the narrator’s brother falls under the settlement leader’s sway.
And that’s it, across a half century of writing. For traditionalist Jewish readers, whose political and social influence in the United States and Israel is substantial and growing, Roth’s fiction is not a mirror, nor a signpost, nor a scroll upon which is inscribed some essential truth.
The Jews who populated his stories, the Jews he best understood, were of Ashkenazi descent, white, liberal, assimilated and secular. His courage was to valorize them over and against other Jews who viewed them as defective, lost or even as apostates. Thus Anne Frank in “The Ghost Writer” was portrayed as a patron saint of secular Judaism. Elsewhere, his stories abound in proud, professionally accomplished diaspora Jews. They rarely think about God. Synagogue attendance is reserved strictly for lifecycle events and High Holy Days, if that.
A novelist, of course, is not a political clairvoyant. However, the immediate future of Judaism is being greatly shaped by Jews whose population and influence are growing and whom Roth rarely portrayed. In this manner, another stellar writer like Cynthia Ozick — herself Orthodox and quite attuned to the mindset of her co-religionists — might fare better commercially and emerge as more relevant than her friend in the coming decades.
Roth didn’t just write about Jews. In my book “The Philip Roth We Don’t Know: Sex, Race and Autobiography,” I pointed out that depicting non-Jewish Black people was an unrecognized “obsessional theme” across his 28 novels and 25 short stories. Much to my dismay, I found Roth’s multi-decade treatment of his African and African-American characters often to be crude, thoughtless and sometimes racist.
Familiarize yourself with the degrading portraiture we receive of Black people in “The Great American Novel” (1973), or a short story like “On the Air” (1970), and you might reconsider what Roth was after in “The Human Stain,” in which an academic who is accused of racism turns out to be an African American who had been “passing” as white and Jewish. The book, the 2001 Pen/Faulkner Award winner, is often seen as a sensitive treatment of racial issues in America, and perhaps as the author’s attempt to extend the hand of friendship to another oppressed minority.
In fact, my best guess is that, as with many Jewish writers post-1967, Roth was shaken by the deterioration of the Black-Jewish alliance. His frustrations were reflected in prose that often referenced Black communities in his hometown of Newark but showed little curiosity about their lives or sympathy for their plight.
Obviously, this type of literary rendering of African Americans — or any minority group — is disturbing and dated. Insensitive racial representation inspires calls for publishers to drop authors. They disappear from high-school or college syllabi. This bodes ominously for the afterlives of the titans of post-World War II American fiction, including John Updike, Saul Bellow Bellow and Norman Mailer, all three of whom have been accused of being racially insensitive and worse.
Roth’s marketability also seems to be sailing into a squall regarding gender. As women began demanding an accounting of sexual abuse and misogyny within the media, entertainment and other industries, numerous think-pieces wondered how the author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” — whose libidinous narrator identifies most of the women in his life by debasing nicknames — would fare in such an environment. Would he — should he — be “canceled”?
The question is more complex than his admirers and detractors make it out to be. No doubt, many of Roth’s male characters mistreated women. Accusations of Roth himself doing the same exist, but they are fairly rare, unsubstantiated and contested. The dilemma for researchers is that Roth was a deeply auto-fictional writer. You sense his presence in his stories — especially when protagonists share much of his biography, including Nathan Zuckerman and Peter Tarnopol, and when characters are named “Philip Roth.”
It’s hard not to speculate about the relation between the author and the many misogynistic fellows who cut an erotic swath through his pages. There will, of course, be readers who give him the benefit of the doubt. They might observe that Roth’s toxic males provide evidence of women’s experiences that needs to be explored, not censored.
Not helping him cleanse his reputation were the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against his hand-picked biographer, Blake Bailey. The ructions engulfing Bailey came to dominate the discourse about Roth, leading to a peculiar cancellation by proxy.
The episode also revealed that Roth had instructed his estate to eventually destroy a massive trove of personal papers he entrusted to Bailey. This led Aimee Pozorski (co-editor of Philip Roth Studies), myself and 20 other Roth scholars to issue a statement reminding his executors that “scholarship can only be advanced when qualified researchers engage freely with essential sources.”
As if all these concerns weren’t enough, his grim prophecies about the demise of an audience for serious literature seem to be coming true. “The book,” Roth worried, “can’t compete with the screen.” Meanwhile, the English major is in a very bad way, and the institution of tenure is under siege. Professors (insufferable as we might be) teach the next generation who to read and how to read. Writers might not like them, but they need them.
Roth is also getting the scrutiny that he was at pains to avoid in his lifetime. His disregard for scholars who might be critical of him always struck me, one such scholar, as misguided. Instead, he surrounded himself with friends — friends who had preternatural access to major media platforms. These friends built upon his own interpretations of his own work. It doesn’t mean they lacked wisdom. It just means that when they talked about Roth, they talked about what Roth wanted them to talk about. To wit: Jewish Newark, his sundry interpretations of his life, his pesky ex-wives and lovers, the close-mindedness of his critics, and so forth.
I think, in this cultural moment, it’s prudent to confront Roth’s limitations head on and chart one’s own path through his fiction. I pitch him to my students as a writer with some racial, religious and sexual hang-ups — who among us is innocent of those charges? I also present him as a bearer of unique and meaningful insights. Let scholars (while they still exist) parade those insights into sunlight.
I’ve tried to illuminate that his fiction was preoccupied, for 50 years, by how individual and collective bodies (like the Jews) change. Transformation, metamorphosis, metempsychosis — his obsession with those themes, I’ve noticed in my classrooms, is shared by Gen Z. If the span between Roth@80 and Roth@90 has taught us anything, it is that Roth was right: Life is about radical, unpredictable flux. Now his own legacy is in flux. I wonder who will read Roth@100.
—
The post Commemorating Philip Roth means confronting his limitations head on appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Federal Funding for Trump’s Ballroom in Jeopardy After Senate Ruling
Aerial view from the top of the Washington Monument shows construction crews as they continue site preparation for a planned White House ballroom in the area of the former East Wing in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
A US Senate official on Saturday removed security funding that could be used for President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom from a massive spending package, Democratic lawmakers said, imperiling Republican efforts to devote taxpayer money to the contentious project.
The decision by the Senate’s parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, deals a blow to Trump and his administration, which has sought the money for security purposes related to the ballroom.
Trump has said the construction of the ballroom would be funded by $400 million in private donations. But Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion in taxpayer funding to the Secret Service for security upgrades to the ballroom and other structures being built beneath it.
FRIVOLOUS DIVERSION OR NECESSARY MODERNIZATION?
Democrats have criticized the ballroom as an expensive and frivolous diversion by Trump at a time when Americans face rising costs such as higher fuel prices. Trump, a real estate developer-turned-politician, has written on social media that it will be “the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World.”
MacDonough ruled that the security funding provision falls under chamber rules that require 60 votes to pass most legislation, according to the office of Senator Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate.
The parliamentarian interprets Senate rules, including whether legislative provisions are permitted. Republican senators still could revise the legislation to try to gain the parliamentarian’s approval.
Ryan Wrasse, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, said in a social media post that Republicans would keep trying. “Redraft. Refine. Resubmit,” Wrasse wrote on X.
If Republicans do not succeed, they may be unable to include the ballroom-related funding in a $72 billion spending package they plan to bring to a vote on the Senate floor, with passage expected on a party-line vote with Democrats opposed. The bulk of the legislation is devoted to immigration enforcement.
Republicans have been invoking complex budget rules to try to secure passage without any Democratic support.
“While we expect Republicans to change this bill to appease Trump, Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill,” Merkley said in a statement.
Democrats have opposed funding for Trump’s signature immigration crackdown absent reforms they have sought since federal immigration agents killed US citizens in separate incidents in Minnesota in January.
Republicans have said federal funding for ballroom security is needed to ensure presidential safety, citing an April incident in which an alleged gunman is accused of storming a black-tie media gala in Washington that Trump attended.
The administration has said the ballroom will modernize infrastructure, bolster security and ease strain on the White House, which often relies on temporary outdoor structures to host large events. Trump has said the ballroom will be completed around September 2028, near the end of his second term in office.
Democrats, hoping to win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, are seizing on Republican support of the ballroom to portray Trump’s party as out of touch with the cost-of-living concerns of Americans at a time of rising energy costs driven by the Iran war he and Israel launched in February.
Trump last year ordered the demolition of the White House’s East Wing – constructed in 1902 during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency and expanded four decades later during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency – to make way for his ballroom.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit challenging the project, arguing that neither the president nor the National Park Service, which manages the White House grounds, possessed the authority to tear down the historic structure or erect a major new facility without explicit congressional approval.
A US appeals court in April allowed construction to continue after the judge handling the National Trust lawsuit issued an order halting the project.
Uncategorized
Bulgaria Wins Eurovision Song Contest, Israel Comes Second Again
Noam Bettan, representing Israel, performs “Michelle” during the Grand Final of the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna, Austria, May 16, 2026. REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Bulgaria won the Eurovision Song Contest for the first time on Saturday in a final overshadowed by five countries’ boycott over Gaza, claiming a dramatic victory despite another big public vote for Israel that again secured it second place.
The garish and usually good-natured competition involving pop acts from countries across Europe and beyond, now in its 70th year, was plunged into crisis by a dispute over Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, a response to the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023.
The public broadcasters of heavyweights Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland, as well as Iceland and Slovenia, chose not to take part in protest at Israel’s participation.
Israel has alleged a global smear campaign against it. Its performance at the final was not, however, marred by any obvious protests, unlike Tuesday’s semi-final.
“This is unbelievable. I don’t even know what’s going on right now,” Bulgaria’s entrant Dara told a press conference after winning with her thumping, crowd-pleasing dance track “Bangaranga” that avoided politics altogether.
The song touches on themes of empowerment and surrendering to the night. It also left many puzzled as to its meaning.
“Bangaranga is a feeling that everybody gets in themselves. It’s the moment that you choose to be in love and not fear,” Dara said when asked to explain the song in the “green room” where artists await the results.
“This is a special energy… Once you feel (at) one with nature and your universe, you feel the harmony that you can be whatever you want to be and that everything is possible,” she said.
BOOS WERE HEARD AT ISRAEL’S RESULT
Israel’s effort, trilingual love song “Michelle,” stirred less controversy than its entry last year, which was sung by a survivor of the October 7 attack.
Some booing from the audience was audible when Israel’s massive points haul from the public vote sent it surging up the table from eighth place, similarly to 2025, when it also finished second but much closer to the winner than this year.
Israeli public broadcaster KAN received a formal warning from organizers a week ago over videos posted online in which Bettan courted votes too aggressively, after a similar controversy involving Israel last year.
KAN said it plays by the rules and the videos were immediately taken down.
Finland’s entry, “Liekinheitin,” or Flamethrower, a love song in Finnish featuring violinist Linda Lampenius and pop singer Pete Parkkonen on a burning set, was the favorite this year, followed by Australia’s “Eclipse,” a celestially themed love ballad sung by national pop star Delta Goodrem.
In the end, Australia came fourth and Finland sixth.
ONLY MINOR PROTESTS IN VIENNA
The boycotts cut the number of contest entries to 35, the fewest since 2003, which will almost certainly have reduced the global television viewership of an event that last year was estimated at 166 million people, more than the Super Bowl’s 128 million.
The mood in the Austrian capital has been subdued, with protests over Israel’s participation drawing only small crowds. Police anticipated “blockades and disruption attempts” on Saturday that did not materialize.
There was a brief disruption during Tuesday’s semi-final, when one protester chanted “Stop, stop the genocide” and “Free, free Palestine” within range of a television microphone and was ejected along with three others for disrupting the show.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Economy Shrinks in First Quarter but Seen Rebounding After Iran War
People sit at an outdoor restaurant where Israeli flags are displayed, amid the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 12, 2024. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez
Israel’s economy began 2026 with a slowdown, hit by war with Iran, but growth is expected to recover as long as the conflict does not reignite.
Gross domestic product contracted at an annualized rate of 3.3 percent in the first three months of 2026, the Central Bureau of Statistics said on Sunday, less severe than a 4 percent drop forecast in a Reuters poll of economists.
Israel’s economy grew 2.9 percent in 2025 and was expected to bounce back in 2026 to more than 5 percent growth after a ceasefire in October ended major fighting in the two-year Gaza war.
But growth took a hit after the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran on February 28, resulting in weeks of ballistic missile fire from Iran that closed schools and dampened business activity along with consumer spending.
“The Israeli economy began the year with strong momentum, with rapid growth in the first two months,” said Ofer Klein, head of economics and research at Harel Insurance and Finance.
“The lifting of most restrictions in April and the improvement in economic activity since then… indicate a relatively quick return to positive growth in the current quarter,” said Klein, who raised his growth estimate for this year to 3.5 percent from 3.2 percent.
The Bank of Israel sees 3.8 percent growth this year, down from a 5.2 percent estimate before the Iran war, depending on whether a ceasefire with Iran holds.
Jonathan Katz, chief economist at Leader Capital Markets, said he expected 4 percent growth.
“This is a modest GDP contraction compared to the second quarter of 2025 – the last Iran confrontation in June of 2025 – when GDP contracted by over 10 percent,” he said, adding that industrial exports bounced back in April.
The statistics bureau reported on Friday that the annual inflation rate held steady at 1.9 percent in April. Some economists believe interest rate reductions could resume as early as May 25, the Bank of Israel’s next rate decision meeting.
Israeli financial markets do not trade on Sunday. The shekel has appreciated 20 percent in the past year to 2.91 per dollar, a 33-year high. Tel Aviv share indices are close to all-time highs reached earlier in May.
In the first quarter, consumer spending fell 4.7 percent, exports declined 3.7 percent and government spending shed 4.8 percent. Investment in fixed assets rose 12.6 percent.
On a per capita basis, the economy shrank 4.5 percent in the quarter.