Sam Ding
Article Analysis
On September 7, 2012, Philip Roth writes an article for the
New Yorker called “An Open Letter to Wikipedia.” Philip Roth is an American
author who has published novels from the mid-1970s to present time. In the article
to Wikipedia, he writes in a tone of disbelief and anger about his attempts at
getting certain details on Wikipedia changed about one of his nationally,bestselling
novels: The Human Stain. To do this, he explains some of the details in
his novel and what inspired the creation of these characters and events.
Roth
first tells of his interaction with Wikipedia. In summary, Roth makes a claim
that he his request for changes to be made to his novel’s Wikipedia page was
denied. He backs up this claim with a quote from the English Wikipedia
Administrator. Firstly, it is not mentioned how the communication with the
person representing Wikipedia takes place. Also, even though the evidence and
claim is logical, it is possible that Roth only took a quote since he is trying
to portray that Wikipedia completely rejected his petition. The entire
communication between them is not posted on the article. From here, he finally
tells the reader what the misunderstanding is – that his novel was inspired by
the writer Anatole Broyard.
He
states that The Human Stain was inspired by his friend Melvin Tumin.
Roth then tells of one of Tumin’s experiences as a professor at Princeton
University and how it relates to the main character in his novel. Unlike the previous
claim, he gives evidence of Tumin’s experience through four paragraphs. For
this evidence-claim relationship, it is almost certain to be true, since he
passionately backs it up with a detailed story. Even more, the story is by the
author himself!
His
next claim is that The Human Stain could not have been inspired by
Anatole Tumin. The evidence he uses to back this claim is by asking rhetorical
questions of if Tumin is related to the main character in any way. He questions
Tumin’s credentials, life experiences, and personality and compares them to the
characteristics of the main character of his novel, Coleman Silk. Furhtermore,
Roth brings up the question of how Anatole Tumin could be the inspiration of
his novel when he did not know anything about Tumin’s private life. He brings
up the issue that an author needs to be able to envision everything about
someone in order to be able to make a story about a man’s life, which is
impossible for Roth since he had no contact with Tumin for roughly 50 years.
This evidence-claim relationship is also believable; since it is unlikely a
reader coming across this article would have knowledge of Roth’s personal life.
In all,
Roth makes a rant about his experiences with Wikipedia concerning his novel The
Human Stain. Although the premise for the article lacks sufficient evidence
to make it believable, his other claims are backed up with detailed evidence.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html
I definitely can see your point. I think a matter of chosen audience is also at hand. Roth points his finger and very quickly targets Wikipedia as 'the bad guy' — a format that seems hardly conducive to actually solving the problem. (I was particularly humored by his jab, "After failing to get a change made through the usual channels, I don’t know how else to proceed." i.e. YOU'VE LEFT ME NO CHOICE)
ReplyDeleteMoving on. As this is an "open letter," it seems that he is petitioning to the people (which really, unless he has a J.K. Rowling fan base, who's gonna care?).
But he does it anyway. In this way, it seems that he goes on to (can I say) advertise for his own book. Describing the book, not the problem, in great detail. Relishing on the great originality of his own writing.
I could be a little off on that part. But I think we can both agree that Roth is very long winded, especially on subjects that don't matter as much to his argument. Three lengthy paragraphs start with "I never took a meal with Broyard," We never bothered to have a serious conversation," and "I had never been a guest in his house or he in mine." We get it. You didn't know the guy. He could very well be a fine author, but I think he could use some work on his concise and direct arguments.
This clarification probably isn't necessary, but "He" in the final sentence is supposed to say "Roth."
DeleteAdvertising his book...I think you hit the mark exactly!
ReplyDeleteNice job Sam and Lauren. I had to laugh in places, but really, it does seem crazy that the author of a novel can not get the Wikipedia entry changed for that novel. It all seems ridiculous. And Lauren, as you point out, who is really going to care? It is not as if this is scholarship that will stand the annals of time, and there is likely no scholarship on this work as of yet because most academics would consider it too new to write about. So the point is this... why is it such a big deal? Roth doth protest to much...
ReplyDeleteSusan Norman