Customer Reviews

When She Was Good

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

even in the work of such a crafty writer as Philip Roth, that the "roundness" of a character (which we are taught to admire and comment on in our reviews) takes on an even higher dimension of reality in order to make its (her, in this case) presence felt. To put it another way: if Tricky of Roth's Our Gang is essentially flat--that is, 2-dimensional--then his Alexander Portnoy is very round (he undergoes change), and consequently more real.

In When She Was Good, we are introduced to that rare 4-dimensional character, and her name is Lucy Nelson. Besides going through changes, she absorbs momentum; a sort of manic kineticism acts on her while she acts on her immediate circle of friends and family. Because of this treatment, and some intriguing structural techniques that ought to remind the reader of Faulkner, the "same" Lucy who evokes deep sympathy eventually demands of us that we dismiss or even ridicule her, until this amazing last page...

To deal with a 4-dimensional character (Hamlet is another example of one) requires a touch of literary mysticism. We must treat the novel as a reality, a chunk of life, instead of a mere representation. Like the main characters of great films (e.g. Citizen Kane), Lucy Nelson bothers our categorization-impulse by putting her internal contradictions in high relief. And she does this without the mimetic advantages that a film possesses.

On the whole, When She Was Good is not Roth's best novel; we do not expect it to be, when we see the photo of Roth (apparently in his mid twenties) on the flap. But that youngster, who went on to stand at the peak of quality and the edge of style in American letters, delivered one of the most compelling ethical statements of our day: systems of moral duties must be constantly fine-tuned when we deal with living, breathing persons instead of hypotheses.

Roth has given us such a person in Lucy Nelson.

Matthew Wayne (scrumle@acad.udallas.edu)

There are few pleasures comparable to reading good prose. Sharply defined characters are to be expected of any writer worthy of publication; similarly, a good plot is rudimentary to decent storytelling. The fact that these nuts-and-bolts components of fiction are singled out for praise in contemporary fiction is an indication of the alarmingly sharp decline of basic literacy over the past 40 years. Good prose, on the other hand, is the result of talent. The prose of When She Was Good is a delight, and well worth enduring the novel's at times heavy-handed critique of Midwestern religiosity and morality in general.

The novel, an odd combination of satire and naturalism, follows three generations of the Nelson family, whose Scandanavian roots are apparently responsible for the ferociously puritanical streak in the work's tragic main character, young Lucy. Roth's insistence on making Lucy a symbol of "putritan America" leads to an unfortunately hyperbolic ending in what is otherwise a carefully constrained character study of an ordinary family dealing with alcoholism. Having attained the enlightenment of adolescence, Lucy decides to deal with her father's drinking harshly and unforgivingly, setting in motion a series of catastrophes that include her own forced marriage to an endearingly naive and well-intentioned young man -- by far the book's most sympathetic character -- Roy Bassart.

This is excellent story-telling, sharp and clear and vivid. Not every reader will share Roth's point of view or his characterizations, but my, what talent.

Those of us that have seen a friend or family member in a bad marital situation may want to look away when they read this book. "When She Was Good" is almost too realistic at times, which can make it uncomfortable to read. It is a sad and painful story, yet it is hard to dismiss as a bad story.

Lucy, the main character of the story, grows up in a home with an abusive alcoholic mother. Seemingly on top of the world, she becomes pregnant during her freshman year of college by Roy. Roy is a somewhat doltish man who has just returned from two years of military service. Convincing Roy to "do the right thing" and marry her seems to begin the downfall of her character. Once contemplating becoming a nun, Lucy has become a controlling wife. In a strange twist of fate, Lucy evolves into all that she loathed in her father in the respect that her own child finds her intolerable and her husband leaves her. The situation mirrors her father being run out of her mother's house.

Lucy is a deeply flawed character that readers will have difficultly liking. Lucy is initially a very moral charcter but has difficuly seeing her faults and eventual backslide. Because Roy and his family are even more vilainous, readers may have difficulty identifying with anybody in the story. Only when Lucy reaches her breaking point does the reader begin to feel sympathy. But knowing Lucy created her own problems, some readers may still have trouble feeling sorry for her.

I really have had trouble deciding if I like this book. I am a fan of many of Roth's other works, yet I find some of his books to be uncomfortably personal and intruding. This is a credit to Roth as a writer even if some readers may not like the feeling of his writing.

If Roth's novel, When She Was Good, has a moral, it concerns the dangers of self-righteousness. It reveals that a strategy of magnifying the faults of others and refusing to acknowledge our own is a greater fault, even in a category by itself. This defect, though prevalent among us humans, separates us from reality (or truth, one of the protagonist's, Lucy Nelson, favorite words). It leaves us incapable to forgive others, why can't he/she be more like me, and strangely deletes the possibility to forgive ourselves.

The idea that this is a misogynistic novel belies the above reviewer's view of women, not Roth's. If Lucy Nelson is a prototype woman, then God help us all. Clearly she is not. Rather, this character reveals a part of each of us. And remember, although Lucy is the hyperbolic version of sanctimoniousness, she is not alone. The grandfather reveals his condemning thoughts while waiting for his son-in-law's bus; Roy, Lucy's husband, rants about his ignorant professors and faults them for his own failures; etc... "This is humanity. This is you. This is me,"--seems to be the author's point. And thankfully he reminds us at the end that change and grace are possible, even if it comes via struggling, imperfect human love, and may have bitter-sweet results.

Here is a case of fiction doing what it does best--delighting with prose while shedding light on the non-fiction of our lives.

Just finished reading it... While I have doubts about the (invisible) transformation Lucy experiences at the very end of the book, this is still one of the better written tragedies of the last few decades. Lucy Nelson/Bassart is horribly, fascinatingly real, convincing on almost every page, and Roth's usual unflinching approach to the thoughts of his characters was first demonstrated here, in his third book.

There isn't much of the stylistic flare here that we see in Roth's later books, but it's well-written and compulsive reading, as Lucy is such a compelling character, in spite of the reader learning early on what ultimately became of her. As the last reviewer noted, she is an unusually vibrant, real character, and if I detect a note of mysoginism from Roth in her, it's not too difficult to forgive.

This really is an unusual book; its flaws of predictability and melodrama are overshadowed by its strengths.

This book broke my heart.
I actually cried at the end.
Lucy is so easy to identify with,I felt her pain and frustration.
What an ending!
Definitly worth a read.]
a little slow at first, but definitly worth it.

Although I've read almost all of Philip Roth's books, this is the first pre-"Portnoy" novel I've tackled. Very strange to think this book was written by the same man. Although there are occasional glimmers of what was to come in Roth's later novels, in its spare style and stark realism, "When She Was Good" feels like the work of some latter-day Sinclair Lewis or Dreiser.

Which is a problem for me, because I don't ordinarily enjoy novels of the "realist" camp. Too often, the writer sets out with an agenda or point to prove and everything--setting, plot, character--is bent to the author's whim, making the novel itself feel like a sham. To some extent, that is the case here. It seems we are to sympathize with "good", honest, duped Lucy Nelson--surrounded by a cast of miserable grotesques, she is the only one who sees through the phoniness to arrive at the truth. And indeed, there is no one (I repeat: NO ONE) in this novel, save Lucy, who is likeable (one may pity them, but it's impossible to LIKE them). Problem is--I didn't like Lucy, either. She's too psychotic to be believable, too cold to be endearing, too inconsistent to be relatable. At one point she pats herself on the back for "saving" her son's life (even though she would have aborted the child had she found a doctor willing to do so)--she plays the role of martyr, but is really nothing of the sort. Lucy is a toy in Roth's hands, easily manipulated, and she never comes across as the three-dimensional character she needs to be to carry the novel. This is less the fault of Roth's writing as it is his realist-agenda. This is novel-writing by-the-numbers and while it's good as far as realist novels go (better than Lewis, I'd say, not as good as Dreiser), it can never really be a great novel.

This may be the last realist novel ever written, in fact. The "school" seemed to have died out by the '60s, and perhaps that's why Roth sets his novel in the '40s. Still, it feels at times like a literary relic. It's a fascinating read for fans of Roth's later work; but if Roth had never gone on to become famous with "Portnoy," this book would quickly have gone out-of-print and been completely forgotten.

When I started reading this, I almost gave up on it. It seemed a little slow and fairly dull. But once I got into the book, it started to get more interesting, perhaps I just missed the subtlety at the beginning. I absoultely loved the evolution of the main charater, and how she tried to maintain control, even as things were falling apart. The irony of it was so bitter, and the ending was tragic. When I closed the book I felt emotionally drained.

The beginning of the book is very slow moving and at times confusing. It does progress into a more enjoyable read. The ending is an astounding and sad.

Lucy seems only strong when confronting her parents. The effects of her alcoholic and abusive father can be seen in her younger life and her marriage. What he suggests she does to take care of one of her problems during college only shows how an alcoholic never has the means for the important things in life but always has the means for their booze.

When I first finished When She Was Good, it didn't feel finished.

I had to spend a long time chewing over the character of Lucy and the approach that Roth took to her and her world. I felt angry that it felt like he blamed her for the destruction around her, but then it seemed like his attitude was much more complicated than blame.

When She was Good is almost an essay on the nature of morality in constrained circumstances and the cost of high standards. Roth writes his story in a very linear way. It has the plot and form of a Douglas Sirk weepie-- family melodrama in a straight-up fairly realistic style. I liked it, but it is so straight up that sometimes it feels a touch old-fashioned. In general, however, I found the form and conceit to work very well.

There are moments where the authorial presence felt too heavy-handed. The book works best with explosive material when it treads very lightly. It may really be 4.5 stars instead of 5, but it is thought-provoking enough that I find it worth giving it the benefit of the doubt.