During a
visit to former Czechoslovakia, professor of literature David Kepesh, while
sitting at a café table and flirting with prostitutes (and likely KGB
informants), is writing the opening lecture of his next semester’s literature
course. The theme of the lecture is to trace his own ‘erotic history’ and to
disabuse his students of the notion that’s been impinged upon them that
literature is not self-referential. He never finishes the lecture in the novel
and it’s the reader’s guess if he delivers it or not. At this point in the book
Kepesh is so unhinged (in a dream he meets Franz Kafka’s prostitute, still
alive and considered a national treasure) after a lifetime of depression,
sexual disenchantment and an acute talent for failing at happiness, that his behaviour
is unpredictable. But the reader does not need the finished text of the lecture
since the The Professor of Desire
itself is a chronicle of his sexual misadventures from high school to middle
age and beyond (even Kafka’s prostitute disappoints him).
The title
of the novel is ironic: Kepesh is not
an expert on desire. In fact most of his sexual history constitutes a negation
of his much-craved abilities to seduce women and to live out his unusual
fantasies outside the margins of conventionality. Kepesh is a hard-working,
well-behaved son who disappoints his Jewish parents when instead of opting to
become a dentist, a lawyer or something useful that earns lots of money, or at
least something respectable like a Rabbi, he enrols in a literature course and
ends up as a literature professor.
From an
early age Kepesh displays admiration for rebels and pariahs, owning to his
strict upbringing, and when he gets to college he tries to live up to his
models of debauchery. He lives according to two dicta, one attributed to Lord
Byron – “Studious by day, dissolute by night” – and another to Thomas Macaulay:
“A rake among scholars, a scholar among rakes.” Kepesh fancies himself a
liberated mind, a suave, sophisticated sensualist, and he yearns to take lots
of coeds to bed. In spite of a terrible reputation he earns for himself as a
womanizer and seducer, that makes him look like he’s “reduced a hundred coeds
to whoredom,” he has very little to brag about during his years in college
regarding his sexual victories. Most female students, knowing his reputation,
ignore him, and Kepesh also has a difficult time making any progress due to the
1950s strict sexual morality.
The only
person he gets along with is Jelinek, a morose, anti-social outsider who
doesn’t give a damn about conventions:
Why can’t I be more of a Jelinek, reeking of
fried onions and looking down on the entire world? Behold the refuse bin
wherein he dwells! Crusts and cores and peelings and wrappings – the perfect
mess! Just look upon the clotted Kleenex beside his ravaged bed, Kleenex clinging to his tattered carpet
slippers. Only seconds after orgasm, and even in the privacy of my locked room,
I automatically toss into a waste-basket the telltale evidence of self-abuse,
whereas Jelinek – eccentric, contemptuous, unaffiliated, and unassailable
Jelinek – seems not to care at all what the world knows or thinks of his
copious ejaculations.
Thanks to a
Fulbright Scholarship he travels to London, where, away from his family and
relatively free, he truly starts his sexual life, first by paying for sex with
prostitutes and next when he meets two Swedish students - Birgitta and
Elizabeth – who show receptive to the idea of living in a ménage à trois with
him. Birgitta, his soul mate, reciprocates his fascination with unusual sex and
helps push his limits as much as he helps push hers. Their relationship takes a
tragic turn when Elizabeth tries to kill herself because she wants a normal
relationship and can no longer take Kepesh pressing her to reveal her deepest
(and it turns out masochistic) sexual fantasies. Alone with Birgitta the two
explore the limits of their seediest fantasies – bondage, rape roleplay, public
sex – and they seem like the perfect couple for a while, until Kepesh has to
return to California to pursue his studies and is afraid of taking Birgitta wit
him, making her see him as the scared, inexperienced boy he was pretending not
to be. This part of the novel, incidentally, reminds me of a movie by Roman
Polanski called Bitter Moon, based on
a novel by Pascal Bruckner I’ve never read, about an American novelist who
initiates an intense sexual relationship with a French woman that slowly
escalates into stranger and stranger fantasies until they burn themselves out
and start hating each other. I fear this could have been Kepesh if he hadn’t
abandoned Birgitta. Even Kepesh acknowledges that the path he was taking with
Birgitta could eventually have damaged him:
Following the year with Birgitta, I have come
to realize that in order to achieve anything lasting, I am going to have to
restrain a side of myself strongly susceptible to the most bewildering and
debilitating sort of temptations, temptations that as long ago as that night
outside Rouen I already recognized as inimical to my overall interests.
This of
course takes us back to the David Kepesh of The Breast, who also has
to learn to overcome his oversensitive libido in order to retain a sense of
normalcy after he’s turned into a gigantic breast. After returning to the USA
Kepesh never again finds the wonder and excitement of his early years. He
marries a man called Helen and they have a horrible marriage and even more
emotionally crippling divorce; he suffers bouts of depression and undergoes
therapy; finally he meets a woman called Claire and tries to lead a normal life
with her, all the while lamenting the loss of Birgitta, his ‘lewd, lost soul
mate’, the only woman who ever matched his instinct for depravity and lust, and
feeling nostalgic about the college period when he was a ‘sexual prodigy.’
The Professor of Desire came out in 1977 and I see it as a
Roth commenting on the radical changes in sexuality from the ‘50s to the ‘70s
in American society. At the same time I think the novel ponders the fundamental
question of life: what is happiness? And is it attainable? Does more freedom
lead to it? Kepesh is far more sexually liberated than his parents and yet he
is far more displaced in the world than them. His pursuit of pleasure results
in him becoming unable to form attachments with other people, and Kepesh is
melancholy aware of this. Is happiness about being selfish or serving others?
Kepesh looks up to his parents for having lived meaningful, ordered lives and
feels ashamed when he can’t make them happy by having lived they can be proud
of – divorced, living alone, an emotional wreck, without kids. Kepesh goes a
long way out of ordinary life only to realize that’s what he missed all along.
And yet he doesn’t believe he can ever find happiness in normalcy.
Although
Roth has written extensively about sex, this novel is his darkest look at the
way it can serve to dehumanize and traumatize people. The novel’s content and
language have become far less shocking since the seventies, and nowadays it’s even
hip for moms to read BDSM novels, but the novel continues interesting in the
way it treats sex not as entertainment but as a source of obsession,
consequences and insecurity, not as a physical act shared between two lovers
but as a spiritual wound that hurts more inside the head than on the body and that
is fraught many things save pleasure. Roth is far from being a puritan, he who
contended with conventionality and scandal most of his career, but even the
author of Portnoy’s Complaint realizes
sex has several faces, and this one is the least seen.

You are really on a Philip Roth Kick Miguel!
ReplyDeleteGood point about Roth being sexually open in his writings yet writing about the dark side of it here. To me critiques from such "experienced" sources are more credible.
Brian, I'm just going to write about The Dying Animal to finish the trilogy and then I'm going to take a break from Roth, much as I love his work.
DeleteI really enjoyed this, read it twice. I read Roth in 2008 and still remember that year very fondly. The year of Roth. What's your next Roth read?
ReplyDeleteBy "this," I meant your post!
ReplyDeleteInterpolations, I'm going to write about The Dying Animal this weekend, if I have the time.
DeleteAfter that, well, I'll take a break; since I'm on a self-imposed non-book-buying discipline, I won't be reading more Roth until the second half of 2013.