'The Counterlife' doesn't really 'fit in' to the Roth canon in the same way that a lot of his books do, which is probably one of the reasons it ranks among his best. But let's try...
"Kicking off with a slice of doomed sexual adventure that recalls the abrupt, majestic realism of 'The Human Stain', the novel ends up nearer the manic playful energy of 'Operation Shylock', with a dollop of the character-study astuteness of 'Sabbath's Theatre' thrown in. Oh, and don't forget the cunningness of 'Deception'.
It's odd- as dense as it undoubtedly is, it can also serve as a good all-round introduction to Roth's work."
Confused? I'll try a less referential approach:
"The real genius of 'The Counterlife' lies in its subversive rendering of fiction as biography. 'Operation Shylock', a later novel, takes the idea of the double and takes it to the limit of comic absurdity, whereas 'The Counterlife' multiplies itself indefinately, ending up as an anarchic mess that refuses to be pinned down, that refuses to 'tell it straight'. Yet, somehow, it holds together. It works.
However, this is not a novel for those seeking a linear plot line with stable character and tidy storylines. This is a frustrating novel, a maddening novel. A novel that demands you take it seriously- then laughs at you for doing so. Which isn't to say its without pathos, or richly-drawn characters, or that it simply careers from extreme to extreme. Its playfulness is the consequence of its sense of frustration at the insufficiency of a simple, linear series of events. And the novel's wariness of 'truth' masks a structure as clinical and precise as the operation that becomes its core event."
Both of my attempts may sound like so much literary waffle, but there's no easy way to describe this novel- nothing stable enough to fix praise on. But surely there can be no higher recommendation than being as lost for words as the book itself is lost in them?
Whatever- it's amazing, read it.