Phillip Roth

Coetzee's review of Phillip Roth's "Nemesis" ,in the latest New York Review of Books,is a tour de force in the craft of reviewing. But it is also puzzling. The brief opening paragraphs set the stage with an arresting account of the paradoxical mechanics of a disease ,central to the plot,that became lethal only after health authorities learned to manage it and continues with an equally arresting account of the disastrous social consequences of its spread .(He notes later in the review that Roth is especially good at description and perhaps wants to take up the challenge of matching him) He then gives an admirable account the plot so vivid and detailed that (with apologies) he reveals one of its secret twists. Finally,showing that the work belongs in the big leagues of literature he discusses it in the context of two very great works of literature very convincing comparison with Camus' "The Plague" and "Oedipus Rex. Breathtaking.
He ends ,however with the judgment that this is a minor novel in Roth's ouevre.
I want to look up one of his reviews of what he takes to be a major novel.
I wouldn't mind someone comparing one of my essays on Russell with one by Montaigne and then declaring it one of minor works