So, W.W. Norton pulled the Blake Bailey biography of Philip Roth because Bailey stands accused of sexual misconduct. I understand the impetus, but it raises some questions for me: Have the people at Norton never read Philip Roth? Do they know nothing of Roth’s personal life outside the manuscript of the biography?
I’m not a big fan of literary biography in the first place, and I have no idea if Bailey’s book is any good. I do happen to like many of Roth’s novels, however. Part of the reason I like Roth’s novels is that he was willing to speak quite frankly — and with a sharp and controversial wit — about sexual matters. His male characters tend to be quite dubious, shall we say, when it comes to upholding norms of sexual propriety. It’s kind of oxygen of the Rothian atmosphere. I won;t belabor any point here that people like Francine Prose have made far more articulately. I will say, however, that being a (potential) felon does seem to end all your possibilities.
Sadly…