Cynthia
Ozick, a fellow intellectual, a long time friend of Philip Roth, wrote THE
review of Blake Bailey’s biography, Philip
Roth. She says that “its nature is
that of Dostoyevskian magnitude.” I was
thinking Dickensian in its cast of characters and encyclopedic magnitude. If Bailey’s biography is definitive, Ozick’s
review of the biography is equally authoritative,
I’ve
accumulated some ten pages of notes on Roth’s remarkable life and achievements
from this biography, but to what end? I
still have that habit from college days: taking notes. But looking them over, and having read
Ozick’s review, I am tossing all that detail to simply mull about general
themes.
There
has been much controversy regarding Roth choosing Bailey to write his
biography, the general theme being one misogynist finding another. This has been fodder for the cancel culture
and to me nonsense, completely irrelevant to what Bailey has accomplished. I addressed that controversy in this entry and
although it makes reference to my Kindle edition, I successfully acquired the
original clothbound edition, which has always been my preference reading this 2
to 3 pound tome (and taking notes!) mostly in bed in the evening.
From
Bailey’s acknowledgements: “[Roth’s]
cooperation was honorable and absolute. He gave me every particle of pertinent
information, no matter how intimate, and let me make of it what I would (after
telling me, often exhaustedly, what I ought to make of it)….One lovely
sun-dappled afternoon I sat on his studio couch, listening to our greatest
living novelist empty his bladder [at a nearby bathroom], and reflected that
this is as good as it gets for an American literary biographer.” I think Roth would be pleased by the
results, even where Bailey strays from what Roth might have wanted, by the
sheer detailed shaping of his life, an ocean into which the reader is totally
immersed.
This
is as much a treatise on the art of writing, at least at the level that Roth
wrote, as it is the details of his life. His commitment to writing, except for brief
interludes, primarily because of health, was absolute. In his Connecticut home that meant from
morning to late afternoon in his separate studio, with a brief break for lunch,
usually with someone staying with him at the time, his wife, his friend, or his
current lover. Like Updike, who he
generally admired although also greatly in competition with, he could
compartmentalize his writing routine, leading to 31 novels. I wonder whether he (Updike) worked with as
much angst as did Roth. While both novelists
saw themselves as the leading writers of their generation, I see (in my mind)
Roth with his shoulder to the plow, compared to Updike seemingly effortlessly
toiling in the fields of fiction. This
is not to distract from the accomplishments of either, both capturing the
American experience in their writing from different perspectives. Yet, neither writer won the Nobel Prize;
disgraceful. This had more to do with the politics of the Prize than it did
with their work.
This
biography spoke directly to me because of place. Most of his adult life Roth lived on the
Upper West Side of NYC and in Warren CT.
As fame and fortune mounted, he would buy up adjacent apartments and
renovate his CT house to include a separate writing studio. Roth’s roots eventually ran deep in
Connecticut and the Upper West Side and I understand why, and can even feel it
having lived in both places.
He
was only nine years older than I am so the historical bookmarks of his life are
indelibly imprinted in me as well. As
Bailey writes about Roth, there is a sensory recollection of the times we
shared. Even without this personal
factor, anyone who reads this biography will be struck by its intimacy. This is more than the story of a life well
lived and of an extraordinary man, but one gets to know him like a good friend,
accepting his foibles as well as reveling in his accomplishments. It’s as if Bailey has positioned him as a protagonist
in a novel, one with whom we deeply empathize.
His
first wife, Maggie, tricked him into marriage through a fake pregnancy
test. She was a troubled woman who had
two kids. Roth was good to them. His second wife, the actress Claire Bloom,
wrote a scathing memoir, Leaving a Doll’s
House. Roth wanted a “corrective
biography.” He got that and more from
Bailey.
He
was a man who gathered friends, lovers, disciples, ex-lovers who became friends
or enemies, a man of enormous magnetism.
They, and the mind of the writer, through his alter ego fictional character
Nathan Zuckerman, were fair game in Roth’s fiction. In his copy of Kafka’s “Letter to His Father”
he noted “Family as the maker of character.
Family as the primary, shaping influence. Unending relevance of childhood.” Bailey opines, “For him it was consummately
so, and hard to say where one parent ended and the other began in the formation
of his own character.” He brought this into
his literature and into his relationships, even sometimes acting as an ersatz
grandparent to the children of ex-girlfriends
Roth
was a man of titanic intellect and he did not suffer fools. Yet he was a man of great generosity, serving
as a mentor to other writers, a teacher, a supporter of Czech dissidents, and
as a savior to friends (frequently ex lovers). It was not unusual for Roth to open up his
wallet, sometimes anonymously, to help friends, or people who helped him, with
education or even living expenses. Several
were there at the end. He sometimes expected
friends who he considered his intellectual equal to be readers of first drafts
of his writings.
His
political leanings were decidedly liberal, although sometimes libertarian. He cried when FDR died. He lampooned Richard Nixon (even being
mentioned in the Watergate tapes, Nixon saying to Haldeman: “Roth, of course,
is a Jew.”) Reagan did not escape his
political ire, “a terrifyingly powerful world leader with the soul of an
amiable, soap-opera grandmother…and with the intellectual equipment of a high
school senior in a June Allyson musical….American–style philistinism run amuck.”
He privately thought George W. Bush was
the reincarnation of “the devil.” He
didn’t live long enough to suffer and comment on the entire Trump Presidency,
but a New Yorker article quotes him
saying that Trump was “ignorant of government, of history, science, philosophy,
or, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all
decency, and wielding a vocabulary of 77 words that is better called Jerkish
than English.“ Bailey comments that he
liked to say “I’m eagerly awaiting my White House tweet.“
I’ve written before of his decision to stop writing, and his interview on that subject only scratches the surface of his thoughts on the matter.
Blake
Bailey’s work is an important achievement.
Is it biased? Perhaps, but is
admiration a biased position? Bailey
introduced me to nuances in his fiction as well as works I have still not
read. Roth was concerned about the
decline of the American novel and rightfully so. Who can ever take his place?
The
sheer size of Blake Bailey’s work, more than 800 pages with almost 90 pages of
footnotes (much of it from primary sources) and index, makes it a veritable encyclopedia
of Philip Roth. It is a labor of love
and faultless scholarship.