Philip Roth sure as hell appears to be trying to make sure that he's the one who decides exactly what his legacy looks like.
First came the news that he's given his seal of approval to yet another 'official biographer' (it didn't work out with the last one ...), some guy named Blake Bailey, who's done this kind of thing before. Approved as biographer: there's a double-edged sword if ever there was one. As the ArtsBeat post by Charles McGrath has it, Philip Roth to Cooperate With New Biographer -- and, sure, any biographer wants as much access to (and 'coöperation' from ...) his subject(-matter) as possible, but how reliable can someone like Roth -- a lifelong reshaper of (mostly his own) facts-into-fiction -- possibly be expected to be ?
Now Roth has posted An Open Letter to Wikipedia at The New Yorker's Page-Turner blog, 'explaining' that
Sure, you can argue that Roth is just trying to set the record straight -- begging still the question: why now (the Broyard-mention has been included on the Wikipedia page since at least 2005 (see here, last paragraph)), as well as: to what end ?
I am amused to see that Roth had to resort to an 'open letter' to Wikipedia -- but fully agree with the Wikipedia Administrator that: "I, Roth, was not a credible source". Authors may not be the last people to trust re. their own books, but they certainly aren't very high up on the list; I'm disappointed that they have found this open letter sufficient that it has led them change the page entirely to his wishes.
(I also note that Roth did not contact Wikipedia directly but did so through an "interlocutor" -- and surely it's a safe rule of thumb that if you employ an 'interlocutor' (speak: lawyer, 'literary' agent (and guess whose Roth's is ...), etc.) to get something like this done for you you're acting like an asshole and probably have something to hide.)
Roth spins a plausible sort of story in his open letter -- but given that he's a professional story-spinner ... well, again, his is not the first person's testimony I would want to rely on, in this or any matter having to do with his fiction.
More importantly: why does anyone care -- Broyard ? Tumin ? what does it matter ? It's a novel -- and it's the novel that counts. The fiction Roth created, however he created it .....
Meanwhile, at Slate's browbeat-weblog Jonah Weiner weighs in, wondering Philip Roth Taught a Course at Bard; Did It Inspire The Human Stain ?
I look forward to the day when we can all stop wondering and focus on the book, and treat it like it should be treated: a novel, a work of fiction .....
First came the news that he's given his seal of approval to yet another 'official biographer' (it didn't work out with the last one ...), some guy named Blake Bailey, who's done this kind of thing before. Approved as biographer: there's a double-edged sword if ever there was one. As the ArtsBeat post by Charles McGrath has it, Philip Roth to Cooperate With New Biographer -- and, sure, any biographer wants as much access to (and 'coöperation' from ...) his subject(-matter) as possible, but how reliable can someone like Roth -- a lifelong reshaper of (mostly his own) facts-into-fiction -- possibly be expected to be ?
Now Roth has posted An Open Letter to Wikipedia at The New Yorker's Page-Turner blog, 'explaining' that
I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel "The Human Stain." The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip -- there is no truth in it at all.I have to wonder what possessed him -- for someone who has (apparently) shown no interest in Wikipedia pages on his work previously, not even bothering to look at them. Looks a lot like a very vigorous effort at legacy-shaping -- and surely a really bad sign for a would-be biographer ('would-be' because I'll believe it when (i.e. if) I see the book -- "The project will take him 8 to 10 years to complete, he estimated, and he plans shortly to send out a proposal to book publishers", sheesh ...).
Sure, you can argue that Roth is just trying to set the record straight -- begging still the question: why now (the Broyard-mention has been included on the Wikipedia page since at least 2005 (see here, last paragraph)), as well as: to what end ?
I am amused to see that Roth had to resort to an 'open letter' to Wikipedia -- but fully agree with the Wikipedia Administrator that: "I, Roth, was not a credible source". Authors may not be the last people to trust re. their own books, but they certainly aren't very high up on the list; I'm disappointed that they have found this open letter sufficient that it has led them change the page entirely to his wishes.
(I also note that Roth did not contact Wikipedia directly but did so through an "interlocutor" -- and surely it's a safe rule of thumb that if you employ an 'interlocutor' (speak: lawyer, 'literary' agent (and guess whose Roth's is ...), etc.) to get something like this done for you you're acting like an asshole and probably have something to hide.)
Roth spins a plausible sort of story in his open letter -- but given that he's a professional story-spinner ... well, again, his is not the first person's testimony I would want to rely on, in this or any matter having to do with his fiction.
More importantly: why does anyone care -- Broyard ? Tumin ? what does it matter ? It's a novel -- and it's the novel that counts. The fiction Roth created, however he created it .....
Meanwhile, at Slate's browbeat-weblog Jonah Weiner weighs in, wondering Philip Roth Taught a Course at Bard; Did It Inspire The Human Stain ?
I look forward to the day when we can all stop wondering and focus on the book, and treat it like it should be treated: a novel, a work of fiction .....