hits counter Philip Roth: The Biography - Ebook PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

Philip Roth: The Biography

Availability: Ready to download

The renowned biographer’s definitive portrait of a literary titan. Appointed by Philip Roth and granted independence and complete access, Blake Bailey spent years poring over Roth’s personal archive, interviewing his friends, lovers, and colleagues, and engaging Roth himself in breathtakingly candid conversations. The result is an indelible portrait of an American master an The renowned biographer’s definitive portrait of a literary titan. Appointed by Philip Roth and granted independence and complete access, Blake Bailey spent years poring over Roth’s personal archive, interviewing his friends, lovers, and colleagues, and engaging Roth himself in breathtakingly candid conversations. The result is an indelible portrait of an American master and of the postwar literary scene. Bailey shows how Roth emerged from a lower-middle-class Jewish milieu to achieve the heights of literary fame, how his career was nearly derailed by his catastrophic first marriage, and how he championed the work of dissident novelists behind the Iron Curtain. Bailey examines Roth’s rivalrous friendships with Saul Bellow, John Updike, and William Styron, and reveals the truths of his florid love life, culminating in his almost-twenty-year relationship with actress Claire Bloom, who pilloried Roth in her 1996 memoir, Leaving a Doll's House. Tracing Roth’s path from realism to farce to metafiction to the tragic masterpieces of the American Trilogy, Bailey explores Roth’s engagement with nearly every aspect of postwar American culture.


Compare

The renowned biographer’s definitive portrait of a literary titan. Appointed by Philip Roth and granted independence and complete access, Blake Bailey spent years poring over Roth’s personal archive, interviewing his friends, lovers, and colleagues, and engaging Roth himself in breathtakingly candid conversations. The result is an indelible portrait of an American master an The renowned biographer’s definitive portrait of a literary titan. Appointed by Philip Roth and granted independence and complete access, Blake Bailey spent years poring over Roth’s personal archive, interviewing his friends, lovers, and colleagues, and engaging Roth himself in breathtakingly candid conversations. The result is an indelible portrait of an American master and of the postwar literary scene. Bailey shows how Roth emerged from a lower-middle-class Jewish milieu to achieve the heights of literary fame, how his career was nearly derailed by his catastrophic first marriage, and how he championed the work of dissident novelists behind the Iron Curtain. Bailey examines Roth’s rivalrous friendships with Saul Bellow, John Updike, and William Styron, and reveals the truths of his florid love life, culminating in his almost-twenty-year relationship with actress Claire Bloom, who pilloried Roth in her 1996 memoir, Leaving a Doll's House. Tracing Roth’s path from realism to farce to metafiction to the tragic masterpieces of the American Trilogy, Bailey explores Roth’s engagement with nearly every aspect of postwar American culture.

30 review for Philip Roth: The Biography

  1. 5 out of 5

    Elyse Walters

    Given the recent news about the sexual allegations against Biographer Blake Bailey.... I’ve chosen not to review this book.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Matt

    At the end of a long and acclaimed career, Philip Roth instructed his biographer that “I don’t want you to rehabilitate me, just make me interesting.” Bailey’s account of Roth’s life is thoroughly and intimately detailed—if you want to know who Roth was reading, where he was living, or who he was sleeping with at various points, then this book will tell you. But does that in itself make him interesting? Biography doesn’t necessarily have to psychoanalyze its subject to be worthwhile. And there At the end of a long and acclaimed career, Philip Roth instructed his biographer that “I don’t want you to rehabilitate me, just make me interesting.” Bailey’s account of Roth’s life is thoroughly and intimately detailed—if you want to know who Roth was reading, where he was living, or who he was sleeping with at various points, then this book will tell you. But does that in itself make him interesting? Biography doesn’t necessarily have to psychoanalyze its subject to be worthwhile. And there are serious drawbacks to assuming, as some postmodern critics do, that the life story of the actual human beings who create works of art are utterly irrelevant. Living people write books, and they’re not only stenographers or social constructs. It can be very rewarding to explore the reasons why an artist is drawn to certain subjects, themes, or characters. Bailey’s just-the-facts approach to Roth’s life limits our ability to explore what really made Roth tick as a writer, which is disappointing. Bailey’s scrupulously researched information merely hints at Roth’s deeper motivations and avoids taking the reader very far into Roth’s inner life. Roth was by no means the only 20th Century novelist who deliberately and pretty openly drew from his personal life for his fiction, but in many ways his life story can be found exactly where Roth engaged with it the most productively, in his writing. At one point in The Counterlife, his acclaimed 1986 novel, Roth’s alter ego Nathan Zuckerman muses that “what people envy in the novelist aren’t the things that the novelists think are so enviable but the performing selves that the author indulges, the slipping irresponsibility in and out of his skin...what’s envied is the gift for theatrical self-transformation, the way they are able to loosen and make ambiguous their connection to a real life through the imposition of talent.” Roth consistently followed this advice, writing dozens of books, many of which were rooted in his fairly ordinary life growing up in Jewish family in 50’s era middle-class Newark. It was appropriate that the house he grew up in eventually received a commemorative plaque, even if Roth warily hoped that he’d win the Nobel Prize every year. Roth had an impressive and inspiring capacity for work, which is not always an easy thing for writers to do, especially when an old Army injury gave him relentless back pain that was exacerbated by spending years at the desk. He sometimes chided himself when he sat down every morning, remembering that his competition had already been at it for a couple of hours. Outside of the writing room, Roth was less disciplined. We read of some tempestuous affairs, including some very ill-advised marriages—deciding to marry because of a faked pregnancy doesn’t auger well-- but generally it seems like Roth was more focused on getting his work done than conspicuously making the scene, a la Mailer or Capote. Bailey shows that Roth was always acutely aware of the critical responses to his work and was sometimes rather petty about it. However much he tried to stay above the fray, he constantly worried over how his books were going to be received. It’s an understandable anxiety—Roth started writing at a time when novelists were more culturally central, and the reading public was larger, so critical reputations were everything. After winning the National Book Award for Goodbye Columbus in 1959 at 27, Roth didn’t play it safe or rest on his laurels. He consistently took moral and aesthetic risks with his art, and that kept him relevant. Flaubert argued that an artist must be orderly and mild-mannered in life in order to be violent and original in their work. In some ways, Roth’s extensive romantic life, which included a nightcap with Jackie Kennedy and a fling with Ava Gardner, is an example of a time when writers (generally, it should be said, straight white males) had real social cachet. Publishing Portnoy’s Complaint, especially during the tumultuous year of 1969, made him a household name, in part because of the exasperated way its titular hero obsessed over the forbidden fruit of the blond, All-American shiksas, and ranted and wanked his way through a guilt-ridden, self-conscious, hyperverbal monologue reminiscent of a standup routine by Lenny Bruce or Richard Lewis. It takes a fearless comic sense for a character proclaim: “I am the Raskolnikov of jerking off!” It wasn’t the first or last time that one of Roth’s characters caused a stir-- some of Roth’s literary peers were outraged at Portnoy’s pyrotechnics, and one creepily wondered aloud about “what is being done about this man?” The public lined up to buy the notorious new novel and it made Roth rich and infamous. He tired quickly of people shouting “Portnoy!” at him when he walked down the street. Jaqueline Susanne, not exactly a doyen of highbrow prose herself, once wittily remarked that Roth was probably a great writer, but if she met him she wouldn’t want to shake his hand. Bailey reveals that Roth never let a chance for a good feud go to waste and Zukerman rants in The Anatomy Lesson about the controversy swirling around his novel Carnovsky, which is obviously a chance for Roth to settle some scores, fictionally speaking, about whose hand is really worth shaking. For me, Portnoy and the so-called “American trilogy” of the ‘90s is Roth’s most lasting work. Even if Bailey can indicate who the real people were behind the characters in I Married A Communist, American Pastoral, and The Human Stain it doesn’t necessarily explain what makes those books important. The art outperforms the real-life inspirations. Each book in the trilogy provides a nuanced exploration of the different social, political, and psychological currents that defined the second half of the 20th Century. Roth digs as far into what one character calls “the real American crazy shit” as any of his peers. Race, sex, American identity, Jewish identity, the Red Scare, the rise of Political Correctness are all addressed with the vividness of place, comic sense of irony, and keen eye for character that is the novelists’ forte. It’s what fiction can do better than other forms of art. Swede Levov, the hero of his High School for his athletic prowess and a paragon of all-American decency gets blindsided by the radicalization of his daughter Merry. Coleman Silk makes an offhand comment while teaching a class and reaps the whirlwind of censorious PC culture. Ira “Iron Rinn” Ringold loses his public credibility after being outed for a closet Red by his vengeful wife, who had some overlaps with Claire Bloom, who wrote an angry account of her unhappy marriage to Roth. Bailey clarifies in some cases where real life ended and fiction began-- Roth’s doting mother was nothing like Portnoy’s outrageously overbearing mom, for one example, and the sordid desires of Mickey Sabbath in Sabbath’s Theater weren’t Roth’s. There is a telling moment when Roth takes his typewriter to get fixed and discovers that the key most worn down was the letter “I.” This doesn’t necessarily peg Roth as a neurotically self-centered freak, even if plenty of his most interesting characters certainly were. Given how many characters and situations Roth produced, reading his autobiography doesn’t attempt to answer the intriguing question of what the constant use of that pronoun really meant to him. Was he slipping in and out of his real skin in order to get to something true about himself through his characters or were Portnoy, Mickey Sabbath, The Swede, Iron Rinn, and all the others autonomous products of his fertile imagination? For an interested reader, which is precisely who this kind of biography is intended for, the questions naturally arise: did Roth see any or all of himself in these manic, often transgressive characters? How does that change the way we read them? These questions aren’t fully or memorably addressed in Bailey’s voluminous account of Roth’s actual life, which is a weakness in such an authoritative treatment of a major American writer. In terms of the request Roth made of him, Bailey might have failed. The Philip Roth that is presented in Bailey’s account isn’t quite as interesting as the “Philip Roth” that often appears in the books he wrote, whether he was self-consciously presenting himself as “Philip Roth” or not. But then again, maybe the book unintentionally does fulfill that wish, by leading us back to the writing for answers. Which, for Roth, always seemed to be what mattered most.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Mary Kearney

    I was saddened and angered when Norton decided not to promote this fine work of non fiction. Due to some claims that Mr. Bailey was sexually inappropriate with two women from his past, his work is now "verboten". I am an extreme liberal but the idea of "cancelling" a person's work due to their past misdeeds would eliminate a great deal of literature from any canon of fiction or non fiction. Bailey presents Roth as a whole, a gestalt, a HUMAN who has faults and generosities. He was a man of his t I was saddened and angered when Norton decided not to promote this fine work of non fiction. Due to some claims that Mr. Bailey was sexually inappropriate with two women from his past, his work is now "verboten". I am an extreme liberal but the idea of "cancelling" a person's work due to their past misdeeds would eliminate a great deal of literature from any canon of fiction or non fiction. Bailey presents Roth as a whole, a gestalt, a HUMAN who has faults and generosities. He was a man of his times and a person who is often very unlikeable but who was a literary genius. If you are reading for salacious content, you will be disappointed. If you are reading to gain insights into the person and into his work you will be gratified. Bailey has been criticized for being too condoning of Roth and his exploits with women. He addresses that near the end and refers to all the women authors, lovers, friends, and critics who say otherwise. This is a fine piece of work and I hope it wins the Pulitzer for biography --all ALLEGATIONS aside. Read it for what it is: a biography of a flawed human (who amongst us is not?). Read it for what it is: an excellent biography of a literary giant.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Stewart Mason

    Earlier this week, WW Norton announced that they were ceasing promotion for and canceling a second printing of Philip Roth’s official biography because his biographer, Blake Bailey, has been credibly accused of rape by two different women, among other accusations. This is so completely on the nose that it feels like something that would have happened in one of Roth’s novels. I knew when I first got the ARC last month that this was going to be at least a challenging read for me: I’ve read all of Earlier this week, WW Norton announced that they were ceasing promotion for and canceling a second printing of Philip Roth’s official biography because his biographer, Blake Bailey, has been credibly accused of rape by two different women, among other accusations. This is so completely on the nose that it feels like something that would have happened in one of Roth’s novels. I knew when I first got the ARC last month that this was going to be at least a challenging read for me: I’ve read all of Roth’s novels through 1986’s The Counterlife, and a smattering of those that followed, and I’ve always been annoyed by even the books of his I’ve liked (and the one that I genuinely loved, The Ghost Writer) because of his treatment of women. Misogyny is not the correct term for it, quite. It’s more specifically a matter of how sex is treated in his books: as something men do to women rather than with women. And based on this biography, that’s how Roth thought of sex in his own life. Constantly. Honestly, this is primarily a book about Philip Roth’s dick. That becomes most disturbingly clear in a passage in the book’s endnotes, where Bailey reminisces about spending a week interviewing Roth at his country place in Warren, Connecticut, and how during their breaks, he could hear Roth peeing in the bathroom adjoining his office. (My question isn’t even so much about why he wrote about that as why didn’t an editor remove it later?) Bailey also spends a good chapter and a half shit-talking a guy named Ross Miller who Roth had appointed as his biographer prior to Bailey getting the gig, which just gives a further sense that this guy is a schmuck. From his wartime youth in Newark to his final days as one of the most honored novelists in American literature, Bailey’s focus is so completely on the complications of Roth’s sex life -- it doesn’t even seem correct to call it his romantic life, because romance doesn’t seem to have been much of a thing Roth thought about beyond a hackneyed set of lines and moves (he seems to have been big on the extravagant gifts and occasional stipends) to get his targets into the sack -- that it’s impossible to think of this as a literary biography, despite its bookstop length and copious notes. Entire books are disposed of in a couple paragraphs, and almost all of the others are discussed solely through the lens of who Roth was fucking during the writing period. The most infuriating part -- even before the revelation of Bailey’s alleged grooming of his female pupils when he was a middle school teacher -- is Bailey’s casual, boys will be boys treatment of Roth’s habit of sleeping with his undergrads during his times as a college professor, including intimations that other professors and even administrators would basically send girls they thought he’d like into his classes. By far the most disturbing is the interminable section covering Roth’s first marriage, which a New Yorker essay this week accurately described at feeling like Bailey had a personal vendetta against Roth’s wife. (When I was reading this section, I actually did a little online research of my own to see if she really was as horrible as described. Apparently, she pretty much was.) Only slightly less painful is the couple hundred pages devoted to Roth’s second wife, British actress Claire Bloom, whom Bailey is equally compelled to portray as a flighty emotional wreck with an unhealthy fixation on her daughter, opera singer Anna Steiger, who is portrayed as a sullen and manipulative teen even into her 30s. Bailey repeatedly returns to a clumsy pass Roth makes toward a teenage friend of Anna’s, a leitmotif for the MeToo era that now has a distinct consciousness-of-guilt vibe. Philip Roth was an interesting-but-irritating writer who comes across quite poorly in what may end up being his only detailed biography. The fact that it’s now hard to see if that’s because Roth really was an obsessive coozehound or it we’re seeing that through the eyes of his alleged-rapist biographer is just another metafictional bit of fuckery of the kind he was so fond of.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Matthew Wilder

    An apology, please! Is not some form of correction in order? Having demolished Philly’s chances at a trip to Stockholm with her memoir LEAVING A DOLL’S HOUSE, Claire Bloom went on British TV at the moment of Phil’s death to grieve, to talk about the good times. The good times? But what about her claims, on the book’s release, that she often gasps and starts imagining Roth were about, “as if waking from a nightmare”? Some shrinky reader might be forgiven for wondering, if he read Bailey’s knockout An apology, please! Is not some form of correction in order? Having demolished Philly’s chances at a trip to Stockholm with her memoir LEAVING A DOLL’S HOUSE, Claire Bloom went on British TV at the moment of Phil’s death to grieve, to talk about the good times. The good times? But what about her claims, on the book’s release, that she often gasps and starts imagining Roth were about, “as if waking from a nightmare”? Some shrinky reader might be forgiven for wondering, if he read Bailey’s knockout bio and Woody Allen’s memoir APROPOS OF NOTHING back to back, why both master artists in the 1980s headed for meshugginah shikses who tore their lives apart? (And let’s not forget Philly’s late-in-the-day, post-Soon-Yi-pocalypse “friendship” with Mia Farrow, who photographed herself with the novelistic eminence and plastered the shot on Twitter, captioned “Watching SHARKNADO.”) A million glittering details here—like Phil’s stray thought that Al Pacino’s film of THE HUMBLING might empower Phil to sock it to Greta Gerwig. Or Hillary Clinton’s response to Phil’s offer to help Chelsea with her paper on AMERICAN PASTORAL: “She doesn’t need your help.” Bailey clearly sought to make of Roth’s life, yes, you bet, a Roth novel, pungent, vivid, but finally seeking, shining a flashlight into the mystery inside us. In Roth’s case, it’s an addiction to finding broken-wing women, and being as victimized as enraged by them. It feels so unfortunate that both Phil and Woody impaled themselves on such unexceptional actresses. What if they had lost it all for Glenda Jackson and Judy Davis?

  6. 5 out of 5

    Sean

    **NB: I haven't finished the book yet. This is not a review. This is a reckoning with Roth, Bailey, and a divided fan-dom. While Philip Roth is one of my favourite writers, I'm well aware that his real-life treatment and occasional fictional depictions of women make him very problematic to 21st-century thinking. That difficulty would have been enough to wrestle with--does his unfiltered and unapologetic phallocentric viewpoint really need to be considered at a time when we (i.e. straight white ma **NB: I haven't finished the book yet. This is not a review. This is a reckoning with Roth, Bailey, and a divided fan-dom. While Philip Roth is one of my favourite writers, I'm well aware that his real-life treatment and occasional fictional depictions of women make him very problematic to 21st-century thinking. That difficulty would have been enough to wrestle with--does his unfiltered and unapologetic phallocentric viewpoint really need to be considered at a time when we (i.e. straight white males) are *finally* realizing the importance of those minority voices that have been marginalized and suppressed during our long tenure as society's dominant power? Shouldn't we spend our time learning from those whose perspectives we'd never experience, particularly in light of the injustice of those groups have suffered at the hands of people who look exactly like us? For that reason, my huge enthusiasm for Roth's work feels out of place and almost (but not quite) inappropriate these days. I was long looking forward to reading this book, glad I finally am, but all too sure that my interest leaves me outside of the forefront of today's empathetic progressive movements (i.e. all versions of "woke"-ness). And that's a shame, because I feel that those movements are, in general, totally correct about the injustice inherent in modern Western society. And now, there's friggin' Blake Bailey to deal with. The allegations against him are terribly serious, and given the first-person reports from his accusers, I'm inclined to believe that they are--ALL of them--true. So now I'm reading a sympathetic biography of a self-absorbed, selfish, controlling, and excellent artist, written by an alleged rapist. If I believe that a survivor's voice absolutely MUST be heard, and that abusers deserve unmitigated condemnation, why wouldn't I shun this book? The fact is that my fandom goes too deep. I came to Philip Roth at time in my life of despair and rage at my failures, and Roth's rounded depictions of masculinity in crisis, self-absorbed men who do the obviously wrong thing actually resonated with me. That says whatever it will about me, unfortunately, but the warts-and-all portraits of men of intellect who keep fucking up (after all, "hurt people hurt people") are, to me, brilliant. So now, I've bought this book, thereby giving money and support to Bailey. All I can think to do now, to rebalance the moral scales that my modern-age guilt about supporting this man are tipping, is a) continue to read books written by historically marginalized voices, and b) to make a donation to a charity supporting the survivors of sexual abuse. Happy reading, all, and may we each reconcile our own personal struggles with the love of brilliant art created by morally reprehensible artists.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Michael Asen

    First do not be daunted by the 900 pages..it's only 800(the rest being index and notes).If you are a fan of Roth it's indispensible reading and will fit the characters from Roth's life into everything you have read by him. I've read all 4 of Blake's literary bios and no one does it better. No one. He never takes a straight line chronilogically but the order he uses makes perfect sense. Here he is never sympatheic or judgmental of Roth. You come away with all the foibles of the man, most of which First do not be daunted by the 900 pages..it's only 800(the rest being index and notes).If you are a fan of Roth it's indispensible reading and will fit the characters from Roth's life into everything you have read by him. I've read all 4 of Blake's literary bios and no one does it better. No one. He never takes a straight line chronilogically but the order he uses makes perfect sense. Here he is never sympatheic or judgmental of Roth. You come away with all the foibles of the man, most of which you will recognize from his novels. You will also get a sense of his incredilbe financial and literary genorosity. I couldn't get enough of this book. Easily could have gone another 800 pages. At least. If you miss Roth as much as I do, this is a great trip back. I have a list of books I will reread after this..starting with "My Life as a Man" and then probably "The Counterlife."

  8. 5 out of 5

    Maher Battuti

    I was lucky to buy this biography before the decision to stop its distribution. The author used the archive of Roth to paint a real life of him with all its good and bad features. He used the words of Roth mainly, and the good thing is that he relates almost all Roth life events to his books.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Ryan

    Philip Roth generated more outrage than any American writer since Henry Miller. The mere mention of his name triggers a multi-channel set of associations. Roth the joker, Roth the sex-fiend; Roth the celebrated, Roth the walking ego. Neither judge nor jury, Blake Bailey’s biography presents Roth the writer in all his unvarnished glory. Unusually the ‘early life’ section doesn’t tempt you to skip ahead with a cry of ‘get famous already!’ on your lips. Roth’s ancestors were East-European Jews, thei Philip Roth generated more outrage than any American writer since Henry Miller. The mere mention of his name triggers a multi-channel set of associations. Roth the joker, Roth the sex-fiend; Roth the celebrated, Roth the walking ego. Neither judge nor jury, Blake Bailey’s biography presents Roth the writer in all his unvarnished glory. Unusually the ‘early life’ section doesn’t tempt you to skip ahead with a cry of ‘get famous already!’ on your lips. Roth’s ancestors were East-European Jews, their homes harassed by the Tsars and emptied by the Nazis. ‘Pole, Yid and Hound – each to the same faith bound’ was a message nailed to trees wherever Poles, Jews and dogs had been hanged. Jewish neighbourhoods were routinely ransacked and burned. The Tsar’s adviser outlined his chilling plan for purging the Jews: ‘One-third conversion, one-third emigration, and one-third starvation.’ Once safe in the New World, the family tree bore cruel fruit. His Father’s side suffered from heart disease; his Mother’s relatives suffered from a genetic oddity – the appendix formed and settled abnormally close to the lower intestine. As a result, their appendixes would burst and remain undetectable even a week later. Death from peritonitis was common. Roth inherited and nearly died of both. Young Roth had a happy childhood in Newark, New Jersey, and was known and liked as the class clown. Although never the top of the class, he warmed to books. His favourite authors had a fierce regional loyalty – Sherwood Anderson (especially Winesburg, Ohio), William Faulkner and Thomas Wolfe. As Roth’s interest in reading grew, so did his other favourite pastime – masturbation. After a failed pass at a local girl, Roth recalled being ‘bent over like a cripple’, limping behind a cluster of bushes to relieve the unbearable urge. The triumph of his young life was sneaking inside a cinema with a group of friends to watch Hedy Lamarr sylph naked through the woods. ‘This is it,’ they cheered. Later in life Roth listed his three great passions as ‘fucking, writing and reading.’ Soldiering was not one of Roth’s passions. Called up in the middle of college, he was swiftly invalided out and spent the next six months bound to a painful back brace. Fortunately, Roth put the experience to good use in an early short story ‘The Defender of The Faith.’ The day the story appeared in The New Yorker – after netting Roth a cheque for $2,200 – Roth spent the day reading his story over and over in blissful triumph, whether strolling through the park or sitting on the toilet. Soon the story was grouped with other early efforts in Roth’s debut book Goodbye, Columbus and published to acclaim. The day before his 27th birthday, Roth became the youngest author to win the National Book Award. The book caused outrage. Angry letters promptly dropped through the letterbox. By portraying American Jewish life without piety or sentimentality, Roth had placed himself beyond the pale. After asking about the complaints he had been receiving, Roth was shown a letter from the President of the Rabbinical Council of America. ‘What is being done to silence this man?’ the letter demanded. ‘Medieval Jews would have known what do with him.’ It took two more novels – both relative duds – before the lesson sunk in. It was not the lesson his detractors meant. To go forward Roth would need to be himself. It was no good, he realised, trying to play the part of the neighbourhood's nicest boy. From now on he would ‘let the repellent in.’ An unfinished play from the time was titled ‘The Taming of the Id.’ Roth’s id would be tamed no longer. The result was his early masterpiece, Portnoy’s Complaint(‘The funniest book about sex ever written’, Tony Tanner.) The novel was to wanking what Moby Dick was to whaling. The novel caused a scandal, outraged middle America, and promptly sold 400,000 copies in hardback. The book was banned in several countries. In Australia, copies were confiscated. Roth was reviled and rich. The success and backlash forever split his life into two halves – before Portnoy, and after. At times he came to regret ever writing the novel. Yet it was Roth’s first breakthrough, capturing a large audience, and freeing his imagination as never before. As the 1960s turned into the 1970s, Roth’s output became stranger. One of his novels featured a professor that transforms into a 155 pound breast. (‘Why a big brainless bag of dumb, desirable tissue, acted upon instead of acting, unguarded, immobile, hanging, there, as a breast simply hangs and is there?’) The novels also became more self-centred. Through the first of many alter-egos, Nathan Zuckerman, Roth explored and sent up the writing life, including himself. Roth would produce 4 novels with Zuckerman as the main character. In retrospect, the books from here onwards read like a series of status updates. Readers know, of course, not to confuse writers and their characters. As Roth reminded us, our selves are bundled inside each other like Russian Dolls. This strikes many, then as now, as wilfully misleading. When She Was Good contains a scabrous portrait of Roth’s first wife, who died tragically in a car crash. On her death Roth simply said, ‘You’re dead and I didn’t have to do it.’ Readers require few detective skills to spot thinly disguised – and merciless – portraits of Bernard Malamud and Saul Bellow in his work, two authors that did much to further Roth’s budding career. Even a Father on his deathbed was fair game. Few sons have written about their terminally ill father, as Roth did in Patrimony, walking to the toilet, failing to reach the bowl in time, and ‘exploding’ over the tiled floor. When Roth’s second wife, the actress Claire Bloom, published her memoir of their marriage, Roth acted as he though he’d been mugged in the street. Roth took revenge on her in his next novel, portraying her as a mentally unstable anti-Semite. Bailey is fair to both sides, and does not deny that Roth may deserve the charge most frequently levelled against his work – rampant misogyny. ‘You used to be able to sleep with the girls [his students] in the old days,’ Roth leers to Saul Bellow. ‘And now of course it’s impossible.’ In Sabbath’s Theatre, the main character considers leaving an annual college prize of $500 for any female student who’s ‘fucked more male faculty members than any other.’ Another character refers to himself, with scant irony, as ‘an aesthetician of fucking.’ This is hardly the character’s fault - with all the logic of the bar-room bore, he insists ‘man wouldn’t have two-thirds of the problems he has if he didn’t venture off to get fucked. It’s sex that disorders our normally ordered lives.’ You can perhaps see why Roth meant when he told his biographer ‘I don’t want you to rehabilitate me. Just make me interesting.’ He does – and rounded. Bailey presents Roth’s charity simply and without additional comment, balancing the meanness with the goodness. When a friend and editor was diagnosed with a ‘grapefruit-sized’ brain tumour, Roth paid $5,000 for her medical care, hiring the best nurses. Roth helped to obtain Visas for a family fleeing the civil war in Brazzaville. When a Visa was refused for the eldest daughter, he personally contacted then-President Clinton on her behalf. Two months later the family was reunited, and Roth personally paid the girls’ tuition. The next year they made their high school honour roll. Selves within selves. It was in the 1990s that Roth’s fiction reached its full maturity. The American Trilogy – American Pastoral, I Married a Communist, The Human Stain – restored his critical reputation and enjoyed his healthiest sales in years, netting virtually all of America’s major book awards between them. Critics soon took to calling the books ‘The Swedish Trilogy’ – the works that would finally net him the Nobel Prize. Outraged defenders wrote open letters year after year demanding to know why Roth hadn’t won it. Near the end of his life, he would visit New York’s Museum of Natural History and pass the pillar commemorating all the previous American winners. ‘This is actually quite ugly, isn’t it?’ a friend said. ‘Yes’, Roth replied. ‘And it’s getting uglier by the year.’ Philip Roth is Bailey’s fourth literary biography, following Richard Yates, John Cheever, and Charles Jackson. Two books about failures, two about successes. Bailey's steely eye turns each facet of Roth’s personality under the light and captures each reflected spark of genius and each sharp corner. Roth was a giant of the 20th century novel, and this is a biography worthy of his mettle - whether by the end the reader has had ‘an earful of enemas’ or not.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Reed

    This is not so much a review, if at all, but more of a note to self in the form of a thank-you to Blake Bailey for inspiring me to revisit things. Ever since being a naive, star-struck student chosen to be in one of Roth’s small seminars at Penn in the ‘70s (reading Kafka and Bellow) and a nervous, discouraged, dejected recipient of that defining slash of red Flair pen on my “papers,” I’d made it a point to follow Roth’s career and work. According to the list of publications listed in the biogra This is not so much a review, if at all, but more of a note to self in the form of a thank-you to Blake Bailey for inspiring me to revisit things. Ever since being a naive, star-struck student chosen to be in one of Roth’s small seminars at Penn in the ‘70s (reading Kafka and Bellow) and a nervous, discouraged, dejected recipient of that defining slash of red Flair pen on my “papers,” I’d made it a point to follow Roth’s career and work. According to the list of publications listed in the biography, I’ve read 22 of 31 of his books — some of which, frankly, pretty much bored me to tears with repetitive regurgitations. It’s always been a love-hate relationship for me, this Roth experience/memory thing, but the biography allowed me to learn all the dirt about the man behind the aloof professor and see him as the incredibly complex, “flawed” and brilliant human being he was. I now will re-read two novels (American Pastoral and [maybe] Portnoy’s Complaint), read another for the first time (I Married a Communist) and will take pride in the fact that my favorite Roth novel was apparently his critically flattest and most “prosaic” (The Plot Against America). I’m sorry for the controversy over the Bailey accusation situation, but I frankly don’t care. This biography was exhaustive, enlightening and thoroughly entertaining — about the man, his work, his friends, his loves and his humanity. The final chapter is one I will re-read at least annually as I move into my own dotage.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Bill

    Blake Bailey seems not to know that Philip Roth spent several years in the late 1960s teaching at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (now Stony Brook University), in part thanks to Alfred Kazin who taught there from 1963 to 1985. (Bailey wrongly credits Kazin with "nearly a fifty-year career" at City University New York, where Kazin earned a degree but never taught). Roth worked on "Portnoy's Complaint" and found the name for his protagonist while teaching at Stony Brook. Each time Blake Bailey seems not to know that Philip Roth spent several years in the late 1960s teaching at the State University of New York at Stony Brook (now Stony Brook University), in part thanks to Alfred Kazin who taught there from 1963 to 1985. (Bailey wrongly credits Kazin with "nearly a fifty-year career" at City University New York, where Kazin earned a degree but never taught). Roth worked on "Portnoy's Complaint" and found the name for his protagonist while teaching at Stony Brook. Each time Roth went to the university he paced by a dentist's office on a street called Pond Path. The dentist's name: Portnoy. One of the secretaries in the English Department at the university typed various drafts of "Portnoy's Complaint." I asked her once if she had been offended by any of the scenes in the novel. "Oh, no," she said, "I was just typing words."

  12. 5 out of 5

    Will

    I purchased this book before the accusations against Bailey (deemed credible) surfaced. While I was still interested in reading about Roth, I struggled with whether to give Bailey my time or toss the book into a permanent unread pile. My choice to go ahead does not condone that author’s actions. I will leave it at that.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Joe Kraus

    There’s an inevitability to this biography. As a Roth scholar, or Roth-adjacent scholar, I felt compelled to read it. And, as I read, I felt Blake Bailey must have felt compelled to write it. After all, how could he have passed up the opportunity once it came: to have arguably the most controversial writer of the 1960-2010 era agree to participate in an authorized biography? What’s more, I figure Roth must have felt compelled to take part in it himself. As someone who famously avoided getting pinn There’s an inevitability to this biography. As a Roth scholar, or Roth-adjacent scholar, I felt compelled to read it. And, as I read, I felt Blake Bailey must have felt compelled to write it. After all, how could he have passed up the opportunity once it came: to have arguably the most controversial writer of the 1960-2010 era agree to participate in an authorized biography? What’s more, I figure Roth must have felt compelled to take part in it himself. As someone who famously avoided getting pinned down on the particulars of his own life – preferring to explore a range of fictions around his experience – he must finally have conceded to the obvious: with so many people wondering about what “really happened,” there would be both intellectual curiosity and the urge for gossip. Such a book would be – as this is – one of the literary events of its seasons. And that’s to say nothing of his now well-documented impulse to grind his axe; much of this feels like Roth pulling the strings of the project as a posthumous response to Claire Bloom’s Leaving a Doll’s House memoir. Bailey seems to push against that somewhat, but it’s telling that he doesn’t seem to have tried to speak with Bloom or with a Bloom loyalist like Francine du Plessix Grey. I get the impression Roth forbade it – as he indeed pulled his one-time friend Ross Miller from the project when Miller got the revolutionary idea that it was his book to write rather than Roth’s – which must have been one more burden for Bailey. I feel the weight of that series of necessity as I read this. Above all, it’s heavy. Even as an audiobook, it weighs a lot – more than 30 hours. I have to hand it to Bailey, he has done the legwork. He’s tracked down high school classmates who figure as potential inspirations for one or another character from the novels. He’s read (in their entirety, it seems) Roth’s college humor magazine columns. And he’s wrung out as many tiny possibly consequential details of Roth’s parents, wives, and late life friends. I admit there’s something impressive and, maybe, necessary in all that. I wish I’d had the chance to be friends with Roth, and I flatter myself that I’d have been a solid friend of a season. Roth famously circulated his younger friends, growing close to them and then gradually pulling away. I fit the demographic – Jewish, literary (in my way), and curious about a variety of things he appreciated too (baseball, Jewish gangsters) – and I expect it would have been striking to know him. But, in the end, Bailey faces an insurmountable challenge. He is trying to turn “the facts” of Roth’s life into literature, and that puts him into competition with Roth himself. I don’t care how good Bailey is, and at times he seems pretty good, but he can’t make Newark or Jewish summer camp or life with a movie star wife come alive with any of the success of Portnoy, Nemesis, or I Married a Communist. Every detail we get seems to suggest the possibility that it influenced something Roth would write. The trouble is, a careful reader of Roth – at least my own careful reading of him – recognizes that it’s never about the detail seen straightforward but rather, to paraphrase Emily Dickinson, the one seen slant. If you’ve read Patrimony, you know at some level that Roth thrived when he exaggerated or distorted “the truth.” There may not be another contemporary writer who has more scrupulously explored the ironic boundary between what actually happened and how we narrate it. At the most obvious level, the novels that feature a protagonist named Philip Roth, such as Operation Shylock, are clearly less autobiographical than many of the ones that feature Nathan Zuckerman. At a philosophical level, though, Roth strikes me as exploring Henry James’s admonition to strive to be someone on whom nothing is lost. Everything he writes is, in part, an interrogation of what it means to write, of what it means to transform, to blur experience into art. Bailey is compelled to do the opposite, to distill the original experience from the art, and it’s nowhere near as much fun. One reason to love Roth is that he makes literature that matters. When you read his work, whether the early short stories or the late-life dying-animal short novels, you recognize an ethical imagination. He manages to boil down the challenges of life, to render them as heightened truths. He gives us characters who seem real – with “seeming” carrying more truthfulness than the messier reality of real life can generate – with the result that their challenges are real, more real than the challenges of the actual people who inspired them. I sometimes tell my students that we study literature because the best fiction gives us the chance to dissect life in a way analogous to bio lab. Just as we can’t cut into living creatures to see how they work and so settle for dead and pickled ones, we can’t freeze living humans and sort out their emotional and ethical complications. As a result, fiction – at least powerful fiction of Roth’s sort – makes that work possible. It’s the irony at the heart of what I do: imagination can often be more compelling than reality. To be fair, Bailey gets at that point with a striking anecdote. He claims that Arthur Gefen, who first told Roth the story of a boy who threatened to jump off of his synagogue roof, went on to become a literature professor at Minnesota. While there, Gefen would tell his own version of the story and then assign “Conversion of the Jews,” asking which was better. He said the students invariably preferred the literary version to the historical one. Bailey, then, finds himself in the position of Gefen, giving us “the facts” from an author who’s already given us The Facts. I have to admit that few of the broad strokes are new to me here. We get the awful experience of Roth’s disastrous first marriage, the extended she-said/he-said of his second, and the late-life pleasure of the American master somewhat at peace at last with his fame. There are plenty of lesser known issues, though. We get names for many of his sexual conquests, Playboy’s Miss May 1956 (apparently a writer in her own right), Jackie Kennedy, Mia Farrow, and a host of intelligent seeming Mrs. Roth hopefuls who clung to him for months or sometimes years. The whole of it is often dreary, though. I was glad to get the information, but it finally saddened me to get so much of it. At the worst here, knowing more of the background of Sabbath’s Theater turns me off. And I resent that since it’s probably my favorite Roth novel of all. One disturbing element comes in his near affair with his step-daughter Helen. Bailey is coy in reporting it, painting Helen Miller as the aggressor, but the near impropriety is disturbing. The Roth that Bailey paints was attracted to young Helen, noting her “leotard-clad legs” and acknowledging that she was “blooming” as her mother became less and less appealing to him. In similar but later fashion, Roth purportedly propositioned Bloom’s daughter’s best friend, Felicity, in the home he shared with Bloom. (Bloom charges him with this in Leaving a Doll House; here, Roth owns up to it as a joke that misfired, something that the, to-his-mind, manic Bloom exaggerated into gossip and theater.) I imagine I’d have forgotten those anecdotes if not for the uncomfortable parallel they suggest to the Woody and Soon-Yi Allen relationship. That’s another leading Jewish light of the generation who, in the midst of a disastrously unraveling marriage to a non-Jewish woman, found himself attracted to a step-daughter who could confirm her mother’s “crazy” status. What’s more, each man also found himself deeply and publicly at odds with his ex-wife’s daughter – Allen with Dylan Farrow and Roth with Anna Steiger.) I’m not sure what to make of that, but there it is. Arguably the two most famous popular culture Jews of the era caught in the same melodrama. Roth’s life is, in many ways a tawdry one, which makes the accomplishment of his art all the more impressive. Bailey does a fairly good job of showing how Roth distilled an ethical sensibility from the various messes of that life. He falls short, though, in showing how – beyond that ethical vision – Roth recognized a fundamental comedy as well. Roth is a very good writer because he does ask us to contemplate what it means to be decent in the bewildering contemporary world. Roth is a great writer, though, because he makes us laugh at the same time he makes us think. That’s the greater forest that gets lost among the many, many trees that Bailey lays out in this necessary but not always welcome biography.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Jim Breslin

    On the morning I received the library notice that a copy of “Philip Roth: The Biography” was ready for me to pick up, the news broke that the biography’s author, Blake Bailey, was accused of sexual assault and predatory behavior. I hesitated to pick up the book on the day of the breaking news, and was relieved the librarian didn’t give me a scolding glance. After reading about the multiple allegations (which Blake Bailey denies), it’s hard to approach the material with an objective view. This is On the morning I received the library notice that a copy of “Philip Roth: The Biography” was ready for me to pick up, the news broke that the biography’s author, Blake Bailey, was accused of sexual assault and predatory behavior. I hesitated to pick up the book on the day of the breaking news, and was relieved the librarian didn’t give me a scolding glance. After reading about the multiple allegations (which Blake Bailey denies), it’s hard to approach the material with an objective view. This is compounded by the fact that Philip Roth has written about sexually perverse men, Portnoy’s Complaint being the novel that made Roth a household name. That being said, I started to read the 900-page biography but didn’t have the stomach to get more than 220 pages. Reading about Roth’s sexual encounters and first marriage filtered through Bailey’s filter made me question the stories and viewpoint. Although Bailey interviewed many of Roth’s friends and former lovers, I found myself questioning the narrative. And then I read a line which had nothing to do with sex but which was factually incorrect and elitist. “At Bucknell, Sides had been a member of the sorority most known for it’s pulchritude, Tri-Delta, though she considered herself an ‘odd girl out’ there: her first two years had been spent at Kutztown State Teacher’s College (“an overgrown high school”) in her hometown of Williamsport, until she dropped out and spent a year working as a chambermaid at a nearby resort.” As a graduate of Kutztown University, one could write a whole essay unpacking this sentence. I’d love to see my creative writing professor Harry Hume dissect this passage. Why doesn’t Bailey know that Kutztown State Teachers College is not located in Williamsport but is indeed located in scenic Kutztown, PA? And are we to understand that Roth or Sides made the snide remark of the Teacher’s College being an overgrown high school? In the days where I lumbered through the early pages of the book, I found myself more interested in the scandal than the biography. I decided to listen to April 8th New York Times Book Review podcast where Pamela Paul interviewed Blake Bailey just weeks before the scandal broke. Paul explained that Bailey was “not the first choice but was the ultimate choice” to become Roth’s biographer. Bailey said that he heard at a luncheon that the original biographer Ross Miller “is no longer returning Roth’s phone calls.” Having previously connected with Roth when he had written Cheever’s biography, Bailey reached out to the author. Roth invited Bailey to a meeting and asked, “Why should a gentile from Oklahoma write the biography of Philip Roth?” Bailey responded to Roth, “Well, I’m not a bisexual alcoholic with an ancient puritan lineage but I wrote a biography of John Cheever. And I think that’s what Philip kind of wanted to hear. Just because all his career he said I’m not a Jewish American writer, I’m an American who is a Jew who writes to that effect. And I think he didn’t want to be judged through a Jewish lens.” And at the end of the interview, Bailey acknowledges that Roth’s writing has it’s detractors. He said, “There’s been a lot of talk about Philip as a misogynist and canceling him and so forth, and kind of the worst part of this task is that you can’t make everybody happy with a biography of Philip Roth, they either love him or hate him and the people who love him think you are too hard on him and the people that hate him think that you aren’t hard enough.” Evidently, Roth was concerned about who would write his biography, and wanted to be sure he left it in the right biographer’s hands. As the book has now been pulled from store shelves, it’s ironic that Roth appears to have chosen the wrong person to write his story. And while I've seen many literary readers acknowledge that Roth is "brilliant but problematic," it appears that the Blake Bailey scandal may burnish his legacy.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Gayla Bassham

    On Tuesday morning, I was a quarter of the way through this biography, contemplating Bailey's take on Roth's first marriage. As best I can tell, neither Roth nor his first wife covered themselves in glory during this marriage. But I was beginning to be a little annoyed that Bailey seemed to not quite understand how unkind and self-centered Roth's behavior toward his wife was. He seemed much more forgiving of Roth's excesses than his wife's. The perils of an authorized biography, I thought. But I On Tuesday morning, I was a quarter of the way through this biography, contemplating Bailey's take on Roth's first marriage. As best I can tell, neither Roth nor his first wife covered themselves in glory during this marriage. But I was beginning to be a little annoyed that Bailey seemed to not quite understand how unkind and self-centered Roth's behavior toward his wife was. He seemed much more forgiving of Roth's excesses than his wife's. The perils of an authorized biography, I thought. But I was beginning to actively dread the Claire Bloom section. Then this news broke. This, of course, casts an entirely different light on Bailey's portrayal of Roth's wife and, in fact, all the women in the other biographies. I find myself in the perverse position of wishing to reread and reevaluate all of them, and yet also not wanting to read another word by him. Should this book be read? I think it should, though not right now, and perhaps I will even finish it myself one day. Roth was, despite his many faults, an important writer of the twentieth century, and Bailey had access to sources that no one may ever see again, or at least not for a very long time. But it can never again be thought of as definitive, and I think it should be read with an eye toward what we are willing to forgive of men we consider geniuses, and how we determine who these geniuses are in the first place. Because it seems to be the case that the gatekeepers who anoint our brilliant writers are often themselves men who treat women very badly indeed. It is just possible that this clouds their judgment when they consider misogynists who happen to construct sentences well.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Nichola Gutgold

    I hope Blake Bailey is held accountable for what certainly sounds like criminal acts. As a freshman at King's College I was assigned Portnoy's Complaint. I was shocked at the frank discussions of sex in the book, yet the book made me interested in Roth and over the years I read more. Reading this biography and watching the PBS American Master's special on Roth makes me want to read more, and certainly Claire Bloom's book, Leaving a Doll's House. I wasn't aware of just how many books he wrote! I I hope Blake Bailey is held accountable for what certainly sounds like criminal acts. As a freshman at King's College I was assigned Portnoy's Complaint. I was shocked at the frank discussions of sex in the book, yet the book made me interested in Roth and over the years I read more. Reading this biography and watching the PBS American Master's special on Roth makes me want to read more, and certainly Claire Bloom's book, Leaving a Doll's House. I wasn't aware of just how many books he wrote! I still don't have a clear picture his view of women but it seems like he remembers fondly his plethora of girlfriends but has distain for both his wives. Safe to say that I don't think he was a person who valued fidelity. At first I thought he was just disgusting and then I started to have a lot of compassion for him as I continued to read because I felt like his first marriage was so awful that it made him turn against it as an institution. What surprised me most from reading this biography is how much he hated the writing process. He was hard on himself and he felt like he was only as good as his last book and I imagine he was not very pleasant to be around when he was in between projects. The book I will read next is Patrimony. I think it is interesting that he was able to draw so much from his early life and continued to draw from his life. I do believe that many writers do this even though they are loathe to admit it. He was a writer who aimed to shock readers and in this he succeeded! Also Kutztown Teachers College was never in Williamsport, PA. That's an error early in the book!

  17. 5 out of 5

    Leslie

    Picked this up from the library to see if I’d like it, wound up engrossed before the author’s scandal broke. Blake Bailey seems Very Bad. Not interested in him. Here’s what I thought about the book: By the end, I felt as if I were saying goodbye to someone I knew well. Perhaps because this biography is too heavily tilted to how Roth saw himself, it feels like an intricate, complete artifact of his perspective. Writers are always slippery about how life bleeds into art. In that sense, this book is Picked this up from the library to see if I’d like it, wound up engrossed before the author’s scandal broke. Blake Bailey seems Very Bad. Not interested in him. Here’s what I thought about the book: By the end, I felt as if I were saying goodbye to someone I knew well. Perhaps because this biography is too heavily tilted to how Roth saw himself, it feels like an intricate, complete artifact of his perspective. Writers are always slippery about how life bleeds into art. In that sense, this book is demystifying. Romantic relationships are all portrayed through Roth-tinted glasses. Bailey=Team Roth. Maybe that was a conscious decision (Claire Bloom had her memoir). Roth wrote his own book jacket covers and spent lots of time and thought on his legacy. I reckon his heavy hand extended into this. Especially in the story of Roth’s first wife, I simply don’t believe Roth’s stated reason for why he wound up in the relationship so long: Something about being a “good Jewish boy,” and running toward a 50s-era ideal of manliness that entailed obligation. She must’ve had more endearing qualities than the book admits, or, maybe he married her for material. Philip Roth, very ambitious! Also, I would’ve happily read a lot more about Roth’s writing process. Although I suppose only writers are interested in that (but who else reads literary biographies?). Nevertheless, this book moved me. It’s a deep portrait of a flawed person, someone who could (sometimes) discard people easily, who sought out and guarded his solitude, wrote prolifically but also suffered in loneliness, particularly toward the end.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Caroline

    I reserved this tour-de-force from my local library system when it was first published. Lo and behold, even though the publisher has suspended production because of non-pc allegations concerning the author, my turn arrived! It is fairly exhaustive, sometimes exhausting, but I couldn't put it down, aiming to read 100 pages a day, with fair success. Roth reminded me of my recently deceased husband in many respects. The similarities included a love of baseball, connection with parents and extended I reserved this tour-de-force from my local library system when it was first published. Lo and behold, even though the publisher has suspended production because of non-pc allegations concerning the author, my turn arrived! It is fairly exhaustive, sometimes exhausting, but I couldn't put it down, aiming to read 100 pages a day, with fair success. Roth reminded me of my recently deceased husband in many respects. The similarities included a love of baseball, connection with parents and extended family, strong work ethic, enduring friendships from different periods of life, including childhood, interest in politics and social issues. I had not known that Roth taught literature. I was very impressed with the examples of assignments he crafted and think I would have enjoyed taking his classes. My husband, who was an academic, and I also existed in a somewhat similar milieu--were acquainted with, or knew something of a number of the people mentioned, and had similar tastes in food and theater. Who knows, we may have been in the same audience for "Benito Cereno," or dining at Shun Lee or wherever. We both read most, if not all, Roth's books, though I think my husband read them more deeply. After this biography, I feel an impulse to reread them, knowing more about the real people and events that served as their impetus. I think it would have been fun to know Roth socially. So few people are unabashed in talking about sex or treating it with amusement or joy. It's too bad that he took the risk of marrying women with children and histories of other relationships because he clearly did not wish to devote his life to their strong needs and demands.

  19. 4 out of 5

    JerryDeanHalleck

    First, its insane that this book was censored by the publisher to spite the author. But as for the book itself... This is a very long, very detailed biography of Philip Roth. Its one of those "and then on June 8th, Roth ate a sandwich for lunch, mowed the lawn, and had a fight with wife" sorta of biographies. A blow-by-blow chronological description of what, when, where, and how Roth lived his 85 years. There's little critical/literary analysis. Unfortunately, Philip Roth - the person - was rath First, its insane that this book was censored by the publisher to spite the author. But as for the book itself... This is a very long, very detailed biography of Philip Roth. Its one of those "and then on June 8th, Roth ate a sandwich for lunch, mowed the lawn, and had a fight with wife" sorta of biographies. A blow-by-blow chronological description of what, when, where, and how Roth lived his 85 years. There's little critical/literary analysis. Unfortunately, Philip Roth - the person - was rather uninteresting and his life has few exciting moments. Came from an average NYC family, went to college, taught American literature. First novel was a best-seller, published in 1960, at age 27. Lived mostly in the Northeast/NYC area. Well-connected, by 1970 he was a member of the Literary Establishment. Saul Bellow, Malamud, Mailer, were friends. Literary, political and cultural views? Standard Liberal-Left NY times Op-ed page. He hated Nixon, Joe McCarthy and the PLO. Loved Ted Kennedy, Obama, and Israel. In summary, other than some domestic drama with his wives/girlfriends, Roth's life was almost without conflict or incident. Like many authors he didn't really do much. Or as Roth put it, his life consisted of: "Reading. Writing. Sex". And that was pretty boring to read about.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Emily

    Setting aside the allegations re the author, I’d found him irritatingly one-sided. It’s interesting to see who would and wouldn’t take to him, and he was so transparently anti-Bloom that it made me mistrust much of what he said (Bailey goes on and on about Bloom staying by her mother’s body—her behavior didn’t strike me as beyond the bounds, speaking as someone who has lost both parents. He’s also quite laddish about Anatole Broyard and Joel Conarroe sending him over pretty women in what amounts Setting aside the allegations re the author, I’d found him irritatingly one-sided. It’s interesting to see who would and wouldn’t take to him, and he was so transparently anti-Bloom that it made me mistrust much of what he said (Bailey goes on and on about Bloom staying by her mother’s body—her behavior didn’t strike me as beyond the bounds, speaking as someone who has lost both parents. He’s also quite laddish about Anatole Broyard and Joel Conarroe sending him over pretty women in what amounts to pimping. It doesn’t change my opinion of Roth much—I’ve read enough by and about him—he was a very mixed character w a cruel streak but also tremendous generosity. Also he wrote well. I wish his biographer had been better—I have issues at the sentence live. Read the first sentence of the last paragraph and tell me what “it” is referring back to. There’s so much he glided right by. Given that Roth named a character after Michiko Kakutani, I was really hoping to read re her reaction. Nope. And not a single picture of Bloom (I can well imagine why, but the reality is he seems not to have interviewed her). There’s a lot more in terms of characterization, but suffice to say Roth’s biases are his.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Barry Smirnoff

    This is the authorized biography of Philip Roth written by an author who has been accused of Rape, Sexual assaults and inappropriate behavior with Middle School students. The book has been withdrawn by WW Norton, it’s publisher. It is none the less a wonderful defense of one of America’s most outstanding writers. Roth gave unlimited access to the author and was very much involved in providing materials to him. This book answers questions about Roth’s life and work that are exceptional. I loved t This is the authorized biography of Philip Roth written by an author who has been accused of Rape, Sexual assaults and inappropriate behavior with Middle School students. The book has been withdrawn by WW Norton, it’s publisher. It is none the less a wonderful defense of one of America’s most outstanding writers. Roth gave unlimited access to the author and was very much involved in providing materials to him. This book answers questions about Roth’s life and work that are exceptional. I loved the 900 page work and highly recommend it to people who want to know about Roth’s life and work. This does not mean one agrees with either of their behavior, which is hard to defend in this era of cancelled individuals. There is no way for either Roth or Blake Bailey to defend themselves from these charges. But the biography is outstanding and should not be censored by the publisher. Let the people read it and make their own judgements. If you enjoy Roth’s work, this book will shed new light on Roth’s writing process and philosophy. Free speech is guaranteed by our CONSTITUTION! The first amendment must be protected.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Gavin Simms

    I was one hundred pages in to this masterpiece when the allegations about Blake Bailey broke in the New York Times. So it became a bittersweet pleasure reading this book, tainted forever if the allegations are true. As a biography, though, the book is a delight. Roth is typical of American Jews whose grandparents immigrated from Poland or Russia. And the story of how he became an American great is fascinating. As well as his super complicated and bitter relationships with women. And the back inj I was one hundred pages in to this masterpiece when the allegations about Blake Bailey broke in the New York Times. So it became a bittersweet pleasure reading this book, tainted forever if the allegations are true. As a biography, though, the book is a delight. Roth is typical of American Jews whose grandparents immigrated from Poland or Russia. And the story of how he became an American great is fascinating. As well as his super complicated and bitter relationships with women. And the back injury suffered in the army that blighted him for the rest of his life. And of course there’s the books. And Zuckerman and Sabbath and Portnoy. And his later masterpieces (American Pastoral being my favorite). This is a great portrayal of Roth the writer, Roth the adulterer, Roth the son and brother, Roth the friend, Roth the sufferer.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Evan

    An extraordinary biography about one of the the greatest American writers of the 20th and early 21 centuries. Since this is an authorized biography, no detail about Roth's life is not examined (presumably) and with Roth's knowledge and blessing. Bailey's biography of John Cheever is also wonderful and an interesting pairing perhaps. Roth was a complicated and complex person, like all of us. His complete ouevre of 31 books will not be equalled. Numerous young writers, like Zadie Smith and Jonatha An extraordinary biography about one of the the greatest American writers of the 20th and early 21 centuries. Since this is an authorized biography, no detail about Roth's life is not examined (presumably) and with Roth's knowledge and blessing. Bailey's biography of John Cheever is also wonderful and an interesting pairing perhaps. Roth was a complicated and complex person, like all of us. His complete ouevre of 31 books will not be equalled. Numerous young writers, like Zadie Smith and Jonathan Lethem, have written testimonials about Roth's influence on their own writing. Now is a good time to take the pleasure in sampling Roth's novels, both the great, the good, and the eh. You can then decide which one is which. Enjoy!

  24. 5 out of 5

    Jean

    Where is the "I finally finished this damn book" option? I opted not to dive into Blake Bailey's disturbing background until after I'd read the book. If I had, I'm pretty sure I would have skipped this exhaustive and exhausting account of Philip Roth. (Bailey's icky story is utterly Rothesque, by the way.) It's always interesting to understand what makes a literary genius tick. Ultimately, I realized two things: I've actually read almost nothing by Roth -- I probably just keep getting him mixed Where is the "I finally finished this damn book" option? I opted not to dive into Blake Bailey's disturbing background until after I'd read the book. If I had, I'm pretty sure I would have skipped this exhaustive and exhausting account of Philip Roth. (Bailey's icky story is utterly Rothesque, by the way.) It's always interesting to understand what makes a literary genius tick. Ultimately, I realized two things: I've actually read almost nothing by Roth -- I probably just keep getting him mixed up with John Updike and Norman Mailer, two other tortured and torturing, narcissistic literary kings. And despite Bailey's ongoing effort to showcase Roth's generous (controlling?) side, he's was just a neurotic, oversexed guy who seemed to equally love and hate women.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Mrs. Danvers

    Roth is brought vividly to life by his own words and those of his contemporaries, friends, fellow writers, former lovers, a large and fruitful slice of humanity. His biographer neatly balances a timeline of who what when with Roth's self-examination and the result is very satisfying. The only mysteries left are those that were mysterious to Roth himself-- why he entered into and stayed in two disastrous relationships that seemed (at least in retrospect) to be nothing but pain. Oh wait yes there Roth is brought vividly to life by his own words and those of his contemporaries, friends, fellow writers, former lovers, a large and fruitful slice of humanity. His biographer neatly balances a timeline of who what when with Roth's self-examination and the result is very satisfying. The only mysteries left are those that were mysterious to Roth himself-- why he entered into and stayed in two disastrous relationships that seemed (at least in retrospect) to be nothing but pain. Oh wait yes there is one more mystery -- how do you get rich -- as he fid--writing literary fiction?

  26. 5 out of 5

    Noreen

    If you feel, as I do, that Roth is a brilliant and important writer, then you’ll want to read this authorized biography, despite the charges against Blake Bailey. Bailey had access to Roth’s papers, to his friends and family, and he spent hundreds of hours with Roth. The book is well done, weaving the life and the art well. It lacks the intimacy and insight of Benjamin Taylor’s moving memoir about Roth, “Here We Are: My Friendship with Philip Roth,” which I loved, but is still a must-have for se If you feel, as I do, that Roth is a brilliant and important writer, then you’ll want to read this authorized biography, despite the charges against Blake Bailey. Bailey had access to Roth’s papers, to his friends and family, and he spent hundreds of hours with Roth. The book is well done, weaving the life and the art well. It lacks the intimacy and insight of Benjamin Taylor’s moving memoir about Roth, “Here We Are: My Friendship with Philip Roth,” which I loved, but is still a must-have for serious Roth readers.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Beverly

    Bailey finds the perfect balance between the life and the work. I learned something from his relaxed analysis and descriptions of Roth’s works, and I learned that Roth was a decent, generous man. I’m not exercised by the fact that Roth sometimes celebrated male sexuality in his life and work. As is clearly shown here, that doesn’t preclude liking and respecting women as people. Bailey is an outstanding biographer.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Murray Batt

    I suspect Roth would hav been rather satisfied with this magnum opus; Bailey mostly takes the author’s point of view but doesn’t gloss over the womanizing...perhaps Roth knew about some of Blake’s own issues. I am now more easily able to understand the context of those of the Roth books that I have read, and encouraged to reread some (particularly Patrimony and Shylock), and also to read several of those that I (may have) missed (the Dying Animal, Everyman, and Exit Ghost).

  29. 4 out of 5

    Sharron

    Did not finish. Crapped out at 195. Way too detailed, but yet you don't learn anything because at this time in his life he'd said such and such about this thing, but later would claim blah, blah. Everything may have motivated such and such part of some character or action. While the book is set up in a chronological order it still manages to jump and be all over the place. Did not finish. Crapped out at 195. Way too detailed, but yet you don't learn anything because at this time in his life he'd said such and such about this thing, but later would claim blah, blah. Everything may have motivated such and such part of some character or action. While the book is set up in a chronological order it still manages to jump and be all over the place.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Frederic

    Excellently written about the fascinating life of a great writer and interesting human being...thoroughly researched but it fell apart a bit for me in the last third as it descends into a partisan apologia for the sometimes inexplicably cruel actions of the writer. A good biography that leaves a bitter taste, though it doesn't detract at all from the genius of Roth's novels. Excellently written about the fascinating life of a great writer and interesting human being...thoroughly researched but it fell apart a bit for me in the last third as it descends into a partisan apologia for the sometimes inexplicably cruel actions of the writer. A good biography that leaves a bitter taste, though it doesn't detract at all from the genius of Roth's novels.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...