Blake Bailey story isn’t about cancel culture
It’s about making the world safe for women and girls
I wanted to write a lighthearted column about “Philip Roth: The Biography” by Blake Bailey. I thought I’d cite the omission of Philip Roth’s clock radio and its role in Roth’s literary output, because for those who don’t know or might have forgotten, I purchased Philip Roth’s clock radio at auction a couple of years ago.
It was going to be frothy, fun column, both celebrating and poking fun at the pretentiousness of anyone deserving an 800-page accounting of their life.
And then news broke that Bailey, who’s also written critically acclaimed biographies of John Cheever and Richard Yates, had been accused by former students of his at a New Orleans middle school of “grooming” these eighth-grade girls before later pursuing sexual encounters with them as adults. Additional reporting included multiple accounts of alleged sexual assault and rape by Bailey. Bailey has denied the allegations.
The stories are stomach churning. In addition to being dropped by his literary agency, Bailey’s publisher, W.W. Norton and Co., declared it would take the Roth biography out of print and donate the sum of Bailey’s advance (mid-six figures) to organizations that support victims of sexual assault and harassment.
If Norton’s actions seem extreme, it may have something to do with what The New York Times reported recently: A publishing executive who was allegedly assaulted by Bailey had anonymously informed Norton’s president, Julia Reidhead, of Bailey’s actions in 2018, urging the publisher be cautious with the choice of Bailey. Reidhead forwarded this email to Bailey himself, who was able to identify the sender; he then contacted her directly. No further action was taken by Norton at the time.
It’s a terrible, tragic mess, which has invoked some of our most frustrating (and perennial) cultural debates about so-called “cancel culture,” or how we must separate the art from the artist.
I’ve never understood why we should separate the art from the artist, given that what we know about the artist may significantly alter our perception and meaning of the art. The news of Bailey’s alleged crimes and other ill-behavior should influence how the biography is read. Indeed, at the Washington Post, Monica Hesse read Bailey’s bio of Roth with the revelations in mind, finding myriad ways Bailey’s perspective excuses Roth’s mistreatment of women as the prerogative of a great man mining his life for art.
Rather than engaging in another round of these debates, what if we instead have a discussion about making a world the world safe to report this kind of predation? Allegations against Baileyhave been part of a well-established whisper network, as Vanity Fair reported.
The notion that using others around you as something integral to the life of the artist or the creation of art is absurd. It’s an ex post facto justification of abuse made possible by deference to an myth. It is fame and power and status that paves the way for abuse.
Writing at the New Republic, Jo Livingstone argues that this “fiasco implicates everyone”: Bailey, the publishing industry, the media which started feting this book months ago, and even Roth, who chose Bailey because he thought he thought Bailey would be sympathetic on Roth’s treatment of women.
A fiasco indeed, and sadly, it won’t be the last of its kind.