BookMachine has a fresh coat of paint for 2018 and we’d love your feedback! Let us know what you think.

  • Home
  • Wikipedia: Philip Roth ‘not credible source’ on Philip Roth

Wikipedia: Philip Roth ‘not credible source’ on Philip Roth

In a case we might call The Plot Against the Literati, were we at the intersection where readers familiar with the work of Philip Roth meet babbling, hyperbolic idiocy (we have never claimed to be familiar with the work of Philip Roth, ohohoho etc.), this past weekend saw the selfsame author of Portnoy’s Complaint and American Pastoral take to the pages of The New Yorker to pen an open letter/potential future memoir chapter directed at Wikipedia.

Roth’s grievance? He ‘had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel The Human Stain‘ – take a minute at this juncture to enjoy the mental image of Philip Roth Googling himself – and discovered what he refers to as ‘a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed’, namely an unfounded assertion that The Human Stain was based upon the life of the late writer Anatole Broyard.

Upon appointing an ‘official interlocutor’ to intervene and ask Wikipedia to correct the mistake, the reply came back to Roth that, while the Wikipedia administrator who dealt with the query ‘understand[s] your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work[…] we require secondary sources.’ Thus was opened a whole new dimension of neuroses for Roth to explore in his subsequent work, work he promptly began by engaging in a lengthy diegesis about the true origins of the novel (and really doing himself no favours by pointing out that Broyard’s life was ended by prostate cancer and not, as in the novel, ‘in a planned, prearranged car crash while driving with his unlikely mistress, Faunia Farley, a local farmhand and lowly janitor in the very college where he has been a highly esteemed dean’ by ‘Faunia’s ex-husband, the tormented, violent Vietnam vet Les Farley’, which, written in that compressed manner, sounds like a parody of literary death).

Obviously there’s a thorny dilemma here. Wikipedia’s secondary sources policy is, in theory, a sound one (especially with sock puppeting currently occupying the consciousness of the reading public), ensuring that a writer can’t simply airbrush his or her entry into hagiography. Then again, who other than Roth can claim to know the spur for Roth’s own creative processes? Add in potentially defamatory claims about a third party very much unable to defend himself and it almost begins to seem like the opposite of hagiography: the work of someone with a grudge, a computer and a couple decades’ worth of gossip. If only someone would write a novel that doubled as a probing moral enquiry into the complexities of such an issue. Cough.

Tags: , , ,


Chris Ward

Chris Ward

Chris Ward writes and says things about books and music and films and what have you, even when no one is reading or listening.
He was chief hack and music editor of webzine Brazen from 2006 to 2010, and hosted Left of the Dial on Subcity Radio from 2008 to 2011.
He can be heard semi-regularly on the podcast of Scottish cultural blog Scots Whay Hae ('20th best website in Scotland!' - The List), and in 2011 founded Seen Your Video, a film and music podcast and blog based in Glasgow. He has a Masters degree in Scottish Literature from the University of Glasgow that will never have any practical application. You are on a hiding to nothing if you follow him on Twitter expecting any kind of hot publishing scoop.

Comments (2)

Comments are closed.

Get the latest news and event info straight to your inbox

Subscribe to the BookMachine Newsletter.

Account


+44 203 040 2298

6 Mitre Passage, Digital Greenwich - 10th Floor, Greenwich Peninsula, SE10 0ER

© 2018 BookMachine We love your books

%d bloggers like this: