In recent years, a concerted effort—mainly visible in literary journals and review sections—has sought to portray Philip Roth, a key American novelist of the postwar era, as primarily defined by an alleged
hostility toward women. This initiative, which predates Blake Bailey’s
biography, has grown stronger, fueled by the modern tendency to view literature
as a measure of the author's moral character.
Leo Robson’s review in the Literary Review exemplifies this
type of critique. Instead of engaging deeply with Roth’s fiction—such as its
innovative structure, candid exploration of American Jewish identity, and
themes like mortality, sexuality, political hypocrisy, and the decline of
postwar liberalism—Robson focuses largely on anecdotes and personal grievances.
He treats a casual remark by an actress about Roth’s behaviour on a film set as
if it resolves a significant literary-historical issue. This is not genuine
criticism; rather, it amounts to gossip dressed up as judgment, replacing
thoughtful analysis with moral certainties of the moment.
The Method Behind the Moralism
This approach is intentional. The shift away from in-depth
social and historical analysis of literature toward moralising about individual
writers' conduct and psychology reflects broader intellectual trends over the
past forty years. As identity politics has become the main interpretive lens in
many academic and media circles, serious discussion of the class structures and historical forces that influence artistic creation has declined.
In this setting, literature is often seen more as a tool for
diagnosing personal flaws than as a historical artefact shaped by specific
social contexts. The critic takes on the role of prosecutor; the novel serves
as evidence; and the author becomes a case study. This approach
significantly limits the scope of the critical imagination.
Roth as a Historical Figure, Not a Moral Allegory
Roth, despite his limitations, was shaped by a specific
American context: the Cold War era, the unique pressures of postwar bourgeois
culture, the internal struggles of assimilation and rebellion within American
Jewish communities, the decline of mid-century liberal ideology, and the
transformation of the American middle class following World War II. His fiction
did not develop in isolation. It reflects the contradictions of a society that
celebrated unlimited personal freedom but enforced strict ideological
conformity, lauded upward mobility, yet often ignored the radical roots of many
immigrant communities.
Reducing that body of work to a simple test of whether its
author was sensitive to later generations' sensibilities dismisses any genuine
historical perspective on literature. It turns Roth from a novelist dealing
with the issues of his era into a moral symbol for our own.
Criticism Without History Is Not Criticism
Roth’s work can be critiqued, especially regarding his
portrayal of female characters. However, such critique should be grounded in an
understanding of the social and historical contexts that influenced both Roth
and his critics. His depictions of gender, sexuality, and power reflect a
specific era in American history—a time marked by the decline of the New Deal,
the rise of therapeutic culture, and changes in the American family due to
suburban growth and Cold War influences. Analysing Roth without considering
this background risks misunderstanding his work, and judging him without
acknowledging these factors risks forgetting history.
The Larger Intellectual Drift
Roth's case highlights a broader intellectual shift: moving from historical analysis to moral judgment, favouring personal anecdotes over critical analysis, and treating moral virtue as the main standard
of artistic value. This trend reflects a culture that has lost confidence in
interpreting literature through its historical background, instead seeking
moral clarity in the here and now. As a result, critics are becoming less able
to understand the social factors that influence art and more prone to blame
writers for not foreseeing future sensitivities they could not have predicted.
