"[W]hen an alleged rapist writes a book about a brilliant but problematic novelist, and when that book is lauded and celebrated up until..."

"... the moment two women say the author assaulted them — when all that happens, you wonder how the 900-page tome reads in hindsight." 

Writes Monica Hesse (in WaPo). She bought the book after the publisher withdrew it. You can still download the Kindle version. [ADDED: You can even buy the hardcover book at that link. Amazon has its stock to ship. But the publisher, Norton, isn't shipping any more books, and it's not doing publicity.]

That takes some of the heat out of the argument that the book has been censored. I stand by my opinion — expressed here — that the book should be sold no matter what the author, Blake Bailey, may have done. The book is not doing any sort of active harm — where we might have a real debate about censorship. It's just the argument that the author is a bad person, and these are only allegations. I would support publishing the book even if Bailey had shot a man on 5th Avenue in broad daylight. Roth is an overwhelmingly important writer, and this was the biographer he authorized, which caused many people to give interviews to Bailey. It's unfair to the Roth to deprive him of the story of himself that he chose Bailey to tell, and it's unfair to keep that story from us.

But we can get the Kindle version. And maybe we're more interested in it now. Monica Hesse got interested — interested in reading the book with "hindsight." I guess that means that all the time she's reading about Roth, she's thinking about how she's hearing the story of this "problematic" man as analyzed by another problematic man. Let's see what Hesse makes out of her assigned task of perceiving the problematic through an extra layer of problematizing:

You find yourself scrolling to a random page and reading a description of Roth’s first marriage: “Maggie’s sinuses were, of course, the least of their problems. Even at the best of times she couldn’t resist interrupting his work on the thinnest of pretexts (‘Could you go out and get half a pound of Parmesan cheese?’).” One could write a whole essay unpacking the premises propping up this sentence. Why is it unreasonable for Philip Roth to be asked to purchase an ingredient for the dinner he is presumably going to eat? Who purchased the rest of the groceries? One assumes it was Maggie. Was her day not “interrupted” when she shopped for and prepared the meal? What is the difference between a “thin pretext” and a valid request, other than whether the asker is Philip Roth or his shrewish, sinus-clogged wife? 

Ha ha ha. That is rich. That's some really good feminist writing. Bailey is damned by his "thinnest of pretexts." He assumes Maggie just wanted to interrupt Roth, that there couldn't possibly be a legitimate reason for the person cooking dinner to ask the other person in the house to go out and buy a missing ingredient. Bailey seems to think that a person in a house with a Genius at Work must know not even to ask for help with mundane household matters.

Here — if you're going to Amazon to download the Kindle of the Roth bio (or anything else) — why not buy this sign to tack onto your study door and see how it works out with your stuffed-up spouse:

The debate prep Trump really does need.

Yesterday, I had a post titled "Do 'allies' of President Trump really 'worry' that he's not preparing for the debates with mock debates in which somebody plays the part of Joe Biden?" I was skeptical that anyone really on Trump's side was worried. It was an NBC article, and I presumed I was reading another article designed to please and titillate Trump haters. For one thing, I didn't think Biden is a strong enough debater for Trump to need to learn to debate him in particular. It might degrade Trump's style to fine-tune it to Biden's.

But, I said, "Trump has to decide how merciless he ought to be. That's all. I suspect he'll decide on the spot whether to show compassion or go for the jugular." In the comments, I repeated this point: "Trump will need to decide whether to go for the kill when he has the chance. Remember Romney in the second debate. He got cold feet." It's hard to imagine Trump becoming mild and compassionate if Biden shows genuine, serious human frailty. I said: "I could picture Joe breaking down emotionally around about minute 70."

The commenter Dan the Man said: "'Sundowning' is a real thing with dementia patients. They get worse later in the day. We have seen this first hand in our family. If you want to talk to grandma, call before lunch. It will be something of an objective test in front of millions of people. I believe there are a lot of people who want to see 'just how bad he is.'"

And Bob said: "[I]f Biden shows evidence of being addled, how much sympathy should the President show? Should he simply ignore Biden completely and let him bumblefuck himself, or should he be his usual sarcastic self? How will it play with the American people watching? As for debate prep, have you noticed how often President Trump has given press conferences recently? Almost daily now. And the banter in the press conferences is often far more merciless on both sides than anything Biden is capable of these days. What I really anticipate is that President Trump will bait Biden so mercilessly that Biden tries to make it personal and challenge the President to a fistfight, or assault the President on camera. How will the Secret Service teams from both sides react?"

Yikes, I did not picture a physical fight. But I remember Biden in his debate with Paul Ryan in the 2012 election. Biden indulged in aggressive laughing and aggravating interruption. I thought at the time that it was so inappropriate. But that might have been intended to throw off the polite Wisconsinite Paul Ryan. Getting into heightened aggression with Trump is another scene altogether, but the question is whether Trump will or should be the one to crank up the tension and make the event super-stressful. The media will describe Trump as crazy and cruel and protect Biden. And Biden could come in with a simple plan to stand calmly and speak planned sentences and meet low expectations while Trump melts down. 

So should Trump stand back, do his thing independently, and let the people decide for ourselves how diminished Joe really is? Or should he point it out — in real time? Maybe he should point it out if it's not that bad and Biden supporters have room to say there's no actual dementia. But if it's plainly in view, maybe it's better to soldier on, to simply outdo him in the argument, and radiate some compassion while the poor man is exposed in his woeful shambles. There are many possible choices for Trump, and he may have to make them on the spot. But that seems to be what he likes to do, and he's got a lot of practice at it. 

"What I’d love to see at tonight’s debate..."

"... Ashes."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bob says:

Get real. They have to wear stage makeup for the debate, so if Santorum is wearing ashes for the event, it means he either had an aide prepare ashes for it, or has a priest backstage.

Was Justice Scalia smoking cigarettes with Sarah Jessica Parker?

The Legal Times gets the story straight:

... Justice Scalia did not need a cigarette. But when Parker asked for a light for hers, he provided it (as any Old World-style gentleman like Scalia would, we might add).

And he did not rush over to her and gush about how much he loved "Sex and the City" and was psyched about seeing the movie. You hear? There was no rush and gush.

My beloved commenters, you know what you need to do. Write your own Nino & SJP dialogue.

ADDED: So far, Bob is winning.