for an interview then . For future reference , he wanted to know more about our “ approach ,” what sources we would use , and how long we expected to work on the book . He looked forward to hearing from us . After consulting with our editor , we replied , “ As with other biographies of living figures we have worked on , our approach , proposed sources , and even the amount of time we spend on this project , will depend , in part , on the subject ’ s availability for an interview .” Wylie did not respond to this riposte . But he had already consulted with lawyers before we had even sent our first letter to her . On January 7 , 1996 , three months before we wrote to Sontag , Wylie had contacted Russell E . Brooks at Millbank , Tweed , Hadley & McCloy , a Manhattan white shoe law firm . Wylie pointed out that as an independent publishing house , W . W . Norton had limited resources , and he suspected that as a “ quite traditional ” and “ even a bit stuffy ” publisher Norton would “ want to avoid an arduous legal entanglement . I would like them to feel that this was in store for them , if you agree .” When it became apparent that Norton ( which had taken out a libel insurance policy ) was not deterred by Sontag ' s uncooperative silence , Donald S . Lamm , chairman of W . W . Norton , received a letter on January 10 , 1997 , from Russell E . Brooks on Milbank , Tweed letterhead . The letter stated that the biographers were “ unknown to Ms . Sontag ,” and that she had “ no reason ” to believe we were “ qualified to write such a biography .” The letter expressed a concern that Sontag ’ s privacy and the privacy of her friends would be violated in a book that aimed to “ provoke controversy .” The letter put the publisher “ on notice .” Their book would be scrutinized and Sontag ’ s rights “ meticulously defended .” On January 29 , a vice-president at Norton responded , “ We and the authors intend to do a responsible job of publishing the work .” Janny Scott ’ s New York Times
16