client . 10
Stories appeared in the New York Observer , the New Criterion , and other publications , emphasizing the effort to suppress our biography . The result was an interregnum , during which we continued our work and Sontag continued to fume over our activities . 11 To poet John Hollander she confided , “ They ' ve even written twice to a nice young man who used to clean my apartment ( ten years ago !), who read me their second letter over the phone .” 12 For my biography of Rebecca West , I had interviewed her hairdresser , and I believe in speaking with anyone who has had interactions with my subjects . To Andrew Wylie , Sontag deplored the work of any biographer who did not seek her approval — precisely what no self-respecting independent biographer would want to do . 13 But to Sontag , we were “ rogue biographers . . . who specialized in doing unauthorized biographies ( everybody from Marilyn Monroe and Mohammed [ sic ] Ali to lots of writers ).” Although Ali had not been one of our subjects , she repeated this information to Chip Delany , who had described an encounter with me . Sontag responded , “ You thought he was nice . Maybe he is , or was ( to you ).” Unlike her other friends , Delany did not immediately acquiesce to her anathema , repeating his impression that I was “ a highly intelligent man , well spoken [ sic ] and quite sincere ,” who had made a careful study of Sontag ' s work . In fact , Delany and I engaged in an extensive correspondence , disagreeing about some aspects of biography . But there was no room for nuance in Sontag ' s outrage 10
Kachka , 289 . 11 Manus ; McGee ; Rollyson , “ PEN ’ s Iron Curtain .” 12 December 5 , 1996 , UCLA archive . 13 January 8 , 1997 , UCLA archive .
18