Editors' Note

Abstract

Editors' Note Aimee Pozorski, Jessica G. Rabin, and Maren Scheurer As the commemoration of what would have been roth's ninetieth birthday in March of 2023 approaches, we have been mindful of Roth's legacy, not only in the sense of how Roth will be remembered — something the ongoing debates about the legitimacy of Roth's biographies have broached — but also in the sense of Roth Studies, both as an academic field and Philip Roth Studies, our very own journal. In consultation with Roth scholars from many fields and geographies, we have asked what a field called Roth Studies should look like. Timothy L. Parrish and Samuel J. Kessler, the editors of this special issue on "Roth and Judaism," are two of those scholars. While Tim began his career as a traditional academic, his work has evolved in the forms of essays and fiction; Sam is educated in a tradition of Religious Studies. They bring a slightly different approach to their editing work — one that involves inviting scholarship from outside our traditional circle. The result is an issue that we may debate for months to come. And we hope that we do. Schooled in traditional Western thought that privileges such academic modes as scholarly debate and scholarly convention, we worried that the articles in this issue were a bit too essayistic, against the grain, and, at times, too distant from the concerns of literary scholarship that we were not sure we should publish them in the pages of this journal. However, we also realize ours are not the only voices — just three in a globe filled with enthusiastic readers of Roth, readers from all different viewpoints and traditions. It is no accident that we are posing these questions now — not only because the question of Roth's legacy is in front of us but also because of the topic of this very special issue: Roth and Judaism. We have asked ourselves while overseeing this project: what does it mean to argue from a point of absence — that, while one would like to see more evidence of Roth's engagement with Judaism, sometimes it is not there in the form we would expect or even hope? What does it mean to read Roth's early work with the assumption that you can find a direct line to Roth the man while also assuming there is a normative position regarding Judaism? One of the things we pondered while preparing this issue is that many of the essays here end up proving, in spite of themselves, that Roth did not meaningfully engage with Judaism at all — but argue that he should have. We see a trend here that runs counter to what we know literature can do. The issue, with its endorsement of reading Roth from an explicitly religious perspective, also poses a challenge: how can we do justice to a religious point of view while at the same time also doing justice to our sense of Roth's literature and Roth's engagement with religion itself? [End Page 1] To be perfectly clear, we appreciate the desire of our guest editors to take on this incredibly important project. As they say, there needs to be more robust discussion of the place of religion in the work of Roth. And what better space to do that than in the pages of Philip Roth Studies, which has a readership from all different perspectives and all over the globe? However, we believe this is only the first phase of a long conversation that, we hope, will become more grounded in close readings of Roth's work and scholarly dialogue. Rather than close down debate, then, we seek here to open the question. We would like to publish three letters to the editors in the Fall 2023 issue that capture exemplary and, at the same time, outstanding responses to our question: how far might we go, as a peer reviewed, academic journal, to invite new and different approaches in? What is the role of Philip Roth Studies in contributing to Roth's legacy — particularly regarding Judaism? Ultimately, how seriously should we take ourselves as serious scholars about Roth? Please submit your letters to philiprothstudies@gmail...