Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

My Harold Rosenberg: Saul Bellow Fictionalized My Love Affair—Now Here’s My Version

Three decades after Saul Bellow fictionalized my love affair with the great art critic, it’s time for my version

Print Email
(Courtesy of the author)

In 1984, a friend from East Hampton phoned me in my New York City apartment.

“Joan! I didn’t know you had an affair with Harold Rosenberg.”

“What are you talking about?” She wasn’t a close friend.

“I just heard that Saul Bellow has a story about Harold and you in the new Vanity Fair.”

“Saul Bellow has written what?”

As we spoke, phone in one hand, the other hand stretching my tangled phone cord to near breaking point, I grabbed any clothes I could find. After saying goodbye, I looked up the address of Vanity Fair’s Midtown office, dressed, ran a comb through my hair, and raced out the door to the subway.

Barging into the magazine’s office, I confronted the first person I saw. “You’ve got to give me a copy of your new issue. Saul Bellow has a story in it about me! If I don’t get it right now, I’ll have to consult my lawyer.”

I suffered through the next 10 minutes, watching the woman I’d verbally accosted huddle with two other women around a large L-shaped desk. Then she rushed me back out through the door into the hallway.

I all but grabbed the large manila envelope from her hands. Inside, in blocky gold letters on a lush red heart, Vanity Fair’s new “Valentine” issue, proclaimed: “Extraordinary Love Story by Nobel Prize Winner Saul Bellow.”

Thankfully, neither the cover, the story’s title, “What Kind of Day Did You Have?” or its description, “a high-flying story of a down-to-earth romance between a zaftig young Chicago matron and ‘a world class intellectual of seventy,’ ” was an instant clue to Harold’s identity—or to mine. But people in the art and literary worlds wouldn’t need to read far to realize that the story’s protagonist, “Victor Wulpy”—a “huge, physically imposing man, big in the art world”—had to be Harold.

Few of the same readers would recognize the real-life model for the story’s love-stricken heroine, “Katrina Goliger.” But despite his fictionalization, many of my friends would know that Bellow had based Katrina on me: “Dumpy … Dumb Dora … divorced … suburban matron … confused sexpot … passably pretty … (with) varicose veins and piano legs.”

It wasn’t only Bellow’s physical description of me that rankled. Harold had counted on me to behave with total discretion about our relationship. Back home, I skimmed the novella a second time, then phoned my lawyer, asking if I had grounds to sue.

“Don’t sue,” my lawyer said. “You’ll just attract more publicity.”

I feared he was right. Publicity was the last thing either I or my four adult children would wish. They had already suffered enough from my overpowering obsession with Harold, and from my protracted divorce from my husband, without my subjecting them to unasked-for publicity. Squelching my guilt, I wrote to “my author/creator.” I described to Bellow my dismay finding my largely secret affair with Harold made public and my mortification at the depiction of me—to which he responded that I should be flattered to be in any story of his.

That answer never satisfied me. Bellow had pillaged key incidents from my life, which should have been mine to tell. But for years I never did. I knew that my behavior was indefensible and irresponsible, but I also believe the affair was part of who I was—and had made me into the person I continued to be. I saved every scrap from our time together: Harold’s brief letters to me; handwritten notes for his articles he’d jotted on invitations, envelopes, or whatever paper he could scrounge; keys and receipts for our $14-a-day hotel rooms, as well as for my round-trip air flights and long-distance phone bills. It’s only been recently, as I neared the end of my intermittently worked-on memoir about Harold and began writing this essay, that for the first time the true cost—the steep price I’d paid to be with Harold—struck home.


Many people assumed that Harold Rosenberg owed his invitation to lecture at the University of Chicago to Saul Bellow, but my family knew better. We knew it was my mother-in-law, Duffy Schwartz, who was responsible for bringing Harold to Chicago. She and Harold had worked for the public-information-dispensing Advertising Council for years: he part-time in Manhattan, she in Chicago. For months, she’d also alerted us to each new article of Harold’s published in Vogue or The New Yorker. But that Sunday night in 1965, after dinner in my in-laws’ glassed-in sun porch, Duffy’s mention of Harold’s name precipitated an immediate family quarrel.

“You remember Harold Rosenberg, don’t you, Charlie?” she asked. “I sent you to ask him for advice about finding work in New York after you finished law school.”

“Oh, Mother,” my husband said. “Harold asked if my ‘Mama’ had sent me! I had nothing to ask, and he had nothing to say.”

“Charlie!” Duffy said. “Everyone at the Council agrees that Harold’s advice on any subject is invaluable.”

“Are you telling us that your friend Harold is the unsung genius behind ‘Smoky the Bear,’ or ‘Buckle Up For Safety’ and your other public safety slogans?”

“You know, we all contribute,” my mother-in-law said. “But now, after years of my suggesting it, he’s finally going to lecture at the university.”

At the time, I knew nothing of Harold’s reputation and hadn’t read anything by him. With three children under the age of 8, a fourth on the way, and a part-time job at the university writing abstracts of business articles about the psychology of economics, marketing, and labor, I felt lucky to finish an occasional Agatha Christie mystery. It was my friend and neighbor, the painter Vera Klement, who explained the reasons for Harold’s renown one afternoon after we’d picked up our sons from kindergarten. Vera told me that he’d coined the term “Action Painting”—a recognition that art’s true essence lay in the process of creation, not in the finished product. She defined that process as the drama touched off when an artist puts his or her brush to canvas, or when, like Jackson Pollock, he hurls or lets the paint drip or splatter down onto the canvas from an outstretched arm. Harold’s insight had helped create interest in works by Pollock, Willem de Kooning, Marc Rothko, and other soon-to-be-famous Abstract Expressionists.

That night, I told Charlie what I’d learned. “What’s the problem?” he asked, from amid the mountainous stacks of newspapers, magazines, articles, and other clutter that took up most of his office. “You still end up buying the canvas, not the artist.”

That Friday evening, on entering the auditorium with my in-laws—Charlie had refused to miss the chamber music concert for which we had tickets that night—I glimpsed Hans Morgenthau and Bruno Bettelheim—some of the university’s Jewish European refugees on the faculty.

I sat and readied myself (or braced) for the talk. Lectures about art typically left me glassy-eyed. But suddenly, there stood Harold. A ruddy-cheeked colossus, in his mid-60s, he radiated the youth and vigor of a man half his age. He began by rattling-off names: Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Franz Kline. But he didn’t discuss specific techniques or paintings. He reminisced about his friendships with the artists—of having stood in their studios, witnessing the struggles that had shaped their creations. He described the dancing parties in their Greenwich Village lofts, their drinking and debating at the Artists’ Club and Cedar Bar, the playfulness in the early years of their softball games in East Hampton. Wave after wave of laughter swept the room. “Now, that’s real art history I’m giving you tonight,” Harold said, wiping tears of laughter from his own eyes.

1 2 3View as single page
Print Email

I don’t know whether or not to be intrigued by this, or to shrug it off as long-lost high literary society gossip. But it clearly means something to Joan — she does tell it in a very human way. Funny enough, the first sentence of Benjamin Taylor’s intro to Bellow’s letters reads:

“When urged to write his autobiography, Saul Bellow used to say there was nothing to tell except that he’d been unbearably busy ever since getting circumcised.”

Here’s the link:

Saint_Etienne says:

This article made me sad in so many ways… :(

gwhepner says:


In America there are ordinary wives,

and trophy wives if you are rich,

but mistresses to spice the lives

of men who have a randy itch

are rare. It’s un-American

to make a mistress of a wench

who’s willing, since this kind of can

is mainly kicked by by men who’re French.

The Greeks may not have had a word

for mistresses, and it’s a term

that over here is rarely heard.

Americans are square, and squirm

about a role the French think neat,

and puritans still rock where men

conceal their readiness to cheat

throughout their lives, again, again.

this is getting stranger and stranger – more and more I am coming to the conclusion that we old folks have to stop writing about our sex lives; it’s embarrassing, not because it’s sex but because of the weird hushed tones, the dumb-old-fart leeringness (that Kazin’s problem, not hers, but they are related). Anyway, there are points of interest here, but it’s a strangely-dull piece, mostly because she’s just not that smart. And her citing: “in a pig’s ass,” “you’re a dead dog,”—words I
once thought of as hip but that would make today’s more enlightened
generations brand him a male chauvinist pig” – what does that mean? What is chauvinist about that? This whole article doesn’t add up.

The saddest part is how she knew she was neglecting her children for her lover, who didn’t even really appreciate her. Why does this happen to so many women? Why are we settling for so little from our men? How do we get to this point?
So sad, on so many levels.

paul delano says:

You summed it all up in the last sentence.

paul delano says:

I’ve got a newsflash for you: there’s always been more married men with mistresses in this country than in France. The difference is the French culture ignores it while our Puritan inheritance still casts an disapproving eye on the practise.

Fascinating stories of chance, obsession and devotion. The man of ideas and the woman seeking inspiration carry out their romance and pay the price: divorce, a sense of having neglected family, and finally grief on one side; posthumous shame and mockery on the other side. Ullman has told a moving story by focusing on truth unadorned (unlike Bellow). It’s never too late to show courage and find clarity! And the wonderful scrapbook gives us precious bits of the warm, funny, irrepressible Harold Rosenberg, a man who never feared to confront a fool. Thank you Joan Ullman!

brynababy says:

So you consider faithfulness a “Puritan” view? What a lovely marriage you must have.

brynababy says:

This was a very interesting confession which opens the door to many questions that might be good writing material. What of the children? Is Joan close with them, do they condemn her or were they even aware. What of her mother-in-law, that mover and shaker? Did she intervene, did she care, does Joan have a relationship with the in-laws (her children’s grandparents). Oh yeah, I’d love to read about all that history.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

A Harold Rosenberg Scrapbook

Collection of Joan Ullman
More on Tablet:

15 American Rabbis You Haven’t Heard Of, But Should

By Yair Rosenberg — These Jewish leaders’ influence has been felt around the country, in every denomination, even if you don’t know them by name