Subject: Re: Kakutani
From: citycabn (citycabn@gateway.net)
Date: Mon Apr 10 2000 - 14:12:25 EDT
In rereading my original post, I see how my compressed statement, "Though I
could care less about Kakutani" easily could be read as a condemnation of
her review of _Hapworth_. It wasn't intended to be. I only was trying to
say I wasn't really interested in, or brought to life, or summoned to break
my self-imposed silence, by _that_ sentence (which was Updike's critique of
Kakutani's review and prose style), but by Updike's sentences which
followed. (I am too lazy, too ignorant, to try and import the appropriate
sentences from will's original post--, please, if you care, seek them in
will's of 4/7: "hapworth/Updike".)
I haven't had the pleasure to read the review in question. But I must say I
would if it appeared under my nose. Her first name alone, Michiko, would
compel a reading.
This is so far afield, but I seem to specialize in these extraneous
utterances: Michiko, from the fall of '72, just a few conversations after
class (which I shall never forget); Michiko, ten years later, at thirty-six,
dead; Michiko, a name which is on my personal list of names of people I
love; just such a list which Seymour, in _Hapworth_ (in the paragraph re Sir
Arthur Conan Doyle), advises one to consult before one does anything
extremely important or crucial in one's life.
--Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Mattis Fishman <mattis@argoscomp.com>
To: bananafish@roughdraft.org <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 7:39 PM
Subject: Kakutani
> Bruce,and all,
>
> I have to agree that Hapworth treats us to many pleasant
> passages among the prose that is deliberately contrived,and the
> entire story seems to me to contribute to the total picture we
> have of the Glass family, and obviously, especially Seymour, as a kind of
an
> extended coda on the the theme "but I was so much older then, I'm
> younger than that now".
>
> Still,the Kakutani review is worth reading,and brings up a lot of points
> for contemplation, whether you agree or not.
>
> The review, published in the NY Times, and posted here a year or two ago
> was less than favorable. Seymour was described as an obnoxious, unlikable
> and incredible character, and his portrayal did not seem to fit with
> much of what we had already been told about him, as though we were
> being given a revisionist view. I happen to think that the review was
> very well written, and eye-opening (it can be found in the NY Times of
> February 20, 1997, and is called "From J.D. Salinger, a New Dash of
Mystery",
> by Michiko Kakutani). It should be findable on the Times's web site,
> but if people request, I will repost it here, assuming I can find it...
>
> all the best,
> Mattis
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon May 01 2000 - 06:20:13 EDT