But in spite of Beers' criticism I wonder how close he was to the truth. I mean, I for one have always considered it a very real possibility, fingers crossed eternally even, that Seymours poetry really existed the way that Salinger stated. The convenient little saving grace found in the fact that his widow doesn't want them published always seemed like a cop out. (And I could care less if it is and I will tell you why.) And perhaps Salinger really is holed up in his small cement studio with a sunroof cranking out the most sublime poetry we could imagine. (And, listen, I hope you all can just accept the word poetry for what it is and what you know I mean. I don't need a ton of responses flaming me and saying that I cannot see the poetry in his stanzaless words. I see it all too well, as far as that goes.) But isn't that a hell of alot of pressure to put on yourself? But I am quite sure, for good or for bad, that Will is right about the "proof" of Seymours poetry. As before, anything is possible and there just might be a stack of secret scribbled notebooks with the initials S.G on the cover and inside we find words that make us curl up on the couch and sleep for days. I doubt it though. I doubt that Salinger himself could live up to the sheer perfection of S. and knows damn good and well that poetry like Seymours would be impossible to write. (Write, I say.) But don't we all feel like we have read his poems before? Like Will, I can imagine it. And isn't that something so perfect about Salinger in and of itself? (That we can read and feel and imagine Seymours poetry and we are moved and uplifted by it without having ever "read" it.) Many things sound better on paper but never live up to their promises in real life. Who wants to be let down? -----Original Message----- From: WILL HOCHMAN <hochman@uscolo.edu> To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu> Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 1:44 PM Subject: Re: today's suck >Well, Ambrose Beers at http://www.suck.com today really criticizes >Salinger but I wondered if Beers's inability to sense the "pure poetry" of >Salinger without the stanzas and Beers's inability to see genuine >spiritual insights in Salinger's fiction (and being) is much more than his >own inabilities to imagine what Salinger points toward...in other words, I >don't expect Salinger to prove the "pure poetry of seymour" because I can >imagine it...same with spiritual directions...he's not offering a how to >and never did...anyhow, I thought it was interesting to read though only >half the links really worked, will >