Re: today's suck
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:57:16 +1000
I would conjecture that even if Seymour's poetry did exist Salinger
wouldn't show them to us unless he was very, very very confident about them
(and having not published for 35 years indicates either an overwhelming
confidence or an overwhelming lack of confidence, conscious or otherwise)
for the aforementioned reason of anticipation - just like in `The Inverted
Forest' where we are fed one tantalising line (and it *is* a very nice line
(: ) all the mystique and genius of Raymond Ford or Seymour Glass would be
banished to the banal world of the real, where literature has its
limitations ('course, he could go the complete other way as Nabokov did in
- to mention it again - `Pale Fire', where he gave us the whole shebang and
let us make up our own ideas on it. Salinger would never trust us to do
that (: )
I know Stephen King said it, but it's still very true: ideas are infinite
in the imagination, but only finite on paper.
As for Beers' labelling of Salinger as Salinger is `an avid literary
pornographer who turns strangely silent when its time to actually
get naked - a sure sign of someone who can't perform in the sack.' -
It instead strikes me as a good example of a quality all too lacking in so
much contemporary fiction (especially pornography, which in its literary
form I find not only one of the most cringeworthy aspects of literature,
but of *everything*) - restraint. Salinger would have been pretty foolish
to blow his load, as no one - not even a Raymond Ford or a Seymour Glass -
could be the perfect genius he has been put out to be.
Sorry Ambrose, but you're a phony, plain and simple. (: And not cause
you're bashing Salinger - I have nothing against that except mild
disagreement (and occasionally a quiet, subtle nod of agreement) - but
cause you're a phony.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
Jake McHenry wrote:
> 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
> >