Re: Salinger-related article in Sept/Oct 2002 BOOK magazine

>From: Kim Johnson <haikux2@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>Subject: Re: Salinger-related article in Sept/Oct 2002 BOOK magazine
>Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>--- Will Hochman <hochmanw1@southernct.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As I read your description of Rakoff's job, I began
> > to understand her
> > angst. There's so much yearning in letters to
> > Salinger. I understand
> > that readers feel connected to authors and I'm glad
> > for it. But it's
> > sad that people just don't understand that the best
> > of what Salinger
> > can give us was offered in his fiction.
> >
>
>will,
>
>i agree the best of salinger is in his fiction. but i
>quite understand people (especially the very young)
>wanting to 'touch' the man. after all, doesn't
>holden, after reading a great book, want to phone the
>author? (no doubt salinger regrets that part of 'the
>catcher'.)
>
>i confess i once posted something to windsor, vt. and
>didn't even get it back. just as well. in the
>'letters to salinger' there's such a poignant one
>about a young author sending a copy of her first book
>inscribed to salinger and getting it back undelivered.
>granted, he must be deluged with stuff, and i imagine
>the best policy is to say no to anything that doesn't
>have a recognizable name and return address. though,
>now that i think of it, how did betty eppes get
>through? and once i saw a salinger letter at a book
>fair which obviously was a reply to a fan letter.
>

Thats a good question. My guess is that it was a combination of these three
things: a) she was a local. I believe from the Claremont Eagle, S likely
felt more comfortable sitting down with a NH "reporter" than someone from
the Washington Post. b) she was young and he trusted her. it was an
interview for a school newspaper, and this was just a few years after
Catcher was published (the one thing I remember of the interview is S being
asked if The Catcher in the Rye was autobiographical and him saying 'sort
of') so he still had hope. C) lastly, she was lucky, but then burned him by
turning it into a "scoop".

>there does seem to be something in most of us that
>wants some 'personal' contact with a writer whose
>writings one adores. even if it's just driving
>through cornish (but not ruining the rose beds), or a
>hail-mary letter to windsor, or holding an inscribed
>first edition of 'franny and zooey'.

If he reads get-well-soon cards form readers, as well as assorted fliers, it
is my hope he has read my letters. And the letters I have written have not
been addressed to Windsor, because this is a guranteed way to have them end
up in obscurity. Mine were sent to a more specific address, but hail mary's
anyway..

>
>but yes , in the end it's the books that matter. the
>life was/is his, though one fears that after his death
>there might be more 'mud' a la joyce maynard.\

Hopefully not, but that book sure brought some unwelcome noteriety didn't
it? But I'll have to say I enjoyed Magarets book, just for the reassurance
that S will publish again, and has manuscripts in his vault coded for
specific release dates. Of course Orchises thought they were going to
publish something to the point they made an arrival date, but look what
happened...

Best,

Aaron

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 22 14:15:42 2002