> The only possible answer is also the most trite. Buddy is > J.D.Salinger. As is Seymour, Sergeant X., Bessie, Phoebe, > Sybil.... The neverending debate rolls on ... naturally, there isn't a single character in an author's ouevre which does not contain some part of that author, but ... > In a very high proportion of cases, I believe, the fictional > character is prompted by memory of the actual. The MEMORY is the keyword here. I'm not saying that Sybil for example was not inspired by some flesh and blood Sybil out there still running away from her flesh and blood Seymour with equally little regret. In fact a lot of evidence would point to this, and of course to something similar in `To Esme ...' The simple fact of the matter is, though, that as I said, this is irrelevent. No matter whether or not Salinger aimed to portray some real person - as soon as this other person becomes a character in a fiction rather than a character of life, he or she is injected inextricably with some essence of his or her creator - namely, the author. > It's when there's no such germ that you get the cardboard cutout, > the universally applicable, the intractably lifeless character. I don't believe that's wholly true. Naturally every character an author creates has some spark of otherworldly life in them - you could say all characters are a huge jigsaw puzzle of impressions of people gained over an entire lifetime - yet I don't believe that one need deliberately assemble characters from real life for them to be as vital and true to life as any other. The dullest books I've ever read - Sylvia Plath's `The Bell Jar' for example - are those ones most obviously and unswervingly based on reality. Camille verona_beach@geocities.com @ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442 THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest