the "Maynard on Salinger" article
Tim O'Connor (tim@roughdraft.org)
Wed, 05 Aug 1998 13:05:44 -0500
We've had a few advance reports about the Joyce Maynard article on JDS in
the last day or two.
The actual article (an excerpt from Joyce Maynard's forthcoming memoir that
describes her past relationship with JDS) is in the new (September) issue
of Vanity Fair, which hit the newsstands today. (Literally hit -- I was
buying the newspaper and the delivery man crashed into my back with a
five-foot-tall stack of the magazine on a hand truck.)
It's difficult to characterize Maynard's article without sounding either
extremist or prudish. "Tawdry" is a word that comes to mind. Some details
are better left unreported, in my eyes. Even several journalists in the
last few days have said -- about reporting of private details in the lives
of public figures -- that some questions are beyond reasonable grounds, and
that the public has no right to ask about certain matters. Maynard's
article displays a reasonably cold and clinical approach, but if she had
been treated as she describes, she certainly has a right to feel the need
to exact some kind of retribution.
But it is also a strange optimism-inducing article. One reason is that the
author confirms the rumor that Salinger maintains a safe in his home
containing two full book-length manuscripts, a fact that makes me happy.
Another is that he maintains a kind of Glass family scrapbook about each of
the characters, and that there was some sort of family chronicle he
maintained then, which is of course intriguing.
Additionally, she offers a more explicit explication of Salinger's view of
the media and of publishing than I have ever seen attributed to him. Given
some of what I have observed, I'd have to offer a tip of the hat to him on
that one. "Does anybody actually need to open up Esquire magazine and take
in one more hysterically amusing little exercise in assassination by
typewriter?" he asks -- an irony 25 years in the making, since you can
change the name of the magazine to "Vanity Fair" and the fit is impeccable
today.
He urges Maynard to write what she MUST write, not what provides ego
gratification. And he comments, "Publication is a messy business. You'll
see what I mean one day. All those loutish, cocktail-party-going opinion
givers, so ready to pass judgment. Bad enough when they do that to a
writer. But when they start in on your characters -- and they do -- it's
murder."
Her description of a lunch with Salinger, William Shawn, and Lillian Ross
is delightful; Ross was imperious and caustic. This tiny scene alone, and
the snippet that follows, is incredibly revealing; you can see things
unravel quickly.
I'm personally not too interested in the cereal Salinger eats, or his
interest in homeopathic medicines, but I'm strangely delighted to hear that
at the time he had a regiment in place for writing and meditating, and that
he was still working hard on manuscripts.
Some of the gentler parts are sweet, because they show a tender side to the
man. Some of it is just this side of tasteless. And most amusing of all
is the author's note:
The dialogue in the book has been reconstructed
to the best of my ability, as have been the
details of what happened. Since I was raised
from my earliest youth to be an *observer*, I
believe if film footage or tape existed
documenting my life, it would possess a
startling similarity to what's reported.
I can't help wondering how busy her lawyers are at the moment....
Whether you believe that it is tasteless or fascinating, the article is
definitely worth looking into, at least if you've ever spent a moment
wondering whether the man continued to write after publishing his last
story. Salinger's feelings about the industry may also be the cause for
the long delay in the hardcover publication of "Hapworth" -- but read the
article and judge for yourself what he thinks about the business of
publishing.
--tim o'connor