Re: a watching brief

Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Fri, 07 Aug 1998 02:36:49 +0500 (GMT+0500) 

> Hmmmmm.  I sort of think otherwise, or perhaps I missed the primness in
> some message that passed through here.  Most of the reaction seems to be
> about the unlikely connection between a teenager and a 53-year-old man --
> an ironic situation, given Salinger's own response when his romantic
> interest, Oona O'Neill, married Charlie Chaplin.  (Salinger made at least
> one acid remark in a letter about O'Neill's sudden marriage; I believe it's
> cited in Ian Hamilton's book.)

While I don't really have anything against an older man or woman romance
with someone much younger, the Maynard account, from whatever little one
has read on the list, does provide a perspective on the cantankerous old
coot's supposed "spirituality."  Off hand, to me earlier it had seemed
like a cheap case of kiss-and-tell to cash in on JDS's name, but I am
reminded once again how there can be no absolutes in terms of even what I
consider a legitimate act or not...like generally, I personally would
scoff at some one "exploiting" a relationship into a book, but I guess I
would like to read the book (actually, purely for salacious pleasure). .

But, as for that Oona-Chaplin angle: hmmm, yeah... but Hamilton was not
allowed to quote that Chaplin bit from the letter that NYT, however, could
report about in its coverage on the court case. Since "fair use" quoting
from a newspaper report, is not violative of any copyright infringements,
here it is: 
 
     ''I can see them at home evenings. Chaplin squatting grey and nude,
     atop his chiffonier, swinging his thyroid around his head by his
     bamboo cane, like a dead rat. Oona in an aquamarine gown,
     applauding madly from the bathroom.''
 
     ''I'm facetious,'' the letter added, ''but I'm sorry. Sorry for
     anyone with a profile as young and lovely as Oona's.'' 
 
This is in "public domain," anyway, being a footnote to the appeal
court's decision in the Hamilton case, not allowed to be used in
the book, though. 

[Just to prevent a possible rap on the knuckles from Tim ;-) Ah, _my_
pathetic attempts at being facetious!]
 
I came across the above while doing a desultory search for "Salinger"
in the NYT website under the books section that has the issues from
1980 on-line, just in case others were interested in looking up some of
the media-coverage around that time. 
 
By the way: an amazingly large number of books reviewed cropped up with
the word "Salinger" in them, reinforcing an earlier hypothesis of mine
that book-reviewrs end up bringing in, however tenuously, CITR and
Salinger almost whenever they come across a somewhat angst-ridden,
adoloscent (or even otherwise) first person account. I am sure that if a
tally were to be kept, CITR must be one of the most oft-used reference
point in book reviews. Just an idle observation.
 
On a somewhat tangential note, I remember there being a discussion on
Dylan-playing-Holden thread some time [years?] back and while reading
an old Bob Dylan interview, came across the following which may provide
some chuckles to at least some here:
 
   PLAYBOY: What about your literary influences? You've mentioned Kerouac
   and Ginsberg. Whom do you read now?
 
   DYLAN: Rilke. Chekhov. Chekhov is my favorite writer. I like Henry
   Miller. I think he's the greatest American writer.
 
   PLAYBOY: Did you meet Miller?
 
   DYLAN: Yeah, I met him. Years ago. Played ping-pony with him.
 
   PLAYBOY: Did you read Catcher in the Rye as a kid?
 
   DYLAN: I must have, you know. Yeah, I think so.
 
   PLAYBOY: Did you identify with Holden Caulfield?
 
   DYLAN: Uh,. what was his story?
 
   PLAYBOY: He was a lonely kid in prep school who ran away and decided
   that everyone else was phony and that he was sensitive.
 
   DYLAN: I must have identified with him.
 
Sonny, 
who's very self-conscious of his "handle".