Re: editors

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: among the innocent"
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: new yorker"
• Maybe in reply to: Scottie Bowman: "editors"
• Next in thread: William Hochman: "Re: editors"

Will & Scottie (not, as it sounds, an old vaudeville team (: )  wrote:
> I'm too old to care now so that when it comes
>     to the next two, there's going to be no damned
>     compromise with anyone.  I promise you.
> 
>     Scottie B.
>  YES! That's perhaps the same reasoning that makes "Hapworth" worthwhile
> to some readers...will

Interesting perspective. So you're saying that the sheer audacity of
Hapworth is something that would endear it to its intended audience? A
sense of `Wow, look what Salinger can get away with', even? It seems that
this is an integral part of many such cult figures - Andy Warhol springs to
mind.

Now, about you and Scottie starting up a vaudeville team ... (:

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com


_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: among the innocent"
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: new yorker"
• Maybe in reply to: Scottie Bowman: "editors"
• Next in thread: William Hochman: "Re: editors"