Re: Salinger article. (fwd)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: happy boithday"
• Previous message: citycabn: "Introduction"

Camille, thanks for the article--it certainly gets me going!

Daniel Johnson takes some journalistic liberties that I'd like to address.
There are inaccuracies such as claiming catcher was published in serial
form or that there is only one recent photo, and plenty of generalities
like claiming Catcher is a reading list fixture in every school, as well
as absurdities like calling Catcher the bible of creative writing classes,
that make me want to go on picking his nits.

Though "period" is increasingly part of the book's discussion, I think
it's universal themes flavor readings and find the book's psychological
and social insights more likely to dominate how the book is discussed in
the college classes I teach. 

Now my blood started to really get hot when Salinger was called an
"apostle of adolescence"--I recall reading greetings from a new
bananafish who studied with Som Ranchan (author of _An Adventure in
Vedanta (J.D. Salinger's Glass Family)_) and somehow wiping aside
Salinger's
spiritual work for a close focus on adolescence with a word like "apostle"
seems wrong except to welcome and encourage our new colleague to post or
lurk as he will...

Now that stuff about the O'Neils though, is just wrong.  Oona O was a
Salinger interest, but there's nothing I know of that makes her a great
love, nor has Salinger indicated her dad's work deeply influenced him.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I can also admit to enjoying the
article simply as evidence of interest...thanks for posting it--my crit
is of the article but my gratitude toward you for posting it shouldn't be
missed, will

• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: happy boithday"
• Previous message: citycabn: "Introduction"