Re: Salinger article. (fwd)
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Wed, 06 Jan 1999 11:19:16 +1100
I agree Will - as I said, there's certainly a few journalistic glosses
added to the tale - in both senses; glossing over details and adding gloss
to details. Journalism today has a tendency to laminate things for the
masses and draw the sort of easy `Oona O'Neill First Love' conclusions that
Johnson does. It annoys me when journalists get facts so wrong cause to me
it says they really don't know enough about their subject to be educating
*me* about it!
It's funny - I too really draw a blank when people discuss Catcher in its
`period' terms. A `period' book to me is a book that loses some of its
initial impact through the passage of time. There are books from ten years
old to three hundred years old that no one picks up to read any more but
were the biggest successes of their day - because they lose their relevance
and social reference over time. No one could accuse this of Catcher. I
don't know some of the songs Holden sings or the nightclubs he goes to but
it doesn't matter one jot. A `period' book is a story that could only have
happened in the time it happened in. Catcher could have happened at any
time, which is why I think it is (close your ears Matt (: ) - universal.
And this is also why Shakespeare is still relevant 400 years on and nobody
reads The Carpetbaggers anymore (apart from the fact that it's rubbish (: )
But you're also right - I remember when that article that mentioned
Bananafish came out in Australia there was at least a few new Bananafishers
won over. Anything that can get people interested is certainly worthwhile!
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
> 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
>