Fwd: Re: Johnson article
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:04:50 +1100
This email is from Bruce who has kindly let me quote a private post -
Camille
Re the Johnson: Again, I am nodding, now more vigorously, with your
statements in the response to Will. Between us, I don't really understand
his response to the article. The basic tone of it was pro JDS. Johnson
even addresses and defends JDS re the Lolita angle. To nit pick the facts,
well... For bananafishers, every fact, or nuance thereof, is of importance.
But Johnson's article was pitched to the lay person. Journalism is
journalism. It wasn't like it was his Ph.D. At least J. did not do a
hatchet job on JDS. The article might induce one more person to pick up
the 4 books and enter the magic kingdom. I am relieved, frankly, that when
the Joyce Maynard book came out, that the US media did not declare war on
Cornish, and subject JDS to a media trial re the whole Lolita angle. In
the late late 20th century, it seems any tell-all volume, no matter how
much truth or fiction, is a green light for the media to start tearing down
said victim of the tell-all. Johnson even takes on J.M.! I personally am
not in the position to render a judgment re the Lolita thing. Way back in
'61 when Time mag. did a cover story on JDS, I think that motif surfaced.
It won't go away. I guess at the hoary age of 48, I have made my peace
with the thorny intricate triad: the author, the person, and the work.
Yes, there are overlaps. And yes, there are things that don't mesh. There
is JDS the man, JDS the writer, and the work that bears his name. But said
work also exists independently of JDS the man (and even JDS the writer).
Because: during the creation and birthing of said work, not *only* JDS was
in the delivery room. Others were about: writers of the past (JDS's
loves), JDS's inspirations (both religious and personal), JDS's unconscious
Self becoming conscious, even the Muse or daemon or whatever you want to
call it. Salinger, take my word for it, if you don't already agree, is as
astonished/puzzled/moved to tears/bewildered by things in his own writings
as we the readers of it are.