Subject: Re: holden, et al. vs. the glasses
From: L. Manning Vines (lmanningvines@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 19:21:13 EDT
Kim said:
<< surely you're not suggesting that salinger's writing,
after 'the catcher', is the work of a looney? >>
I'm not sure enough of the chronology to say, simply, After Catcher. And
Looney might be too much. But I do believe that Salinger got caught up in
himself (How did he phrase his fear? Getting lost in his own mannerisms?)
and declined. His writing became less potent, I think -- and I might say
increasingly irrelevant. I found Hapworth, Salinger's ugly publishing
demise, to be quite atrocious. I don't think these opinions are the most
popular here, but I have them.
I should add that I recognize, for instance, Bad Hemingway, and delight in
it anyway, because Hemingway so thoroughly delights me. Even when he is not
great -- even, indeed, when he is Bad -- I delight in his manner of being
so. I can say this too for Salinger, but in a more limited way. I don't
find Seymour: An Introduction to be at all good, for instance, but it still
delights me. I enjoy it, but in a different manner than I enjoy certain
other things, which I think more highly of. But Teddy, on the other hand, I
find quite nearly unbearable.
Also:
<< granted, in the 22nd century salinger might be known
only as a very minor author with one book of note:
'the catcher'.then again, in the 22nd century his
glass stories might be acknowledged as his 'finnegans
wake'. >>
If I ackowledged them as that now, I would not mean it as a compliment. So
I should hope for the former.
-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 16:27:01 EDT