Re: A new mesage on the fifth

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:09:15 +1000 

, 5 July 1998 16:15
> 
> I apologize if it seems that I am intruding on this discussion (I've been
on
> this Bananafish list for only one day), 

Intruding on discussions is the point of this list (: What you say in this
post is definitely the same thing I'm saying - that an editor (official or
unofficial) is ultimately at the service of the writer and his or her
ideas, and not the other way around. Welcome to the list ((())))

Camille 
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442

 but it seems to me that the true
> writer (any writer,not only the well known)  has, when writing, only one
goal
> in his endeavours, and that is to express his ideas in the best possible
> manner.  Hemingway, (the genius of his time) and Salinger (the genius of
many
> of our years as teenagers or young adults) have desired to express their
ideas
> and, in a broader sense, their ideals, to the reader and the public in
> general, and despite the fact that they might have needed guidance from
their
> editors at some times to improve the specific mechanics of their
writings, Max
> Perkins for example, the ideas that they hoped to express have remained
the
> same and have been expressed successfully .  For example, no matter how
much
> influence Max Perkins had, no matter how great an editor he was of the
great
> writers, from Hemingway to S. Fitzgerald, no matter that, he had no way
of
> changing what these writers had to say, even though he might have changed
the
> specific words that might appeal to an audience; the writer's ideas have
> remained the same.  I doubt, for Hemingway, the meaning of For Whom the
Bell
> Tolls changed, even though critical reviews might have suggested other
> symbolism for the novel.  In the case of Salinger, he may have chosen not
to
> even read the reviews of his published works, in that he was unconcerned
with
> what others thought of his work, that he knew what his works were about,
and
> he cared nothing for literary immortality, only for the satisfaction that
his
> ideas, were known.
>          (my first posting)
> 
> JD Hadden, 19, Emory University