---WILL HOCHMAN <hochman@uscolo.edu> wrote: > > Actually, I think "billy" and "jerry" will both stand the test of time, > though I'm not saying Mr. Salinger's work equal's Mr. Shakespeare's work. first of all, i understand shakespeare just fine. and there are footnotes and annotations for the rest of it. but i don't really like puking all over myself when i'm trying to read. and that's just something salinger's never been able to do for me. > > I disagree strongly with the idea that Salinger's context (fifties, > sofisticated new yorker) makes his work limited--I think what emerges from > that context in terms of self and god seeking is something our twenty > third century progeny will enjoy. > > will > > this reminds me of a short story a friend of mine wrote called "here's your story." it's about a guy trying to write the perfect story. it's an amazing satire coming from a seventeen year old. there's a part in it where he looks at the calender and then writes the date on the piece of paper (march 11 1998), and says "shit! now it's dated, how will it stand the test of time?" or something like that. it may interest you to know that what the he had actually written was just "the end" over and over. this brings up something else. the medias which criticism makes use of. if the critic is equal to the artist, wouldn't criticism of say, a painting, be more valid if the critic painted his criticism of it? or danced his criticism of a merce cunningham performance? it would make being a critic a little bit more fun anyway. ... the first time i read "raise high..." i thought that salinger was enclosing a blank page by way of explanation for the story. and i went aroung thinking that until the second time i read it. and was disappointed just because i like the way i misread it better. my apologies. ... _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com