Re: Request for the Chi.Trib.Articles


Subject: Re: Request for the Chi.Trib.Articles
Hotspur8@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 12 1997 - 03:23:36 GMT


In a message dated 97-03-11 15:35:36 EST, you've asked:

<< Since I just joined the list is it possible to send me, privately, the
 Chicago article? >>

here you go.. sorry i don't have dolby surround sound for your enjoyment.

--[The cover story of the Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, dated
Wednesday, February 26, 1997]--

Title: A New Puzzle From The Author No One Knows
        One of JD Salinger's lesser efforts rises from obscurity

By John Blades, Tribune Literary Staff Writer

[Cover photo is of a 1951 Salinger on the cover of the New Yorker Magazine
(taken by Lotte Jacobi), superimposed on an open text of "Hapworth", a
pictured shot of the Bananafish Home Page, and the (faded) covers of the four
published JDS novels-- all to form the image of a 'puzzle'... thus, the
title. (Tribune photo illustration by Tom Heinz).]

It was just a passing reference in a wire story about the publication of an
old JD Salinger novella, but the news was as momentous as anything else in
the daily or weekly press recently, including the National Enquirer.
Describing the exhumation of "Hapworth 16,1924", a mock letter from summer
camp in a 1965 New Yorker that was Salinger's last published story, the AP
report identified Phyllis Westberg as a "publicist" for the monastic,
78-year-old author.
The wire story seemed to imply that after more than three decades of deep
cover, Salinger was about to emerge from his New Hampshire bunker and hustle
his book on TV and radio talk shows, that he might turn up in bookstores to
read such unmistakably Salingeresque passages as, "Though this is quite a
terible bore for you, and dear Bessie and Les, supurb or suitable
construction of sentences holds some passing, amusing importance for a young
fool like myself!"
Alas and alack, Salinger junkies! The AP story, like so many other bulletins
and rumors about the invisible (continued on page 7)

[Page 7 picture of The Winona Ryders album, "J.D. Salinger" with caption: A
punk rock band declares their album "J.D. Salinger".]

(continued) author over the years, proved to be inaccurate-- hilariously so,
to judge by Westberg's laughter when reached by phone at her New York office.
 "That's nuts!!" she said. "I'm a literary agent and not a publicist. A
publicist answers questions. I don't answer questions."
Most especially not questions about J.D. Salinger, whose desire to be left
alone has put him in the reclusive company of Greta Garbo, Howard Hughes, and
Thomas Pynchon, among the more celebrity-phobes. "I really don't have any
comment about that," Westberg responded, repeatedly but cordially, to
routine queries about the author and the book, which will be published not by
Little, Brown, Salinger's home base since "The Catcher in the Rye" (1951),
but by the heretofore unknown Orchises Press. "The only thing I'll do is
confirm that it's an authorized edition. I'll also confirm that i'm not Mr.
Salinger's publicist."
Pressed for a crumb or two, Westberg did scotch one rumor circulating through
the Manhattan publishing axis. When the book failed to reach stores in
mid-February, as promised, the word went out that it would never show up,
that Salinger was so disturbed by the seismic eruption in the media that he
had aborted its publication and retreated even deeper into his burrow. "It
has been delayed," Westberg said. "I can confirm that it will be published,
but I'm not quite sure when."

Not Much To Say
Further confirmation came from Roger Lathbury, editor/publisher of the
Orchises Press, out of Alexandria, Va. "There are no problems with the book,"
insisted Lathbury, an English professor at George Mason University as well as
a publisher. "It will come out but I hesitate to give a date. I've done it
twice before and been tripped up both times."
Asked about speculation that a personal friendship with Salinger led to his
coup, Lathbury, who has published some 60 other books, titles from Dostoevski
to Auden, replied, "I don't wish to be impolite, but on all questions that
connect up to the author, i have to say, 'no comment,' even when they're
completely innocuous. If you were to ask me if he were alive, I would tell
you, 'no comment.' "
If Westberg is Salinger's anti-publicist, Lathbury seems to be his
anti-publisher (just as anyboby who attempts to invade the author's cherished
privacy is the Antichrist). Even on such humdrum matters as distribution and
size of his printing, which most publishers are happy to divulge, Lathbury
was only slightly more informative. "There are distributors who are
interested in the book. It will be in some stores, probably not in
others...I refuse to say how many books I'll print. What happens is, if you
say 5,000 copies, a collector will buy 5,000 copies. The book is not for
investors. It's to be read."
Considering the excitement that news of its republication has generatedamong
Salinger disciples, "Hapworth 16, 1924" will surely be read, or reread in the
case of those who encounteredit in its 80-page New Yorker incarnation, 32
years ago. Reaction to the story at the time was less than ecstatic. "If he
keeps on publishing work as mystical, indulgent and interminable as
'Hapworth', a precocious and endless letter by the 7-year-old Seymour
Glass...critics and readers will probably grant him all the solitude and
anonymity he desires," was a majority opinion of the day.
But such ancient grousing was no deterrent to the present generation of
Salinger worshipers. Besides the buzz in normal media channels, there was a
bulletin on the Internet via the "Bannanfish" home page, a Salinger
repository for "happy lurkers and thoughtful discussers," whose title comes
from what may be his most famous and perplexing short story, "A Perfect Day
for Bananafish".
"There is a new J.D. Salinger book coming out this February!" exulted Stephen
Foskett, founder and proprietorof the "Bananafish" home page
(http://slf.gweep.net--sfoskett/jds/index.html). "It's just a repackaging of
an underpublished story from the New Yorker, but it is a new book and it's
getting lots of attention."
When Foskett failed to respond to an e-mail query about his personal interest
in Salinger, it was left to 21-year-old Luke Seemann, author on-line acolyte,
to elaborate on the significance of the novella. "Part of it is the mystery
of why he's doing it, with such an obscure publisher. I've read the story,
and I don't think it measures up to the other stuff he's published in novella
form. But it's also like the first visit from a good friend in over 30
years."
Salinger wasn't such a good friend when Seemann, now a jouralism student at
Northwestern University in Evanston, operated his "Holden Server" on the
Internet, named for Holden Caulfield, the tortured adolescent narrator of
"The Catcher in the Rye." A collection of 160 random quotes from Salinger's
only novel, the "Holden Server" was terminated after Seemann received an
e-mail warning from the author's agent about copyright violations.
Seemann was considering a legal challenge but was discouraged by the outcome
of Salinger's action against Ian Hamilton, whose biography of Salinger was
stalled in 1986 because of his liberal use of passages from Salinger's
letters. After two revisions over two years, Hamilton pulled together a
legally correct book, "In Search of J.D. Salinger," which he chivalrously
limited in scope to the novelist's "writing years," between 1935 and 1965,
when he published his first and last stories. He also promised not to pester
Salinger's ex-wives or children or to trespass on his Cornish Compound.

A Reverence For The Author
It wasn't entirely the Hamilton precedent that frightened him off, Seemann
added. "After thinking about it for a week, I decided he wasn't someone I
wanted to start a fight with. His work is very important to me. Like a lot
of other people, I read "Catcher" when I was a teenager, about the age of
Holden. It was one of the first works of literature I could really relate
to, which I think is a universal reaction.
"But the turning point came when I happened upon a copy of "Franny & Zooey,"
and on the dust jacket Salinger remarked how privacy and obscurity are really
an author's greatest possesion. It occured to me then that if I went any
further, I would really be intruding."
As Seemann suggests, a reverence for Salinger is still common among high
school readers, "awkward, pimply teenagers," whether they first encounter his
work in "The Catcher in the Rye," any of the collected "Nine Stories," "Raise
High the Roof Beam, Carpenters", or "Franny & Zooey". The "Franny" section
of that short book, especially, has become a mystical keystone in Salinger's
micro-saga about the cerebral but fabulously idiosyncratic Glass family, made
up not only of Franny & Zooey, but their parents, Les and Bessie, and their
siblings Buddy and Seymour, whose suicide concludes "A Perfect Day for
Bananafish".
Based on the letters that arrive at the "Bananafish" site on the Internet,
most of the users are of student age or slightly older. "Hi, everyone,"
begins one plea from Adam, "For my English class I'm doing a report on J.D.
Salinger's writings. The theme of it is his Portrayl of Mental and Social
Angst." "Bryan Long" advises Salingerphiles how they can download a copy of
the 1951 jacket photo from "The Catcher in the Rye" by tapping into the
electronic library (http://www.elibrary.com). Also available from the pay
service, "Long" notes, are "hundreds of documents written about the author
and his work."

Tidbits Of Information
There's no shortage of free material about Salinger on the "Bananafish"
pages, which spider web off into a list of "missing" stories; tributes to him
in books, newspapers and music. (e.g. the Green Day song, "Who wrote Holden
Caulfield?"); rumors about the author, such as the cockeyed notion that he's
the pseudonymous William Wharton; discussions of his "strangeness"; and
Foskett's explanation of "why he doesn't publish anymore": "Salinger is
trying to get it right and that's not an easy thing to do!"
While it's hard to imagine that Salinger approves of the "Bananafish" pages,
if he's even aware of them, the author is probably helpless to close them
down, legally or otherwise. In a compromise with Salinger's agent, Foskett
agreed not to quote at length from Salinger's prose, reprint any passages
from his unpublished letters, or in any way violate his privacy.
Perhaps the most detailed and informative glimpse into the author's personal
life was Phoebe Hoban's 1987 New York Magazine story, "The Salinger File,"
prompted by his legal dispute with biographer Ian Hamilton. Besides an
extensive biography, Hoban gathered many "bits of information," informing
readers that Salinger still practices Zen, likes to travel, has a collection
of classic movies, and "sees a small, fiercely loyal circle of friends and
doesn't lack for the company of women," among other miscellanea and minutiae.
 "According to some sources," she added, "he has two manuscripts locked in a
safe..." presumably for posthumous publication.

Why Orchises?
Salinger's decision to let the Orchises Press reprint "Hapworth 16,1924",
after 32 years in mothballs, seemed as much a surprise, and a puzzle, to
Little, Brown, his venerable publisher, as it was to the rest of the
publishing industry. "I have nothing to say about his new project," said
William Phillips, Lillte, Brown's editor in cheif, "except to reaffirm our
pleasure and delight in being the publisher of his other books. They're all
in print and they still sell. I cannot say anything to you about sales
figures or Mr. Salinger. He's a very, very private individual, which we
respect and appreciate." Phillips referred all further question's to
Salinger's agent-- that is, his non-agent.
Assuming that Orchises is as impoverished as most small presses, Salinger may
have passed up the opportunity for a substantial cash advance from Little,
Brown or almost any other commercial Mannhattan publishing house. If the
manuscript had come into her hands, Molly Friedrich, one of New York's
wiliest agents, she would have acutioned the book, though not necessarily to
the highest bidder.
"Somebody like Salinger wouldn't just go for the money, obviously," said
Friedrich. "It would be a very careful presentation. What it comes down to
is that Salinger is so firmly embedded in the American culture that anything
he writes, even if it's not as wonderful as "Catcher", would have a certain
value. What that value is, I have no idea.
Look at Louisa May Alcott's not-terribly-good novel ('The Inheritance'),
which was written when she was only 17. It didn't matter that it wasn't her
best. She wrote it, and because of that, it sold for a lot of money."
Though she was also reluctant to put a "floor" on the value of Salinger's
novella, Nan Talese, who has her own line of books (or imprint) at Doubleday,
did say: "I'd have to sit down and figure it out, but he could certainly get
a few hundred thousand dollars for it. But money doesn't seem to be of main
importance to him. He (Lathbury) is clearly a man Salinger trusts to publish
the book in a way that is dignifiedand is not going to make his life
miserable."
Misery in another form is likely to come from reviewers, if Michiko
Kakutani's "preview" of "Hapworth 16, 1924" in the New York Times last week
is any barometer. Echoing reaction to the story when it was published in the
New Yorker, back in '65, Kakutani described it as "sour, implausable and...
completely charmless." Other critics are likely to be just as nasty, in
which case Salinger's worries about showing his face in public may be over.
The book could turn out to be such a clinker that even his dearest friends
will want to avoid him.

[End of article]

well. that took forever to type.

--[An inset article in the Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, dated
Wednesday, February 26, 1997, page 7]--

Title: 'Jerry' Salinger: Film Buff
by independent journalist John Blades

Considering how his short story, "Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut," was trashed
and travestied in the 1949 Susan Hayward--Dana Andrews soaper, "My Foolish
Heart," it's hard to reconcile J.D Salinger's alleged affection for Hollywood
films.
But corroborating testimony came from Larry Swindell, a columnist for the Ft.
Worth Star-Telegram and biographer of John Garfield, Carole Lombard, and Gar
Cooper, who may be the last journalist to have had a casual conversation with
the author. This was in the late 60's, a few years after Salinger had gone
into seclusion.
It was during a Katharine Hepburn film retrospective at Dartmouth, Swindell
recently recalled, that he found himself at the Hanover Inn, seated at a
table with three men, one of whom was identified only as "Jerry". "We
proceeded to have dinner and talk movies, movies, movies," said Swindell,
"until we got into a trivia contest. I finally realized who he was because of
an oblique refrence to "Uncle Wiggly".
"My eyes didn't pop or anything like that, and I thought I covered myself
very well. There was nothing about him that seemed reclusive. He was very
gregarious. Everybody kept calling him Jerry, so, heck, I called him Jerry
too.
"And he's quite a movie trivia expert, which is surprising when you consider
he wouldn't allow his work to be filmed after "My Foolish Heart".
"I finally let him know I knew who he was by saying, 'I'll bet I can tell you
where you got the name Holden Caulfield (from the marquee of a movie theatre
playing a 40's William Holden--Joan Caulfield comedy). When dinner broke up,
he said we should stay in touch, and we exchanged addresses. After a few
months, I wrote to him. I never got a reply."

[End of article]

hope you enjoyed it.. i'm off to bed.
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:58 GMT