Re: hitchcock ideal

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: ZOOEYCAM"
• Previous message: H.G.: "That's some great advice Jim!"
• Maybe in reply to: Pierrot65@aol.com: "hitchcock ideal"
• Next in thread: Scottie Bowman: "Re: hitchcock ideal"

Pierrot65 wrote:
> 	But to bring this around to our eponymous pals, why does Salinger stay
so far
> away from the sexual relationships in his work? Why so much family
material
> and bad pairings (Seymour & Muriel, Franny & Biff Doody) and no "Getting
to
> know you"? I guess that suggests a look into Salinger's personal life,
but
> that's just rude. 

I find writing that stuff bloody difficult, that's why I leave it out. And
I skip over it in any book I read anyway because it's always so terribly
done (a sure-fire way of determining that a male wrote it: refers to girl's
underwear as `panties'. Panties is something a dog does when he's tired)
and completely boring. Kudos to JDS for never showing us a single
character's panties, underwear or otherwise

Soaking in the sun surf philosophy and postmodernism of Gay ol Syd,

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest 

• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: ZOOEYCAM"
• Previous message: H.G.: "That's some great advice Jim!"
• Maybe in reply to: Pierrot65@aol.com: "hitchcock ideal"
• Next in thread: Scottie Bowman: "Re: hitchcock ideal"