Re: second opinion
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Fri, 01 May 1998 11:24:34 +1000
> My allegiances to
> JDS lay almost solely with the charming little Glass family.
It's odd you say that because fairly often the Glasses just plain tick me
off. It was quite a while before I could find myself caring about them, let
alone liking them, whereas I would love to hear more about the Caufield
family (and I hear there are short stories floating about). I find some
parts of the Glass `canon' unbearably self-indulgent- but naturally it's
worth it in the end for those little bits of gold which float to the top.
> there are
> no answers offered. It's just a big long rant on everything.
That's the thing I *like* most about TCIR, and I certainly don't think
ambiguity is restricted to it - what about the ending of `Teddy', or indeed
`A Perfect Day for Bananafish' - no answers there!
> I think people who read
> Catcher who view Holden as the answer are a little bit misguided.
I don't think we see him as the answer. More correctly, we see him as the
Question. Which is why we're here providing answers for him nearly fifty
years on.
> It is also my understanding that Jerome David himself felt the Glass
> family more worthy of his time and effort.
Yes - that is after he had written about the Caulfields on and off for ten
years. I find the work I'm doing now more worthy of my time than the stuff
I was writing ten years ago (true, I was ten at the time ... (: )
Here's an interesting question : Would the Glasses exist without the
Caulfields - or at very least, would we have heard of them ?
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442