Inverted Forest
Jake McHenry (seymour@ktis.net)
Thu, 20 May 1999 08:56:39 -0500
Camille wrote:
One of the main portents of Buddhism is: no
>reliance on words. Some of Salinger's early works were fragile and
>beautiful in their very sparseness - `Franny' for example is a story I
>often cite as not having a single word out of place. However, we could all
>agree that Salinger has gotten more and more loquacious as time had gone on
>- which would violate that fundamental precept and, I think, rob his work
>of a lot of that zen-like simplicity - or at least replace it with a
>totally different mode of expression. `Catcher' for example is every bit as
>long winded and digressional as `Hapworth 16' - but you never feel that
>anything is expressed in too many or too few words.
>
So I finally finished up The Inverted Forest last night. I had printed the
thing out along with all 21 of the rest of the uncollected stories. (I am so
tempted to do a limited print run of a bootleg book but I will not and am
merely stating that I was tempted.) I did, however, use a sloppy 3-hole
punch and stuck them in a binder. I couldn't help myself and made a cover
page and table of contents though.
At any rate, speaking of sparseness, I really enjoyed the fast-forwarded
spots in the story. Like there was just so much to say in so little. One of
the things we were forced to instantly rolodex in our brains in college was
"less is more". (I was a fine art major.) And I do believe that. And
Inverted Forest is full of that. Like Salinger was utilizing the technique
popularized in Sienfeld, "Yadda, yadda, yadda." (That is all I have to say
about that.)
And the section where the Fords are falling apart and he will just not, for
anything in the damned world, refer them as Ray or Corinne until they split
up. I kept thinking that somehow something was wrong with me and the way I
was reading. (Maybe it was late.) It was so damned impersonal (just like the
characters were being to each other and I understand fully that was the
point) and I found myself thinking that I have never read a thing like that.
(Camus' The Stranger sort of did that to me, I suppose.) And then, when the
smoke had cleared and they were separated (I won't go into exactly why or
how for the sake of the people that have not read it yet) Salinger begins
again to refer to them as Corinne and Raymond. The only thing I would have
changed was the part in that section where Mrs. Ford is walking the dog. He
uses parenthetical data to let us know that Marcus (or whatever the damned
dogs name is) was in fact (the dog). I would have liked to have seen his
proper name in parenthesis instead. And that is all I have to say about
that.
More soon. I am always on the sneak when I send these things out during the
day.
-Jake