Subject: Re: New ending for CITR
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 04 2001 - 15:40:46 GMT
He is on the list, I think...I think he posted the link to his site,
which seems is chock full of alternate endings. I think the guy has
potential talent as a writer and is terribly wasting it doing take offs
on other people's work.
These take offs, by the way, aren't terribly respectful of Salinger or
the other authors he imitates. Their work is "incomplete" or
"defective" somehow and needs to be "fixed." I think that's the thing
with publishing, though (however you do it). You're always putting
yourself out there. People will think what they want about your work.
Most of them won't tell you. I think this is his opportunity to hear.
I hope he keeps writing, but writes his own characters and his own
stories. Take-offs are interpretation as much as they are creation;
since in this case I think the take-off proceeds from a poor
interpretation, I think (of course) that the criticisms he's getting are
constructive. Suicide may have been a legitimate possibility for Holden,
but I don't really see that as being set up very well in the earlier
part (whole rest of) the novel. I think it may have been more
appropriate for Holden to die of "exposure" (if he died at all), rather
than die playing Russian roulette.
"Reify," I think, would probably be used in your sample sentence (from
previous posts) to someone coming to clear terms with who and what they
are in the world and being able to express it in fairly concrete
language. Like an image of a painting in a painter's head becoming a
painting on canvas. I think it's a silly term too, but may have some
meaningful application to someone's experience...
Jim
Scottie Bowman wrote:
>
> Well now.
>
> A couple of fiddley points on this crisp autumn evening.
>
> Hands up all those who, like me – flinching slightly at the hint
> of exhibitionism – assumed ‘reify’ was a kind-of-neologism
> based on the Latin ‘res’; but had to go & corroborate in the SOD
> – only to find one of the shortest of its entries (8 words)
> with a sole reference to 1856: ‘to convert mentally into a thing;
> to materialize.’ And who then asked themselves: how do you
> convert your sense of being into a thing? Not too many of us
> can manage that. How about a ferrinstance?
>
> I think you’ll find, Cec, that Harry S. is not to be blame for
> ‘normalcy’ but the somewhat less appealing Herbert Hoover.
> Certainly when Eleanor & Hopkins & Bob Sherwood & myself
> used to roll around in the old White House kitchen sniggering at
> ‘normalcy’, it was Hoover we had in mind. For goodness sake,
> at that stage of the game Harry was still back in KC trying
> to ingratiate himself with Prendergast & his merry men.
>
> Finally. I think you could all be a bit more charitable about
> the poor bloke having a go at rewriting Holden: 'complete failure
> ... pretty shallow ... exercise in futility... embarrassed on behalf
> of the author...’ Can you imagine how he might feel if – as seems
> not altogether unlikely for a Salinger enthusiast – he were a lurker
> on the list? I myself try always to be moderate & kindly in whatever
> comments I make & you might do well to emulate.
>
> Scottie B.
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 09:23:09 GMT