Re: Salinger
helena kim (helena@apollo.netsoc.tcd.ie)
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:46:27 +0000 (GMT)
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Emily Friedman wrote:
> > Changing the subject: A professor of mine is going to teach an
> "American
> > Lit: 1945 - present"
[snip]
> > the professor explained to me that Salinger has "been
> done to
> > death,"
> Maybe some peoplw feel that Salinger is more juvenile because of
> Catcher in the Rye but Catcher in the Rye was one of the most
> influential books of that period and I feel that it would be a crime
> not to include Salinger in that class.
i think that the professor has a point. it would be a crime not to
*mention* salinger as an important influence, cultural 'marker' etc, etc.
but i'm of the opinion that salinger has, indeed, been done to death.
not that his work should be written off, but it's vitally important to
constantly come up with new angles of approaching it (as seen will's
online tactic, matt's blocking out of the last sentence of
bananafish, and so on.). i think that if the
professor doesn't have much to say on the subject, lacks enthusiasm, and
feels that it's all dreadfully repetpetpetitive, he shouldn't teach
salinger. it'd be more beneficial to the students to be taught
something with a
passion. and presumably, if they're studying english, they'll come accross
old jd in other places anyway?
as an aside, catcher defintely was one of the most influential books of
the period, and should be referenced. but would it be safe for the
professor
to assume that everyone studying english in college has read it, and
instead of *teaching* it, just comment on how it influenced what came
afterwards? i'm wondering what our resident english academics think of
this.
:helena kim
helena at netsoc dot tcd dot ie
'the church is near, but the road is icy.
the bar is far, but i will walk carefully.'
- russian proverb