Re: Authors, critics, readers...
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:17:09 +1100
I'm sorry ... I'm a well known anti-fan of Hamilton's book. I simply found
it extremely self-important. All his `Salinger's name and mine are linked
forevermore, you'll never think of Salinger without thinking of Hamilton'
as well as his use of his `biographer' persona (whose `we' reeked of the
royal plural) I found very annoying.
Yes, Hamilton's book is factually very interesting, though not particularly
scholarly - I found it just a tad tabloidy - maybe I would find the book
more productive if it didn't even *pretend* to be a biography. It's more
the story of the biographer than his subject, in the same way as a very
similar book, Janet Malcolm's `The Silent Woman - Sylvia Plath and Ted
Hughes'. In both cases I got irritated because the biographers saw
themselves as important enough to insert themselves into the action.
I don't care that Hamilton portrayed Salinger as a cantankerous old
bastard. He very probably is. What I object to is the way Hamilton seemed
to regard Salinger as a small, bad-tempered animal who, if you waved a few
leaves into his burrow, would eventually rush out, coughing and spluttering
and giving us all a good laugh - and Hamilton was right there waiting to
claim the kudos. He treated Salinger less as a human being and more as a
construct; almost a fictional character himself. Hamilton wanted to be the
guy who lured Salinger into the open and he failed. And he was a little
pissed off by this (:
I've always found the Time article about Salinger much more interesting and
well written than this book (you'll find it in `Salinger: A Critical and
Personal Portrait') As for Hamilton ... I see him as just another (albeit
maybe a more ambitious one) in the hopeless line of grocery-queue and
jeep-chasing photographers, all of whom are not at all worried about what
they can do to or for Salinger, but what Salinger; what *illuminating* a
little piece of Salinger, can do for them (did anyone say Joyce Maynard??)
Anyhoo ... my 2 sense as D would say,
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
Andy Wishart wrote:
> >In Ian Hamilton's (ughh) `biography' of JDS, he mentions that Sergeant
X's
> >army number in the story was the same as JDS's in real life. Also, JDS
was
> >in that area at that time of the war, and also had a nervous breakdown
> >after the war.
>
> Ughh? Can I assume you didn't enjoy Mr Hamilton's work? I found it
> very readable (often echoing Salinger stylistically, in fact).
>
> The publication of Hamilton's book filled in a lot of blanks for me
> (who'd read and reread only the (book) published work) and I found it
> an interesting and enlightening read.
>
> I don't think he overstepped any lines and I believe (had he been
> allowed) he'd have presented a scholarly work (which, I suppose,
> Salinger more than doesn't want, but strongly resents and will
> actively disallow)
>
> Sure, it all ends out messy (and ridiculously absurd) and our (and
> Hamilton's) hero finally reveals himself to have feet of clay.
>
> Does it matter, though, if Salinger-the-man is revealed as simply a
> failing, faltering human (like us all)? And do you think he was/is?
> If we can imagine that Salinger may even heave a sigh of relief to be
> so revealed, maybe Hamilton's book provides a service to Salinger at
> that.
>
> Of course reading the book tainted to some extent my feelings about
> Salinger (the man) and left me a little deflated (though I'm unsure
> what I would want from him - acknowledgement? A nodding wink and a
> final bow?) but that, in itself, is a lesson learned and doesn't
> detract (as far as I can tell or hope) from my admiration of much of
> Salinger (the author)'s work.
>
> babble. . .
>
> Anyway, I liked it.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Andy