Re: Authors, critics, readers...
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:29:54 +1100
Andy Wishart wrote:
> I'd already written out a reply to this. Just about to save/post it
> when a power drop caused by some builders working next door restarted
> my machine and completely erased it. Maybe you can imagine how
> distraught I was at the loss.
Aargh! My sympathies. Ah computers, always trying to lull us into a false
sense of security.
> Well, he actually says that their names "will be linked in perpetuity
> as those of litigant or foes. . ." This is simply true. Hamilton
> doesn't seem particularly gladdened that this is the way things turned
> out. Saddened, disappointed.
It's not that I'm objecting to. It's the `... and in the minds of everyone
who reads this, the `legal' version of my book'. It's Hamilton's
self-righteous insertion of himself into JDS's personal history, the
self-aggrandizing grab at immortality through Salinger. I personally would
not be proud as an author to be known as `That guy who took Salinger to the
cleaners', but Hamilton seems OK with this kind of fame or notoriety. As
for his `disappointment', I still feel it's more for his own hurt pride at
not being the one who lured JDS out into the open. He *knew* it was
unlikely that JDS would advocate his book, he even says so. I believe that
this is an exploitative gesture. Hamilton *admits* it is exploitative: `I
had in mind not to write a conventional biography of Salinger ... but a
kind of `Quest for Corvo' as Salinger as quarry'. To me, exploitation means
to utilise someone who doesn't want to do something for your own gains -
and this sounds like exploitation to me. As you pointed out though, you
could also claim that Salinger is just as recognisant of his position as
Hamilton is - that he certainly has some stake in maintaining his
mysterious facade (Maynard's book taught us how frightening it is to have
*that* slip away momentarily) - but in the end, I don't at all agree with
Hamilton's assertion that Salinger has less of a right to privacy than the
rest of us just because we've read some of his books. It's like the Bill
Clinton thing - if a judge broadcast my deposition all over the world, or
someone played my illegally-recorded converations on CNN I'd be highly
upset - but because famous people are involved people seem to think they
must surrender a portion of their own personal space.
> >Yes, Hamilton's book is factually very interesting, though not
particularly
> >scholarly
>
> It wasn't really allowed to be though, was it?
Well, by `scholarly' I mean demonstrating any sort of meaning that I
couldn't work out for myself. Hamilton simply sets out the facts in a
pretty journalistic manner. For example, very little was discussed about
the books themselves - and after all, isn't that why we're reading the
biography? The only sort of links between Salinger's life and his works
were of the rather tawdry `the girl who Esme/Muriel' was based on. By a
scholarly biography I mean something like Jan Marsh's `Christina Rossetti'
which interweaved biography, philosophy, psychoanalysis and literary and
artistic dissertation.
I think that Hamilton maybe just didn't sufficiently understand Salinger.
Certainly, his theories on why Salinger won't let us read his latest
stories - `sulking' - is far less complex than any of those we've come up
with at Bananafish. He doesn't even try to understand why Salinger decided
to go into hiding at any more than a very basic level, and even then he
doesn't delve into any resonances this has in his work.
As for Hamilton's humour, I think again that at least some of it was at
JDS's expense - whom he seemed to see as partially some sort of cartoon
character or caricature, and never as a `real' person.
> >I don't care that Hamilton portrayed Salinger as a cantankerous old
> >bastard.
>
> Don't you, though? Not even a little?
No. If that's what he's like, that's what he's like. Although I would have
prefered a little light or dark in the Salinger Hamilton threw at us.
Again, Hamilton just seems to want to slide him into a series of
stereotypes. He can't be `Conventional School Boy'. He *must* be
`Rebellious Young Holden Caulfield Prototype.'
> >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')
>
> Is this article easily available?
Like I said ... you should be able to find the above book in any good
library.
> Not having read it, I can't speak for Maynard's book but, again, I was
> less than surprised with the vehemence with which it was received,
> daring as it did to attempt to tarnish our man. If Will writes a
> best-selling portrait of Salinger's work (apologies for the example,
> Will, I don't know your plans) lovingly crafted and with glowing
> examples of nuggets of genius and so makes a fortune, will this be any
> more acceptable or any less exploitative?
No, no, no ... you still miss my point. I don't care whether the portrait
we gain of Salinger is glowing *or* tarnished - any real person is a bit of
both - I just care about the biographer's attitude to his or her subject.
Will (who is in fact writing a book about Salinger, but not - correct me if
I'm wrong Will - a biography)in my mind demonstrates a greater and more
rounded understanding of Salinger than Hamilton ever does in his book, and
more importantly, a respect for his subject. By respect I don't mean
`like', `dislike' or whatever, but just a simple recognition of human
dignity that Hamilton to my mind never did.
Well, I've spilled enough pixels on this steep and thorny subject. Adios!
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest