Ive read some reviews recently written at the time of the publishing of Salingers book Franny & Zooey. I had to wonder did they read the same book that I did? Why is it that authors, like John Updike, who have never written a book as good as F&Z, feel so free to critic with a negative flair? Maybe trying to poke holes in Salingers work makes them feel elevated above the great writer. Maybe because F&Z seems to have a quasi-religious message in parts of the book, and they being so safely secular, resist that in a work of literature. Yes I do support the right of a reviewer to say what they will, just venting steam really. Below is the review by John Updike for anyone interested. Paul September 17, 1961: 'Franny and Zooey' by J. D. Salinger Quite suddenly, as things go in the middle period of J. D. Salinger, his later, longer stories are descending from the clouds of old New Yorkers and assuming incarnations between hard covers. ''Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters,'' became available last year in ''Stories From the New Yorker 1950-1960,'' and now ''Franny'' and ''Zooey'' have a book to themselves. These two stories -- the first medium-short, the second novella-length -- are contiguous in time, and have as their common subject Franny's spiritual crisis. Text: In the first story, she arrives by train from a Smith-like college to spend the week-end of the Yale game at what must be Princeton. She and her date, Lane Coutell, go to a restaurant where it develops that she is not only unenthusiastic but downright ill. She attempts to explain herself while her friend brags about a superbly obnoxious term paper and eats frogs' legs. Finally, she faints, and is last seen lying in the manager's office silently praying at the ceiling. In the second story, Franny has returned to her home, a large apartment in the East Seventies. It is the Monday following her unhappy Saturday. Only Franny's mother, Bessie, and her youngest brother, Zooey, are home. While Franny lies sleeplessly on the living-room sofa, her mother communicates, in an interminably rendered conversation, her concern and affection to Zooey, who then, after an even longer conversation with Franny, manages to gather from the haunted atmosphere of the apartment the crucial word of consolation. Franny, ''as if all of what little or much wisdom there is in the world were suddenly hers,'' smiles at the ceiling and falls asleep. Few writers since Joyce would risk such a wealth of words upon events that are purely internal and deeds that are purely talk. We live in a world, however, where the decisive deed may invite the holocaust, and Salinger's conviction that our inner lives greatly matter peculiarly qualifies him to sing of an America where, for most of us, there seems little to do but to feel. Introversion, perhaps, has been forced upon history; an age of nuance, of ambiguous gestures and psychological jockeying on a national and private scale, is upon us, and Salinger's intense attention to gesture and intonation help make him, among his contemporaries, a uniquely relevant literary artist. His fiction, in its rather grim bravado, its humor, its morbidity, its wry but persistent hopefulness, matches the shape and tint of present American life. It pays the price, however, of becoming dangerously convoluted and static. A sense of composition is not among Salinger's strengths, and even these two stories, so apparently complementary, distinctly jangle as components of one book. The Franny of ''Franny'' and the Franny of ''Zooey'' are not the same person. The heroine of ''Franny'' is a pretty college girl passing through a plausible moment of disgust. She has discovered -- one feels rather recently -- a certain ugliness in the hungry human ego and a certain fatuity in her college environment. She is attempting to find her way out with the help of a religious book, ''The Way of a Pilgrim,'' which was mentioned by a professor. She got the book out of the college library. Her family, glimpsed briefly in the P.S. of a letter she has written, appear to be standard upper-middle gentry. Their name is nowhere given as Glass; Franny never mentions any brothers. The Franny of ''Zooey,'' on the other hand, is Franny Glass, the youngest of the seven famous Glass children, all of whom have been in turn wondrously brilliant performers on a radio quiz program, ''It's a Wise Child.'' Their parents, a distinctly unstandard combination of Jewish and Irish, are an old vaudeville team. From infancy on, Franny has been saturated by her two oldest brothers, Seymour and Buddy, in the religious wisdom of the East. ''The Way of a Pilgrim,'' far from being newly encountered at college, comes from Seymour's desk, where it has been for years. One wonders how a girl raised in a home where Buddhism and crisis theology were table talk could have postponed her own crisis so long and, when it came, be so disarmed by it. At any rate, there is no question of her being pregnant; the very idea seems a violation of the awesome Glass ethereality. The more Salinger writes about them, the more the seven Glass children melt indistinguishably together in an impossible radiance of personal beauty and intelligence. Franny is described thus: ''Her skin was lovely, and her features were delicate and most distinctive. Her eyes were very nearly the same quite astonishing shade of blue as Zooey's but were set farther apart, as a sister's eyes no doubt should be.'' Of Zooey, we are assured he has a ''somewhat preposterous ability to quote, instantaneously and, usually, verbatim, almost anything he had ever read, or even listened to, with genuine interest.'' The purpose of such sentences is surely not to particularize imaginary people but to instill in the reader a mood of blind worship, tinged with envy. ''Franny'' takes place in what is recognizably our world; in ''Zooey'' we move into a dream world whose zealously animated details only emphasize an essential unreality. When Zooey says to Franny, ''Yes, I have an ulcer, for Chrissake. This is Kaliyuga, buddy, the Iron Age,'' disbelief falls on the ''buddy'' as much as on ''Kaliyuga,'' and the explanatory ''the Iron Age'' clinches our suspicion that a lecturer has usurped the writing stand. Not the least dismaying development of the Glass stories is the vehement editorializing on the obvious -- television scripts are not generally good, not all section men are geniuses. Of course, the Glasses condemn the world only to condescend to it, to forgive it, in the end. Yet the pettishness of the condemnation diminishes the gallantry of the condescension. Perhaps these are hard words; they are made hard to write by the extravagant self-consciousness of Salinger's later prose, wherein most of the objections one might raise are already raised. On the flap of this book jacket, he confesses, ''There is a real-enough danger, I suppose, that sooner or later I'll bog down, perhaps disappear entirely, in my own methods, locutions, and mannerisms. On the whole, though, I'm very hopeful.'' Let me say, I am glad he is hopeful. I am one of those -- to do some confessing of my own -- for whom Salinger's work dawned as something of a revelation. I expect that further revelations are to come. The Glass saga, as he has sketched it out, potentially contains great fiction. When all reservations have been entered, in the correctly unctuous and apprehensive tone, about the direction he has taken, it remains to acknowledge that it is a direction, and the refusal to rest content, the willingness to risk excess on behalf of one's obsessions, is what distinguishes artists from entertainers, and what makes some artists adventurers on behalf of us all. Home | The New York Times Book Review | Search | Forums | Help The New York Times on the Web Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company