Re: the literary life
Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:01:57 -0400
Salinger's relationship with Maynard -- whatever the truth about it
happens to be -- is, for me, irrelevant to the appreciation of his
literary contribution. I didn't even know Joyce Maynard existed (Gasp!)
until this whole book thing blew up in old JD's face, yet I still feel
that I have learned a lot and derived a lot of meaning from his books
and stories. I view the Salinger/Maynard situation as simply entertaining
background info: not crucial to the study of Salinger's works, but maybe
a bit of intriguing trivia to throw around. Rumors like the ones about
the Giles Weaver pieces or his connections to Nabokov and Pynchon are
much more interesting to me, because they have implications for our
understanding of Salinger's work. Salinger's personal affairs, however,
are only more interesting than those of the average Springer guest
because (a) they're not nearly as sordid and (b) let's face it, after
reading all these books and stories and articles, we begin to feel some
sort of connection between ourselves and the author. We might begin to
think that we "know" Salinger himself, not just his literature. While
such a personal view might be misguided, it still justifies this
interest in his personal life to a certain extent. I agree, though,
that the real focus on Salinger should be devoted to Salinger's writings.
He has chosen to hide himself away from the public eye, yet he has also
chosen to grant us the privelege of witnessing the development of these
strange and wonderful characters. Let us focus on everything Salinger
HAS given us to examine, and let Ms. Maynard's looseness of lip be a
problem for her and Salinger to resolve.
At 14:35 10/01/98 -0700, Thor Cameron wrote:
>The thing is, I don't pay any attention whatsoever to this Joyce Maynard
>thing.
>As some of you know, I'm in Will's Salinger class, & he talks about the
>latest developments in the "J M loves J D S" department and has copied
>bits of newspaper & magazine articles so that it could be discussed more
>clearly. Not that he devotes classes to it, just a few minutes here &
>there. These are minutes of rest for me.
>I don't pay any attention. I don't read it, I don't think about it, I'm
>not curious. If I want to hear about a cantankerous old man and a
>little near-jailbait action, I'll watch Oprah. If I want to read good
>literature, I'll pick up a book, regardless of who wrote it & what their
>life is like.
>Many of the books that I love dearly, I know nothing of the authors.
>Even gender is up in the air. I was halfway through my second book of
>his before I realized that Kim Stanley Robinson was a man. Sue Grafton
>uses bad photos of herself on her books, that's all I know about her.
>It also clears my email, as I can scan through another posting of stuff
>about Joyce and delete it before it takes up more of my time.
>I guess I'm not so much saying that I've taken the high moral ground, as
>to say that I wish it could be put (rightfully so) in the "who gives a
>damn?" department. Anyone want to jump on this particular indifference
>bandwagon?
>
>Namaste,
>Thor
________________________________________________________
G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________