RE: Will's review


Subject: RE: Will's review
From: ennui (ennui@tmbg.org)
Date: Wed Sep 20 2000 - 13:04:03 GMT


>The answer is, I think, that the great artist never really
> loses his AWARENESS - of himself in relation to
> the surrounding life &, not least, the awareness of his own
> failures within that relationship. That inner struggle
> with his own nature, with what the Christians would
> regard as his innate sinfulness, sits at the very heart of the work.
>
> The late Salinger seems only aware of a circumscribed world
> held tightly within his own anxious control. What we have
> heard so far is of a Salinger drowning in his own neuroses -
> & embracing them in the mistaken belief they're life jackets.

May I just say that that is one of the most accurate observations
I've heard made in this debate (not that the other observations
weren't equally commendable, they were most excellent, although
the baseball discussion was more excellent, even to someone who
has little idea of what was being discussed, but there is
obviously a deep literary sensibility to baseball - a natural
symbiosis which I have not noticed between a sport and art
before - or I may be making gross generalisations..) hgrmm err
but I'm unconvinced that someone who was once so perceptive
is now so far removed from reality that he is unable to perceive
himself. Even if he seems loathe to change his ways, I suspect
that the critical eye is still in there somewhere, passing judgement.

More generally I would say that these are extraordinary people and
they tend to live extraordinary lives, far beyond anything they
place the characters of their own creation in. I can't think of one
'literary' writer (whom I have connected with on the page) whose
life was one of piety, or of whom I did not read some biographical
note and cringe. There have no doubt been thousands of fathers
before JD who have lost contact from, and become remote from
their family - this one just happens to be the subject of a book
written dissecting him.
If one is going to write in a literary manner one invariably
writes about the things and people one knows - if they write back,
well, that's the risk you run. Margaret is obviously not a writer
in the literary sense, if she were this book would not be so
conspicuous, it would be far more recondite and abstract, and
as such garner much less publicity/hatred - it's difficult
to claim that JD has any more right to his family's story than
the other members.
I found the interview most informative and tended to agree with
Margaret on a great many points particularly that of JD's deity
standing among many - perhaps the fact that the man they thought
had all the answers is also 'waiting for Godot' will help them
get on with their lives - perhaps it will help JD too. These are
people, and then they write a book, and then they become simply
surnames, or initials.. but inextricably they continue to be people.
(Melodramatic, I know, but pffttt- :)

-sloof
Apologies if much of this seems disjointed, be gentle.

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 14:44:36 GMT