The Just Stumbled Upon: The J. D. Salinger Mother-load

[Clare Quilty]

The Just Stumbled Upon: The J. D. Salinger Mother Lode

This is such a cool link, I felt justified in devoting a thread to it. If you aren't an appreciative of Salinger's genius, bite me and then move along quietly.

http://terebess.hu/english/salinger.html

edited by B. Simple

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

<in old beer commercial style> I love you man.

Damn, my list of to-reads has just gotten even longer. Well, guess sleeping will have to go again.

 

[Guest]

What a find, Q. I can't believe it's real. I just read "The Heart of a Broken Story" (Esquire XVI, September 1941) and found this exquisite line:

“Loving you is the important thing, Miss Lester. There are some people who think love is sex and marriage and six o’clock-kisses and children, and perhaps it is, Miss Lester. But do you know what I think? I think love is a touch and yet not a touch."

muchas gracias, Perdita


Edited to add: This is the opening sentence of "I'm Crazy" (Collier's CXVI, December 22 1945)

"It was about eight o’clock at night, and dark, and raining, and freezing, and the wind was noisy the way it is in spooky movies on the night the old slob with the will gets murdered."

Gawd, he's a riot. P.

 

[Clare Quilty]

You are both welcome. I'm a little taken aback that more of the "writers" who frequent AH haven't commented on this, dare I say, incredible find. Then again reading what Salinger has to say, for instance, on the problems inherent in bringing together characters in a romantic fictional narrative, would inordinately impinge upon time better spent engaging in inane chitchat about cats wearing mittens and so forth.

 

[bloodsimple]

Last time I criticised a well-loved author (JK Rowling) someone put me on their ignore list.

However, I have to say, having read Catcher in the Rye, that it is, in fact, my least favourite book of all time.

I think it would be so even if I hadn't arrived at it full of the expectation the hype surrounding it supplied. I found it poorly written, meandering, meaningless, devoid of any wit, structure, depth or characters I wished to know or wished to see dead.

Nothing wrong with Great American novels - I love Steinbeck, for example - but Catcher in the Rye left me feeling nothing at all.

Please explain to me people, what is the big deal about that book? It's totally passed me by. Is it a nostaligia thing i.e. you remember where you were when you read it, or it signified a certain era? I can't believe people actually think it's a great piece of writing.

Cue the outpourings of incredulity, I fear...

 

[doormouse]

Last time I criticised a well-loved author (JK Rowling) someone put me on their ignore list.

However, I have to say, having read Catcher in the Rye, that it is, in fact, my least favourite book of all time.

I think it would be so even if I hadn't arrived at it full of the expectation the hype surrounding it supplied. I found it poorly written, meandering, meaningless, devoid of any wit, structure, depth or characters I wished to know or wished to see dead.

Nothing wrong with Great American novels - I love Steinbeck, for example - but Catcher in the Rye left me feeling nothing at all.

Please explain to me people, what is the big deal about that book? It's totally passed me by. Is it a nostaligia thing i.e. you remember where you were when you read it, or it signified a certain era? I can't believe people actually think it's a great piece of writing.

Cue the outpourings of incredulity, I fear...

Don't even worry hon.

I read the opening message and walked away.

Some threads are inviting to those unaware of certain authors. Obviously not this one.

Don't worry, I won't bite.

 

[Edward Teach]

What a find. Thanks, Clare.

Ed

 

[Clare Quilty]

Catcher is one of my top-five favorite novels. I suppose that when I initially read it (grade 9 at a boarding school back east) I greatly identified with Holden Caulfield,
disillusioned, confused and terrified, teetering on a precipice over the chasm separating childhood from adulthood--and like Holden, slowly coming to the realization that no one was going to rush out at the last moment and, deus ex machina, pull me back from the brink. I would have to be the catcher in the rye.

Catcher, I am beginning to think, is art that one either gets or one does not. I have wept for Holden Caulfield and I am deeply moved by Catcher--more so than any book I can think of offhand excepting The Great Gatsby. There is a parallel with the film Lost In Translation. Some people find the film a subtle and sublime, gently romantic beautiful piece of cinema. Others, many of whom are of the post-Atari generation, find it boring. Art, particularly high art, is funny that way.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Some threads are inviting to those unaware of certain authors. Obviously not this one.

To tell you the truth, (and I say this, as I am often wont to say, without the slightest hint of irony) it never even occurred to me that someone could be unfamiliar with J.D. Salinger.

 

[doormouse]

To tell you the truth, (and I say this, as I am often wont to say, without the slightest hint of irony) it never even occurred to me that someone could be unfamiliar with J.D. Salinger.

I don't know him, but have heard of Catcher InThe Rye.

I'm in Australia. We have different education and that story was out when I was forced to study Shakespeare.

One of my fave term pieces was based on Of Mice And Men... I wouldn't even know who wrote it now.

I've been writing since April. I'm new to writing so walked away without comment when I read your opening comment.

I'm an artist. Writing, reading is a new aspect to my life and I don't think you allowed for us 'newbies' when you wrote that.

I'm learning new authors. I've never been into reading, nor had the time. I have read almost every Stephen King book, but that is my calling. I love erotic horror.

I wasn't judging you by any means. I just felt like I wasn't welcome to comment in here because I don't know the guy.

Like I said, I walk away.

 

[sincerely_helene]

Though familier with the titles and author, I will be the first to admit to never having read any of the afore mentioned novels. I find that if something does not capture my focus instantly, it will more than likely never evolve into anything beyond bathroom shelf reading material regardless of its current popularity status. It may very well be that I am ill educated, and perhaps am equally guilty of a short attention span.

I do however, have a profound respect for the greats out there, regardless of whether or not I have indulged. Most kind of you to offer the link.

P.S. Of Mice and Men was one of the few literary works that I have enjoyed almost as much as the movie, Doormouse. It was a Steinbeck classic.

Well, I'm off to engross myself in one many of the hollywood recreations of "Lolita" now (eagerly awaits the groans of dissaproval.)

 

[doormouse]

Though familier with the titles and author, I will be the first to admit to never having read any of the afore mentioned novels. I find that if something does not capture my focus instantly, it will more than likely never evolve into anything beyond bathroom shelf reading material regardless of its current popularity status. It may very well be that I am ill educated, and perhaps am equally guilty of a short attention span.

I do however, have a profound respect for the greats out there, regardless of whether or not I have indulged.

Agreed.

I'm wanting to learn of new authors.

 

[Alex De Kok]

I, too, have never read Salinger. Yet. On my 'to-do' list, which gets longer every day. I read - and enjoyed - Steinbeck in my earlier years but like doormouse was pushed into Shakespeare in my school years. It is only now, forty-odd years after leaving school, that I am gaining, or perhaps regaining, an appreciation, both for the bard and for poetry. I have to say that, despite the quote in my sig I prefer Shakespeare's sonnets to Sidney's.

I've bookmarked the Salinger site, but for now I'm off out with my beloved. She tells me we need food for the coming week.

Alex

 

[Clare Quilty]

I don't know him, but have heard of Catcher InThe Rye.

I'm in Australia. We have different education and that story was out when I was forced to study Shakespeare.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Here in America we typically study both Salinger and Shakespeare--and Steinbeck for that matter--in high school.

You do make a cogent point. It was an oversight on my part to assume that Salinger would be as ubiquitous thoughout the English speaking world as he is here in the States. Actually, that's not entirely honest. I didn't consider Lit's international membership when I made this thread. This should have occurred to me--especially in the wee hours of the morning when Aussies typically take over the Internet.

 

[Clare Quilty]

I, too, have never read Salinger. Yet. On my 'to-do' list, which gets longer every day. I read - and enjoyed - Steinbeck in my earlier years but like doormouse was pushed into Shakespeare in my school years. It is only now, forty-odd years after leaving school, that I am gaining, or perhaps regaining, an appreciation, both for the bard and for poetry. I have to say that, despite the quote in my sig I prefer Shakespeare's sonnets to Sidney's.

I've bookmarked the Salinger site, but for now I'm off out with my beloved. She tells me we need food for the coming week.

Alex

I'd download anything that I really wanted to read on that site. Sites of that kind often disappear without a trace.

 

[RavenSpirit2k4]

You are both welcome. I'm a little taken aback that more of the "writers" who frequent AH haven't commented on this, dare I say, incredible find. Then again reading what Salinger has to say, for instance, on the problems inherent in bringing together characters in a romantic fictional narrative, would inordinately impinge upon time better spent engaging in inane chitchat about cats wearing mittens and so forth.

Now, that was more than just a little snobbish and rather insulting, Clare.

And yes, I've lived in the US all my life, but we read, mostly, Shakespeare and Hemingway in school. Both are still among my favorites. Salinger is not. Don't get me wrong, he was pretty damn good, but I never considered him as brilliant as Hemingway.

Hemingway has been described on a personal level as a rude, obnoxious, womanizing drunk, yet his stories are still incredibly sensitive and insightful. He was proof of a pet theory I have: that a person can be a wholly different person the inside from what they are on the outside.

I have many other favorite authors and many of them are not considered literary at all. But my favorites all made a point in their stories that is quite often missed by the literary types. Tolkien, for example, made it clear that the "important" people are dependent on the "little" people, besides expressing concern for the environment far earlier than most authors who were his contemporaries.

Well, that's all the examples I feel like giving right now because I'm tired. It's late here and I'm heading for bed.

Good night folks.

 

[sincerely_helene]

I am in Canada, and the schools that I attended forced us to at least skim many of these well noted novels, including Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and even some 'in depth' overview comparing politicians to farm animals.

It may seem like I'm contridicting myself by stating I have never read these books, but I feel this statement is accurate as I never actually digested any of them. The only thing I truely recall is that my lit teacher did an amusing impression of Gollum.

Simplicity seems to stand out most in my mind. There was a period where I had read Flowers for Algernon so many times, that my teacher literally took the book off his shelf, (probably because I was reading it while the rest of the class was engaging in a lively dicussion involving the afore mentioned farm animals.)

I must admit however, I did enjoy the LOTR movie (though like the book, it seemed to carry on 1000 pages longer then necessary.)

I would be willing to give the Salinger author another go, but I am leery of foriegn downloads.

 

[doormouse]

I didn't by any means to spark this debate, sorry Clare.

Your opening comment about leaving quietly originated my response.

I left, but when I read the other comment of another reader in my situation, I was honestly thankful of not being as educated in literature as others.

Like I said. I'm new to writing and reading.

Most have welcomed me with open arms, despite my lack of knowledge and understanding. Your post was affront, but I ignored that.

I'm here to learn, as I am on the poetry thread. They are really helpful, gratious, there's no comparison, sorry.

They bend over backward to help each other, and then I cop a thread like yours.

I'm dumbfounded, I guess. That's my honest opinion, and I'm not an opinionated person.

I say what I think, but 99% of the time, in a positive way. For the first time on here, I felt alienated. Everyone else was so helpful and welcoming.

It was one line of your post that generated this and I apologise, but, in the same breath, I'm not shy. I can only imagine what those who aren't as loud mouthed as me must have felt when they read your comment.

I'm no saint, nor claim to be. I have put my foot in my mouth, and my head in my ass more than anyone on this site combined!!

Please rephrase the leave quietly comment so others can feel comfortable enough to enter and learn and 'thrive' if he is that good.

Cheese time. I'm leaving quietly. Emptying the ashtray on her way out.

 

[bloodsimple]

First off, Clare, I would have to disagree that Catcher is "art", or that one should "get" it or not. Some books you like, some you don't. I can understand why you felt a parallel with Holden Caulfield, but that wasn't my point. Anyone of us could write a character who is a confused adolescent. My point was that Salinger (for me) did this badly, in a piece of generally poor writing, which gave me no emotional connection to the character, or interest in what happened to him. For me, this made it a dull read. I can understand that other people liked it but, as I mentioned before, no-one has been able to really explain the appeal to me.

On a wider point, I think there's a danger of trying to separate "literature" from books here, and I don't think that's valid. That may be what Doormouse felt when she said the thread didn't seem welcoming. Books are forms of communication, so whatever hits the mark and makes us laugh, cry, think or get off our ass and change the world, is a good thing. Dividing books into "art" or any other high-brow description is, I think, a mistake, and one that in particular turns kids off reading very fast. As does studying Shakespeare at school, by the way.

Doormouse, Stephen King is a fantastic writer and, in a hundred years time, kids will be amazed to find that some people dismissed his work when it was released. You might like to also try Richard Matheson (I am Legend, The Incredible Shrinking Man) or Ray Bradbury (Something Wicked This Way Comes, etc).

I can't vouch for the poetry threads as I don't visit them, but I would make the general point that the Author Hangout threads that are most enjoyable are the ones discussing writing, as opposed to general threads inhabited by authors.

You can all wake up now, I'm finished....

 

[doormouse]

Thank you so much BloodSimple. Mainly for the fact that I didn't mean to turn this into the debate it has obviously become, but more so for pointing out the other author.

I've always loved Stephen King. I'm an erotic horror fanatic I guess.

Just thank you for sticking up for me and my point of view.

 

[Guest]

I'm feeling intellectually snooty. Too many persons protest a bit too insipidly. Tell someone off if you feel offended by any particular phrase or attitude, then go away, but why go into overkill (defense ploys and clickish huddles) on how you don't read or know this or that author as if it's a value or point of pride.

No, I was in error, it's not snobbishness that makes me post now. I've been through this too often on this forum. I know there is a difference between literature and other writing. Everyone does, even if they don't admit it. Literature isn't for everyone; it takes time and work to get it, but why make out it's a matter of value or self-identity. If you don't like wine, drink soda pop or beer, but please don't think it has anything to do with being more quenched and having sweeter piss.

unapologetically, Perdita

 

[matriarch]

To tell you the truth, (and I say this, as I am often wont to say, without the slightest hint of irony) it never even occurred to me that someone could be unfamiliar with J.D. Salinger.

I am glad it was said without irony Q, or I would find your patronisation of those who do not frequent the same literary circle as yourself, more than a tad insulting.

That said, thank you for the link, which I have bookmarked for future reading, as and when time and life permits.

Mat - a not unintelligent woman, who is not familiar with Salinger per se, who has heard of 'Catcher' as an item of literature, but has not read it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

For those of us of a certain age, Catcher was our first taste of literature, the first thing that showed us that there was more to books than monsters and adventures or pretty ponies, and that a story was much more than a retelling of what people did. In the States when I was growing up, it was commonly the first serious literature they serve to youngsters, aside from the much-despised and tedious classics of Sir Walter Scott and Dickens, and compared to them it was simply a miracle.

If you haven’t read the book, there’s really not much to it. The hero is a misfit rich young kid in 1950’s conformist America who doesn’t know what to do with himself, tough on the outside and breakingly tender on the inside. At the time it was published, it was rude and iconoclastic, taking on the establishment and the middle class goals that everyone in America espoused. But that gives you no idea of the depth of humor and wit and humanity in the book.

Nowadays, coming-of-age books are all over the place, as are indictments of the phoniness of material success and adult life. But I don’t think anyone has ever skewered them so exactly and precisely as Holden Caulfied does.

After Catcher came the Beats and the Angry Young Men and the whole post-war examination and indictment of the idea of materialism as a way of life, but Catcher in the Rye was the very first. It was probably the first seriously hip book ever written. Hip in the sense of knowing.

The thing about Salinger, for writers (or for me at least), is that he’s inimitable. I’ve tried to read Catcher as a lesson in writing, and there’s simply nothing you can learn. What he does in there he does so effortlessly and gracefully, that no matter how many times I read it looking for his stylistic tricks, I end up getting sucked into the story again and stop noticing what I’m reading. His style is utterly transparent. He makes it look so easy.

They have contests to see who can write like Hemingway and stuff, but they’ll never have a contest to see who can write like Salinger. It’s just impossible. He wrote that book something like 50 years ago, and it still reads fresh

 

[Guest]

Mab., you recalled such a time for me. The nuns in my Catholic all-girl school were progressive educationally (at least). In 1962 "Catcher" was assigned. It was revolutionary for us virginal readers and helped me recognize my real friends. You could tell who really got what a phony was simply by listening to the classroom discussions. I spotted my soon to be best friend by the look in her eyes as she gave her opinion about a passage (I can still see her in that moment). Later I enjoyed how my sons 'got' Holden and Phoebe.

Perdita

 

[bloodsimple]

Mab,

I've read and re-read your post and, while I can see a better historical context to Salinger than I was aware of before, I stand by my revious view of the book. Even if I felt the way you do about it, I would still argue that others do it better.

Perdita, I have to disagree, and I'm sorry if my disagreements are not expressed strongly enough for you. Try this -

Clare was (and is) being patronising in the extreme by implying that anyone who doesn't like Catcher in the Rye doesn't appreciate literature. There is a strong sense of snobbery that, as Doormouse and others show, pisses off people who visit the Authors Hangout.

We all have books we cherish or appreciate above other books, in the same way that we do with music, paintings, architecture, TV, movies, or whatever. I don't feel intellectually, spiritually or otherwise inferior to Clare just because my taste is different to hers, and I object to her implying that I should. We all like it when others appreciate the same things as us for the same reasons, but that doesn't give us the right to look down our nose at someone if they don't.

Does that explain my current thinking clearly?