— I wanted to cheer reading Ron Rosenbaum’s cranky reaction to people who assume that Holden Caulfield IS J.D. Salinger. And, for the good of the planet, read the piece, not just the title. I’ve seen a lot of folks basically reacting to the TITLE on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere, which is super annoying. Confusing author and character is a common error, but its very commonality is why it’s enraging. (It’s similar to my beef with those who try to boil down Shakespeare into cross-stitch statements, like “First, we kill all the lawyers,”, etc., as though it was Shakespeare himself who said that, as opposed to the character in the play. A character who, by the way, is an illiterate moron wielding a knife. See how Shakespeare gives that line to a very UN-reliable and UN-exemplary character? But people parrot it off as though it was Shakespeare’s actual attitude. Often his most famous quotes have a much more cynical context than the cross-stitch crowd cares about or even has the patience to investigate. For example, Polonius. Everyone thinks his speech is totes amazing advice, like, wow, it’s so deep, words to live by, Imagine all the people, etc. But Polonius is a blowhard, a pompous ass who can ONLY speak in suffocating cliche. He is a walking Hallmark Card. He has never had an original thought in his head. Ever. Bill Murray nails that vibe in his portrayal of Polonius. And Laertes is basically like, “Dad, stop. Please. I know all this already. Love you, but honestly, stop talking.” Makes his soliloquy seem a bit different if you take it in context, yes? But people continue to confuse Shakespeare the Man with Shakespeare the Great Dramatist who liked to, you know, make shit up.) Clearly this is an enormous pet peeve of mine, and Rosenbaum treats that attitude with the contempt it deserves. (And I agree entirely with Rosenbaum’s point that if Salinger’s point of view is really represented in the book, it’s NOT through Holden, it’s through Phoebe. Mr. Crothers, our 10th grade English teacher, helped us see that. Phoebe, as you will recall, views Holden’s fantasies/ideals/goals with an enormous and practical grain of salt.)
— Dan Callahan’s fascinating piece on Mary Pickford.
— A beautiful post from my good friend Cara Ellison (RTG, to those who remember the good old days). She’s in England now, with her fiance, and doing awesome. Her writing still stops me dead in my tracks sometimes.
— Fantastic: Pal Self-Styled Siren with Laver’s Law: An Illustrated Cinematic Guide.
— I am still having a very good Reading Year, in terms of books. I feel like I have been making up for lost time. I slowed down quite a bit since the Crack-Up Non-Reading-Year of 2009. My health diagnosis has dictated a sort of paradigm shift in my whole schedule, which is still difficult to maintain – it requires daily vigilance, but I understand how necessary it is. I’ve been reading in bed. I know I’ve mentioned this before. It’s a whole new world for me! That 45 minutes before sleep, lying in bed … reading? What country, friends, is this? I always thought I had to be at least sitting up to read. But no. I’ve broken that pattern. I finished Ripley Under Water recently, and it’s so damn good. One of the reasons I love this one in particular (although I think my favorite is still the first one) is that we get to see him in operation with his “colleague” and “friend” (quotation marks necessary) – Ed, the gallery-owner from England, who was in on the art-forgery business with Ripley. In Ripley Under Water, Tom Ripley finds himself needing help and moral support and so he calls on Ed. Ed is eager to help, but then, spending time with Ripley at his home in France, you can see that Ed starts to realize just what sort of a human being Ripley is. Often, these books – because they come from Ripley’s point of view (their greatest strength), we are in the bell jar with his psychopathy. It seems perfectly normal to him. His wife accepts him, doesn’t question much. His housekeeper is oblivious. But Ed … Ripley finds himself having to adjust his reactions to things because he senses Ed’s agitation. FASCINATING. I wish there were more Ripley books. I’m continuing on with my chronological Shakespeare project (a bit slower-going right now), and am currently reading Henry IV Part 2. Getting ready to say goodbye to Falstaff. I’m reading The Sound and the Fury right now as well. I’ve read some Robert Parker, I read the last Quirke novel by Benjamin Black (aka John Banville), and I am still on a Hilary Mantel tear. I re-read Darkness at Noon. I want to re-read 1984 (while we’re on the topic of totalitarian tyranny.) A book I read recently which was fantastic was Bluets, by Maggie Nelson. It was a recommendation from a big reader, and so I decided to check it out. It’s slim, but deep as the ocean. My mind feels open to fiction again, in a way it hasn’t for YEARS. It’s pretty awesome.
It’s not the first time we’ve shared a pet peeve, but taking lines (or perspectives in this case) from fictional characters and attributing them to their authors drives me crazy too. I like to remind people that every time they misuse “no second acts in American lives” or “print the legend,” which is pretty much every time I’ve ever seen them referenced, an angel loses its wings!
I really hope you’ll write up The Sound and the Fury…one of my favorites, would love to read your perspective.
NJ –
Yes, the context of these quotes are often far more cynical. It’s such a simplistic way of looking at literature – as though it’s all a form of autobiography. Can’t stand it.
It’s been about 20 years since I last read Faulkner’s book. It kills me.
I liked the Salinger piece once it got going – though I wasn’t too sure at the beginning. Why does the guy need to go on about his ‘Salinger fatigue’ and how he dislikes the Glass family? Everyone has an opinion I guess, but IMO he should drop the patronizing attitude. Honestly I don’t think he even gets the Glass family – from my point of view Seymour wasn’t the center of the family in the sense of a ‘holy man’, he was in the center as an open wound that the family never really saw healed. Seymour was as much a misfit as Holden really – but the writer seems poised to make his own mistake of conflating Seymour with Salinger himself. Still good article overall though .
Paul – “drop the patronizing attitude”. Ha. You’re not familiar with Ron Rosenbaum then? I don’t find him patronizing at all. I do find him cranky, but then, I like cranks. I’ve been reading him for years and love his Shakespeare book tremendously!
I do agree with him that Salinger was working something out with the Glass family – especially Seymour – I just re-read Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, one of my favorites of his. And I agree with Rosenbaum that Salinger was drawn to something, philosophically, with the Glasses – that he found to be a bit of a rabbit hole. Seymour, An Introduction is a perfect example. It is a story from which he cannot emerge, and it is also a story that he can barely begin. It’s not a criticism. Just an observation. I love the Glass stories, and I think Rosenbaum’s point is that know-nothings who continue to associate Salinger solely with Holden are missing just how identified Salinger was with the Glasses, and how he worked at that family from every angle, through every character.
Salinger’s worst tendencies come out in “Teddy”, a story I can’t stand.
People have gotten mad when I say I can’t stand “Teddy”. It’s kind of like how affronted people get when I say I am angry about Richard Bach. :) They take it personally (which is actually a tribute to the author in question, if you think about it.) I know that different stories mean different things to different people. “Teddy” is the only thing of Salinger’s that I read where I feel like he is way off, and not in control.
Ha – I have to admit I haven’t read Ron Rosenbaum before. So this could just be his way. It did kind of piss me off in his other linked article (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_spectator/2013/06/j_d_salinger_and_eastern_religion_are_there_any_lost_books_still_in_the.4.html) for him to call Salinger a ‘one hit wonder’ . Yeah – not all the short stories are perfect, definitely some I like better than others. However to just dismiss them?
By the way, it made me happy to hear you are back to reading and having fun with it. While we don’t know each other personally, it is clear from your book reviews, etc. how much reading means to you. I’m really glad that you’ve regained that .
His book called “Shakespeare Wars” is so entertaining. I highly recommend it!
But yes, he does have a tendency to piss people off! :)
I am so glad to be reading this way again. Especially fiction – for some reason, I just have not had to attention span for fictional works for a good 5 years and I have totally missed it!
Are you reading anything good these days you would like to pass on?
I’ve been (re)reading a lot of Mark Salzman’s stuff lately. His most famous is ‘Iron and Silk’ – a memoir of teaching English and training martial arts in China. Interesting, very touching book if you haven’t read it before – easy read too. Salzman has written a couple novels, but I think his strength is in non-fiction.
Also (interesting tie-in to Salinger), I just finished reading ‘Way of the Pilgrim’ – origin of the Jesus prayer in Franny and Zooie – got there by way of ‘Guide for the perplexed’ – neat little philosophy book (recommended). Not sure if I recommend ‘way of the pilgrim’ – still thinking that one over.
Another book I’m reading right now is ‘Sacred Economics’. Hokey title, lot of really interesting ideas. One basic premise is that the way money is created in our system is basically guaranteed to create ecological destruction and overexploitation. The author does make the book freely available online: http://sacred-economics.com/read-online .
I’ll make a point of checking out ‘Shakespeare wars’ sometime!
Paul – Thank you!
I read Iron and Silk when it first came out – very much liked it! – and he has a cameo appearance as his real-self in a travel book called Night Train to Turkestan, about taking the train across China, east to West. Have you read it? It’s written by Stuart Stevens, whose dream wasto re-trace Peter Fleming’s 1936 trip. Salzman is a pal of Stevens, is in China at the time, and is invited to come along on the trip, and he’s a very funny almost cranky presence. If I recall correctly, he leaves the trip early. He sounds like a very interesting guy. I should read more of his books – I really liked Iron and Silk.
I wrote a little bit about Night Train to Turkestan here: http://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=4659
I recall it being a very funny book. These people (except for Salzman) are totally unprepared for China.
Hi Sheila – I have read Turkestan and remember enjoying it. I am a little hazy on the details though – I’ll have to re-read that, especially since I’ve been re-reading Salzman lately!
If you enjoyed Iron and Silk, I have a couple recommendations for you. They made a movie version of Iron and Silk in the nineties and it is worth watching. Salzman and his Chinese teacher Pan play themselves and I believe it is filmed on location in China. Pretty well done and some good martial arts too.
Also Salzman wrote kind of a prequel to Iron and Silk called ‘Lost in Place’ that is really funny. It kind of describes how he ended up in China. At one point as a teenager he got involved with this kung fu school where they would do things like stalking each other in a cemetery at night to lose fear of death. The teacher of that school was pretty out there.
I actually saw Salzman recently in a documentary on Netflix where he was telling this story (Protagonist) and they’d dug up some video of the school and its crazy teacher. That was a lot of fun to see after reading the book.
Wow – thanks for the recommendations! “stalking each other in a cemetery at night” – hahaha. I will have to check that out.
Glad to hear you’re having a good reading year. At the risk of being a bore (always a danger with me and books) might I recommend Old Filth by Jane Gardam? It’s slim – you could probably knock it off in a few evenings of reading – but one of the most absorbing fictional lives I’ve ever read.
Dan – what a coincidence, I read it this year!!
Totally agree with what you said. I was so taken by that book – absorbed is the right word. And I actually shed tears at the end. Amazing character.
Have you read any of her others? I haven’t. Apparently Old Filth is part of a trilogy (my mother recommended Old Filth to me, and is now reading the others in the trilogy).
and always good to hear from you, Dan!
Well it’s always a pleasure to chat and has been a while!
I just finished reading The Man With The Wooden Hat and had to restrain myself from immediately jumping into Last Friends (it’s sitting on shelf) – I’m trying to draw out and savor these books and I know I’ll be disappointed when I’ve read them all and can’t spend anymore time with Filth and Betty.
Have you tried any Wodehouse yet? I seem to recall you asking for suggestion about a good starting point, and I’d love to hear your thoughts if you have.
Yes! Wodehouse! I read a collection of the Jeeves stories earlier this year. Within one paragraph my main thought was: “Well. Now I understand what the fuss is all about with this writer.”
You’re in for a totes treat when you tuck in to one of his novels – all that lovely prose plus the shiny plotting!
If I may make another stab at a (non-fiction) recommendation, have you read anything by Patrick Leigh Fermor? I’m thinking of his write-up of his walk across central Europe (Rotterdam to Istanbul) in 1933 when he was all of 18. Fascinating guy – you check Anthony Lane’s NYer profile of the man here: http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2006-05-22#folio=058
Oooh, sounds really interesting. Have not read it!
I am catching up here with all these great posts, but I have to say, I don’t like this guy Rosenbaum! I think, yeah, Salinger is not Holden, at all, but at the same time, he very much is Holden, and not in a small way, and it’s all at once. And I do like Seymour, An Introduction. And as to Rosenbaum calling Seymour a “mystical windbag” don’t forget, Salinger did kill him off! I also don’t care about Salinger’s obsession with Vedantism. I like obsessive people, I don’t have to be into what they are all obsessed about. I have re-read The Catcher in the Rye, and all of Salinger’s books. I think Catcher holds up! I feel the same, though I am not the same person. I might not be that lonely kid who stumbled upon it, (I didn’t read it in school and didn’t know who Salinger was) but like a million other people, (that I was later to learn) It shook my world, and I thought, “Oh my God, he wrote this for me! I am Holden!” Rosenbaum is too much of an academic for me. There is magic in this book and goes from generation to generation. I don’t mix up Salinger with his characters. Being a fan, (and feeling guilty about it), but I read his daughter’s book, DreamCatcher, (?) I think was the title and Joyce Maynard. Salinger has weird issues with women and questionable choices. I do separate that from his art and what he gave me. I think me feeling “I am Holden” and generations of people feeling this way and why it is, is more interesting then exploring that Salinger was not Holden.
Salinger’s one of my favorite all-time writers. I have a similar story as yours (and many others). I discovered Catcher in high school. It blew me away. Franny and Zooey is one of my favorite books of all time. It helped change the course of my life – which I’ve written about before. I remember where I was when I read Franny and Zooey, and I remember how I experienced a shift in my mindset, which then led me to make all these changes which were actually quite long-lasting. I love it all – well, except for Teddy – as I mentioned, where I think Salinger was so in love with the philosophies Teddy was spouting that he forgot to create a character. I found Teddy boring as hell. I would find Seymour boring as hell in real life. But I love Seymour: An Introduction. You can see the trap Salinger got himself into as a writer – the neverending Loop – which is why Seymour: An Introduction is so fucking brilliant!!
I’m a huge fan of Rosenbaum. I’ll read anything he writes. The responses have been fascinating!
And I still think it’s far more interesting to look at Catcher as a novel, rather than a literal act of autobiography. I always thought Phoebe was more of a stand-in for Salinger than Holden anyway.
and it’s also interesting: the resistance.
I’ve always been more fascinated by the Glass family than Holden. I don’t know … there’s something about them. I love how he goes at them from all angles, through all different characters. I also love how the stories look differently to me, depending on whatever stage of life I am at. I have re-read all of his stuff throughout my life – and it’s amazing, how it shifts/morphs – depending on the outlook. He’s like Joyce in that way. A young man will read Portrait and see himself – an old man will read Portrait and see who he used to be – it will be a totally different experience, and yet no less profound.
At least that’s been my experience with all of Salinger’s stuff.
Except for Teddy. :)
Yeah it’s funny, I reacted so negatively to Rosenbaum! A little while ago Francine Prose wrote an essay on Catcher saying her two teenage sons, (I think) were reading it and not liking it. She picked it up and was surprised to feel she was not liking Holden either! I remember feeling, “Oh that’s interesting, I feel so different, and, I have to read some Francine Prose!” So Rosenbaum somehow irritated me. But who knows, maybe it’s a good sign people love you or hate you, no in betweens!
I do bounce around liking some of Salinger’s books more then others, and I love Franny and Zooey! And I identified with one and then the other at different times. I can’t remember Teddy! haha! I will reread it!
hahaha I get the sense that Salinger thinks Teddy is deep and meaningful (the character, I mean – in the story Teddy is a child). I find him to be annoying, precocious, and actually on the sociopathic spectrum.
You can have a smart kid (ie: Phoebe in Catcher) without having him be a mini-Gandhi.
I don’t know – the story feels didactic to me, in a way that Salinger’s stuff rarely does. He usually leavens things with humor – or at least has a character keep one foot on the ground (again: Phoebe in Catcher, who is totally unimpressed with Holden’s whole “I’m gonna catch kids on the cliff” plan for the future).
I feel that Salinger admires Teddy too much – and therefore his radar is way off in the story. I’ve written about it before and people send me very angry emails. hahaha.
But I’d be curious to hear what you think.
Dear Sheila,
This is way past your original posting -I was away for a much needed three week holiday and then back to the normal start of term madness- so am only just now catching up on some ofmyour back blog posts. really enjoying the New Yorker excerpts: I had a dog eared copy of the Bradley profile when I was a kid and I know I’m not the only kid who grew up in small town NJ who took it so much too heart in terms of endless hours of basketball drills that drove,my parents to distraction; and similarly recommended Aliice McDermott to my Irish mom who loved them. The profile you did of the 9/11 victim was quite moving and wonderful and I will be directing my students to the website so thanks so much for that. And on the reading front can I recommend a few novels which I suspect you may have already read but if not I suspect that they will be the sort of books that live long in your heart and imagination. The first is Colum McCann’s Let the Great World Spin, the perfect New York city novel and one of the most heartbreakingly melancholy reflections on 9/111 you could imagine even if set years in the past. The other is a book on the Stalin purges that I think surpasses Darkness at Noon in every way- The Case of Comrade Tulayev by Victor Serge. Happy reading.
John – Hi! I love that you had a dog-eared copy of that profile. I can totally see how it would inspire a kid to read that.
I haven’t read Colum MacCann’s Let the Great World Spin yet – I like him very much, but haven’t read that one yet. I will! And hard to believe anything can surpass Darkness at Noon but your comment has sure made me curious – I’ve heard of Victor Serge’s book, of course, but haven’t read it. Thank you!
Hey Sheila! I had to track down, Nine Stories, (my books are a mess) and finally read Teddy. Yeah, Teddy is annoying and irritating! haha! And I see what you mean that Salinger lost the character. I realized though I was reading it with interest anyway because I was interested in learning about what this Vedantic theory stuff is, and whenever anybody writes or talks about death it makes me happy, haha! And this is the weird thing, the day before I found the book I was going to a pool myself, and walking down a ramp to it this tiny tot was speaking to his father in a manner like Teddy and I felt like slapping them both! but that’s neither here or there. just a weird coincidence. But I do see what you say about Teddy but even if I didn’t it wouldn’t offend me or make me mad!
Regina – ha, you’re awesome.
I can only take that type of philosophy in very very small doses. I know Salinger was very drawn to it – and I have many friends who are too – and I do tend to have a cynical heart. I am not proud of it. Perhaps that’s why a character like Zooey really speaks to me – because he manages to be both transcendent/wise AND practical. Seymour seems to really have that struggle – and that is his tragedy. It’s like he doesn’t know how to live, he doesn’t know how he can bear it.
It’s a very deep conversation, obviously – and all of Salinger’s stories touch on it in one way or another.
That’s hysterical that you saw a father/son at the pool that reminded you of Teddy. Ha!
And also to say, I know you like this Rosenbaum but the funny thing is I find your writing so different in the way I think you are both highly intelligent people but where I find Rosenbaum dry and pedantic, you never are at all, and obviously know how to live. Like Zooey!
Rosenbaum’s book The Shakespeare Wars is anything but pedantic. It’s juicy, passionate, and fun as hell. Like I said, I’ve been reading him for years – since his New York Observer days. I sometimes have a hard time keeping track of him, because he writes for many different venues. But I dug Shakespeare Wars, it was insanely pleasurable. I’ve written about it on my site somewhere. But he definitely can be … how you say … a crankypants. :)
Zooey is a hero to me. “Act for GOD if you want to …” That scene between him and Franny – argh, just love it so much. My friend Mitchell and I have discussed him in-depth, as though he is a real person. I mentioned Franny and Zooey in my QA over on Ebert. He’s never far from the surface when I talk about books I love.
Oh yes, Zooey! I worked on that monologue in an acting class not all that long ago, 5 or 6 years. I will check out your QA on Ebert. (and keep an open mind on Rosenbaum!)
Regina – wow, excellent monologue! “The sands are running out of the hourglass …” Life-changer when I first read it. Made life seem like an urgent thing. Which, of course, it is.
Sheila,
I loved Rosenbaums columns in the Observer back in the nineties. Agree or disagree his enthusiasm for his subject matter was contagious. Just off the top of my head I can remember several columns about Nabokov and Pale Fire( enough for me to finally break down and read it), Roseann Cash, an obscure Bob Dylan song(I’ll Keep it With Mine.) I also seem to remember him taking a contrarian view of Seinfeld, which was a ballsy thing to do in New York in the nineties. Somewhere along he way I stopped reading The Observer and lost track of him as well but it’s good to see him stirring it up still.
I remember that Nabokov column – but will have to look up the others you mentioned. I don’t remember his Seinfeld contrarian position. Ha! Yes, he is willing to go against the grain. I liked his political stuff, too – he was Cranky about the same things I was Cranky about. It made me feel like I wasn’t going nuts – that somebody else saw what I saw. You know how a good political column can do that?
I’ve been trying to hunt down the Rosenbaum piece about “I’ll Keep It With Mine” for years. I know exactly where I was when I read it- on a northbound Amtrack train as it ran along the Hudson at sunset. I’d been off the Dylan train for years at that point, and was unfamiliar with the song, so the following week, when I was back in NYC I went to J&R Music and bought the first set I saw that had it– Bootleg Series Vol. 1-3. As it happens that collection proved to be a really good way back in- a sort of alternate universe career survey. I love it when something like that happens, when writer shows you something new about something you thought you were familiar with.