(I had to shorten this for space reasons)
First, I should say that to an extent I know whereof I speak. I’ll try to keep this short:
In 1985 Random House published a novel of mine called Cosmic Banditos. The book got ‘orphaned’ – my editor (who was/is well known as the editor of authors of the Jay McInterney ilk) left for Knopf just before the pub date, meaning that there was no one to shepherd the title with promo, etc. The book failed commercially. Totally.
Then, around 2000 I’d written a memoir that Penguin was to publish. Funny but meanwhile (during the 15 years since publication) Cosmic Banditos took off via word of mouth and the Internet. I mean it became sort of a ‘cult classic.’ Websites analyzing it, online discussion groups, crazy shit.
I persuaded Penguin to republish it with my new book, a memoir called In Search of Captain Zero. Both books were bought (not just optioned) for the movies, Zero by Sean Penn and a studio and Banditos by John Cusack and a studio. (Banditos, by the way, is semi-autobiographical.)
The other reason I bring up my book is that Banditos and Catcher have some similarities – the biggest difference being the degree to which they ‘caught on.’ My book (and myself) are not in the same league in that sense.
Simularities…. Joe, if you think Catcher was ‘destructive’ to culture, etc., I have to laugh at what you might think of my book. The protagonist is a nihilistic pot smuggler who gets obsessed with ‘the Meaning of Life’ and figures he’s sort of found it when his Bandito Buddy Jose mugs a family of American tourists and swipes a bunch of books on Quantum Physics – our hero and Jose (plus a dog) go on a quest to track down the physics professor-owner of the books in order to demand the Meaning of Life.
Okay, enough plot. (For an indication of how it caught on go to its Amazon Reader Reviews, about 100 of em.)
Aspects of the book are dated now but no one seems to care. It still gets (almost always 5 star) reader reviews 15 years after (the second) publication. The reason for this is what makes the book work: The narrative voice. Like Catcher, Banditos is told first person from the point of view of a very ‘screwed up’ guy.
Point being, Catcher too works pretty well (like Jerry, I consider it a good book, not a great one by any means) because Salinger (or whoever wrote it) nailed the voice. Which is why calling it ‘dumbed down’ (I think you did, Joe) is a mistake. Believe me, getting a narrative voice right is not easy – it has to look (read) like it was easy. But it is not easy.
Joe, in my view you’re harder on Catcher than is warranted. Part of this, I suspect, is because of the ‘evil’ behind it: As mentioned in my other post, I agree with you in general about the book and am blown away by your work on it. Let’s get that straight. Ditto your Beatles piece and your Deadhead piece. I’ve ordered your books...
Anyway, again, I have to grin in wondering how you’d view my Banditos protagonist, given you see Holden as ‘an alcoholic’ and ‘a degenerate’ and berate him for chain smoking and being ‘angst-ridden.’
Holden is angst-ridden all right; I won’t waste much space in pointing out that he has good reason to be, given the culture he lives in. But ‘a degenerate’? That you label him as a (sexual) pervert tells me that you probably misread that aspect of the book. Although this stuff is not all that important compared to the brilliant revelations in your piece, I’m going to take a minute to show you what I mean. I hadn’t read the book in years so I scanned a PDF online. If there’s other stuff I’m missing that contradicts my point, I’m all ears. But here’s a bit from Holden’s view of sex, plus the vignette with the prostitute (heavily edited to save time/space):
Begin quote: If you want to know the truth, I'm a virgin. I really am. I've had quite a few opportunities
to lose my virginity and all, but I've never got around to it yet. Something alwayshappens….., The thing is, most of the time when you're coming pretty close to doing it with a girl--a girl that isn't a prostitute or anything, I mean--she keeps telling you to stop. The trouble with me is, I stop. (end quote)
I dunno, maybe you can find some ‘perverse’ subtext in the above, but I can’t. By the way, I think it’s significant that Holden is a virgin, and stays one. I remember when first reading the book I was hoping he’d get laid… but he didn’t. He did not find sex with a prostitute ‘sexy.’ Again: perverse? The guy spends most of the story trying to find someone who is not a ‘phony.’ I dunno if you’ve noticed: most humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil. The phrase ‘don’t kill the messenger’ comes to mind (I suspect Jerry would agree with me here.)
Holden may be ‘mentally ill’ as you put it, but re the Freemasons it's obvious he does not like them, and their ways. (I had to delete a quote for character-limited reasons, but trust me…)
Another example of this is in the two ‘brothers’ with whom he finally enters the ‘holy of holies.’
(begin quote) "How come you two guys aren't in school?" I said.
"No school t'day," the kid that did all the talking said. He was lying, sure as I'm alive, the little bastard. I didn't have anything to do, though, till old Phoebe showed up, so I helped them find the place where the mummies were. Boy, I used to know exactly where they were, but I hadn't been in that museum in years. "You two guys so interested in mummies?" I said.
"Yeah."
"Can't your friend talk?" I said.
"He ain't my friend. He's my brudda."
....and you could tell the two hot-shots I was with weren't enjoying it too
much. They stuck close as hell to me, and the one that didn't talk at all practically was holding onto my sleeve. "Let's go," he said to his brother. "I seen 'em awreddy. C'mon, hey." He turned around and beat it.
"He's got a yella streak a mile wide," the other one said. "So long!" He beat it too. (end quote)
Joe, if you’re going to stick with your thought that the ‘brothers’ represent Freemasons, you’ll have to admit that Salinger does not paint a very flattering portrait of them? …’a yella streak a mile wide’…?
Part of my point here is that I don’t agree that Catcher is destructive culturally, or any other way. (Neither is my book, btw.) And I certainly doubt that the author meant it that way; quite the reverse. (I can say this being an author who wrote a book that in theory is way more ‘destructive’ than Catcher. Banditos – and thousands agree – is simply a very funny book. Catcher is pretty funny too. The ‘Fuck You’ business is a scream! That it works on the level (or some similar one) you point out is pretty much a separate subject.)
BUT: Your linkage of it to Freemasonry is undeniable, as is the motive of it its use in assassinations. But this is not Salinger’s doing.
To put it another way: Do you really think Salinger sat down and thought to himself, ‘I’m going to write a book that will be destructive to the culture of the United States’?
My final comment is re the business of ‘Fuck You.’ I have to agree with Jerry in this one, in the sense that the ‘Fuck You’ more likely refers to the threat the Freemasons represent (I’ll not go into detail since Jerry explains it well). This thread ends with the thought that ‘Fuck You’ will be on Holden’s tombstone. Then it’s not mentioned again. (Had the ‘Fuck You’ been the ‘main point’ of the book, I suspect it would have figured more at the end, maybe when Phoebe was on the merry-go-round.)
The other reason – the important one - I don’t buy the ‘Fuck You’ as the apocalypse is this: Given Salinger’s status (very, very low) with the Freemasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would know of their apocalyptic plans. If he didn’t know about it, he could not have (either consciously or subconsciously) crafted the imagery. As Jerry says, it feels more logical that he is referring to the personal threat.
Another layer here: Good for you for uncovering the two versions of the ‘Rye’ poem (you sure are good at that stuff). But given Salinger’s pedophilia predilection (see my ‘A Perfect Day For Bananafish’ post), isn’t it possible that Salinger is saying that instead of ‘catching’ the kids who are in danger, he wants to fuck them?
It’s right there in front of us, no?: ‘If a body fuck a body, coming through the rye’…. And the ‘bodies’ are children’s… (Note also that the prostitute is very young, Holden’s age, he figures. And she had a child-like speaking voice and said childish things… and Holden suddenly got a bad feeling about having sex with her… then she comes to his defense with Maurice…seems to fit the pedophile motif.)
(I had more but it wouldn't fit....)
First, I should say that to an extent I know whereof I speak. I’ll try to keep this short:
In 1985 Random House published a novel of mine called Cosmic Banditos. The book got ‘orphaned’ – my editor (who was/is well known as the editor of authors of the Jay McInterney ilk) left for Knopf just before the pub date, meaning that there was no one to shepherd the title with promo, etc. The book failed commercially. Totally.
Then, around 2000 I’d written a memoir that Penguin was to publish. Funny but meanwhile (during the 15 years since publication) Cosmic Banditos took off via word of mouth and the Internet. I mean it became sort of a ‘cult classic.’ Websites analyzing it, online discussion groups, crazy shit.
I persuaded Penguin to republish it with my new book, a memoir called In Search of Captain Zero. Both books were bought (not just optioned) for the movies, Zero by Sean Penn and a studio and Banditos by John Cusack and a studio. (Banditos, by the way, is semi-autobiographical.)
The other reason I bring up my book is that Banditos and Catcher have some similarities – the biggest difference being the degree to which they ‘caught on.’ My book (and myself) are not in the same league in that sense.
Simularities…. Joe, if you think Catcher was ‘destructive’ to culture, etc., I have to laugh at what you might think of my book. The protagonist is a nihilistic pot smuggler who gets obsessed with ‘the Meaning of Life’ and figures he’s sort of found it when his Bandito Buddy Jose mugs a family of American tourists and swipes a bunch of books on Quantum Physics – our hero and Jose (plus a dog) go on a quest to track down the physics professor-owner of the books in order to demand the Meaning of Life.
Okay, enough plot. (For an indication of how it caught on go to its Amazon Reader Reviews, about 100 of em.)
Aspects of the book are dated now but no one seems to care. It still gets (almost always 5 star) reader reviews 15 years after (the second) publication. The reason for this is what makes the book work: The narrative voice. Like Catcher, Banditos is told first person from the point of view of a very ‘screwed up’ guy.
Point being, Catcher too works pretty well (like Jerry, I consider it a good book, not a great one by any means) because Salinger (or whoever wrote it) nailed the voice. Which is why calling it ‘dumbed down’ (I think you did, Joe) is a mistake. Believe me, getting a narrative voice right is not easy – it has to look (read) like it was easy. But it is not easy.
Joe, in my view you’re harder on Catcher than is warranted. Part of this, I suspect, is because of the ‘evil’ behind it: As mentioned in my other post, I agree with you in general about the book and am blown away by your work on it. Let’s get that straight. Ditto your Beatles piece and your Deadhead piece. I’ve ordered your books...
Anyway, again, I have to grin in wondering how you’d view my Banditos protagonist, given you see Holden as ‘an alcoholic’ and ‘a degenerate’ and berate him for chain smoking and being ‘angst-ridden.’
Holden is angst-ridden all right; I won’t waste much space in pointing out that he has good reason to be, given the culture he lives in. But ‘a degenerate’? That you label him as a (sexual) pervert tells me that you probably misread that aspect of the book. Although this stuff is not all that important compared to the brilliant revelations in your piece, I’m going to take a minute to show you what I mean. I hadn’t read the book in years so I scanned a PDF online. If there’s other stuff I’m missing that contradicts my point, I’m all ears. But here’s a bit from Holden’s view of sex, plus the vignette with the prostitute (heavily edited to save time/space):
Begin quote: If you want to know the truth, I'm a virgin. I really am. I've had quite a few opportunities
to lose my virginity and all, but I've never got around to it yet. Something alwayshappens….., The thing is, most of the time when you're coming pretty close to doing it with a girl--a girl that isn't a prostitute or anything, I mean--she keeps telling you to stop. The trouble with me is, I stop. (end quote)
I dunno, maybe you can find some ‘perverse’ subtext in the above, but I can’t. By the way, I think it’s significant that Holden is a virgin, and stays one. I remember when first reading the book I was hoping he’d get laid… but he didn’t. He did not find sex with a prostitute ‘sexy.’ Again: perverse? The guy spends most of the story trying to find someone who is not a ‘phony.’ I dunno if you’ve noticed: most humans are dishonest/phony if not outright evil. The phrase ‘don’t kill the messenger’ comes to mind (I suspect Jerry would agree with me here.)
Holden may be ‘mentally ill’ as you put it, but re the Freemasons it's obvious he does not like them, and their ways. (I had to delete a quote for character-limited reasons, but trust me…)
Another example of this is in the two ‘brothers’ with whom he finally enters the ‘holy of holies.’
(begin quote) "How come you two guys aren't in school?" I said.
"No school t'day," the kid that did all the talking said. He was lying, sure as I'm alive, the little bastard. I didn't have anything to do, though, till old Phoebe showed up, so I helped them find the place where the mummies were. Boy, I used to know exactly where they were, but I hadn't been in that museum in years. "You two guys so interested in mummies?" I said.
"Yeah."
"Can't your friend talk?" I said.
"He ain't my friend. He's my brudda."
....and you could tell the two hot-shots I was with weren't enjoying it too
much. They stuck close as hell to me, and the one that didn't talk at all practically was holding onto my sleeve. "Let's go," he said to his brother. "I seen 'em awreddy. C'mon, hey." He turned around and beat it.
"He's got a yella streak a mile wide," the other one said. "So long!" He beat it too. (end quote)
Joe, if you’re going to stick with your thought that the ‘brothers’ represent Freemasons, you’ll have to admit that Salinger does not paint a very flattering portrait of them? …’a yella streak a mile wide’…?
Part of my point here is that I don’t agree that Catcher is destructive culturally, or any other way. (Neither is my book, btw.) And I certainly doubt that the author meant it that way; quite the reverse. (I can say this being an author who wrote a book that in theory is way more ‘destructive’ than Catcher. Banditos – and thousands agree – is simply a very funny book. Catcher is pretty funny too. The ‘Fuck You’ business is a scream! That it works on the level (or some similar one) you point out is pretty much a separate subject.)
BUT: Your linkage of it to Freemasonry is undeniable, as is the motive of it its use in assassinations. But this is not Salinger’s doing.
To put it another way: Do you really think Salinger sat down and thought to himself, ‘I’m going to write a book that will be destructive to the culture of the United States’?
My final comment is re the business of ‘Fuck You.’ I have to agree with Jerry in this one, in the sense that the ‘Fuck You’ more likely refers to the threat the Freemasons represent (I’ll not go into detail since Jerry explains it well). This thread ends with the thought that ‘Fuck You’ will be on Holden’s tombstone. Then it’s not mentioned again. (Had the ‘Fuck You’ been the ‘main point’ of the book, I suspect it would have figured more at the end, maybe when Phoebe was on the merry-go-round.)
The other reason – the important one - I don’t buy the ‘Fuck You’ as the apocalypse is this: Given Salinger’s status (very, very low) with the Freemasons, it seems unlikely to me that he would know of their apocalyptic plans. If he didn’t know about it, he could not have (either consciously or subconsciously) crafted the imagery. As Jerry says, it feels more logical that he is referring to the personal threat.
Another layer here: Good for you for uncovering the two versions of the ‘Rye’ poem (you sure are good at that stuff). But given Salinger’s pedophilia predilection (see my ‘A Perfect Day For Bananafish’ post), isn’t it possible that Salinger is saying that instead of ‘catching’ the kids who are in danger, he wants to fuck them?
It’s right there in front of us, no?: ‘If a body fuck a body, coming through the rye’…. And the ‘bodies’ are children’s… (Note also that the prostitute is very young, Holden’s age, he figures. And she had a child-like speaking voice and said childish things… and Holden suddenly got a bad feeling about having sex with her… then she comes to his defense with Maurice…seems to fit the pedophile motif.)
(I had more but it wouldn't fit....)
