# J.D. Salinger dies.



## Leyline (Jan 28, 2010)

..at 91.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jan 28, 2010)

That sucks.

I'm surprised anyone found out.  I wonder how long it took them to find his body.


----------



## Crash_Tomas (Jan 28, 2010)

The news thing said it happened Wednesday. His son told the news people. according to the Washington Post.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 28, 2010)

If he had actually written something in the past 30 years, I might care more.  I respect him as a writer (though I hated Catcher), but I'm not sure why this is big news.


----------



## SevenWritez (Jan 28, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> If he had actually written something in the past 30 years, I might care more.  I respect him as a writer (though I hated Catcher), but I'm not sure why this is big news.



It's big news because he and his daughter confirmed that there's plenty of unpublished material which would be given to the public only once Salinger passed on.

The Glass family stories will thus resume, and other shorts will be published.

It's also big news simply because it's Salinger. He's the author of one of America's most well known and beloved novels. That's not a small feat.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jan 28, 2010)

I'm a little surprised he's allowing his work to be published even posthumously.  I guess he kept it pure while he was alive and is wise enough not to give a fuck now that he's gone.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 28, 2010)

SevenWritez said:


> It's big news because he and his daughter confirmed that there's plenty of unpublished material which would be given to the public only once Salinger passed on.
> 
> The Glass family stories will thus resume, and other shorts will be published.
> 
> It's also big news simply because it's Salinger. He's the author of one of America's most well known and beloved novels. That's not a small feat.




Artifact of the times, man.  If you published a novel about an angsty sissy who did nothing but whine in the 50's, you'd be famous, too.

Which is not to say the book isn't superbly written, because it was.


Personally, I think it's bullshit to publish things that he chose not to publish.  Would you want someone digging through your failures to trade on your good name?


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jan 28, 2010)

They aren't failures.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 28, 2010)

Dr. Malone said:


> They aren't failures.




I was hyperbolizing.  But do you think maybe he had a reason for not getting them published.  It's not like they wouldn't have been if they're worth it now.


----------



## SevenWritez (Jan 28, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> Artifact of the times, man. If you published a novel about an angsty sissy who did nothing but whine in the 50's, you'd be famous, too.
> 
> Which is not to say the book isn't superbly written, because it was.
> 
> ...


 
You shouldn't make an argument when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Salinger wanted this work published. The reason he decided to keep it hidden until his death was because he was sick of the critical reception that writers must deal with after publishing. 

As Hemingway once said: "That's the artists' reward: seeing if it's any good or not." (that's not verbatim, of course). Franny and Zooey, Seymour: An Introduction, etc. all had to compete with the shadow cast by Catcher in the Rye, and many critics agreed that none of the titles lived up to Holden Caulfield, which annoyed Salinger, and caused him to sink into his privacy more so than he already had. 

He enjoyed the writing process; he's been writing in the last years; with one colored pen he marked the manuscripts which he wanted to be published as written and with a different colored pen he marked those which he wanted an editor to play with before sending to the press.

It's a big deal because Salinger is about to release a lot of new material. And I don't think I'm the only reader who's excited. At least I hope I'm not. :???:


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jan 28, 2010)

SevenWritez said:


> You shouldn't make an argument when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Salinger wanted this work published. The reason he decided to keep it hidden until his death was because he was sick of the critical reception that writers must deal with after publishing.
> 
> As Hemingway once said: "That's the artists' reward: seeing if it's any good or not." (that's not verbatim, of course). Franny and Zooey, Seymour: An Introduction, etc. all had to compete with the shadow cast by Catcher in the Rye, and many critics agreed that none of the titles lived up to Holden Caulfield, which annoyed Salinger, and caused him to sink into his privacy more so than he already had.
> 
> ...





I'll admit I didn't look much past the obits.  This'll teach me a lesson.


----------



## SevenWritez (Jan 28, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> I'll admit I didn't look much past the obits. This'll teach me a lesson.


 
If I can find them, I'll send you through PM. It's scattered information, but I can probably scoop it up.


----------



## SevenWritez (Jan 28, 2010)

I was reading some comments on a website announcing Salinger's death, and apparently John Updike died on the same exact date of last year. I find that interesting - in a "What a tweest!" type of way. 

Not that I liked Updike. I think he sucks. Same with Foster Wallace, who also has a lot of hype (he was mentioned in the comments, so...yeah, I thought I'd mention him, too).


----------



## Teve Torbes (Jan 29, 2010)

I remember reading it years ago--along with his other works--and making myself believe that it was such great literature.  But over time I'm come to see it for what it is, profoundly negative and corrupting.  One can only imagine how many minds it warped, so I can't say that I'm all that disappointed that they guy died.  At least he had sense enough to stop publishing when he did.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Jan 29, 2010)

I like Foster Wallace.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 29, 2010)

I'm interested and I'm not even a fan. From all reports, Salinger was also pretty much a recluse when it came to things like the news and the doings of superficial 'society'. Despite my non-fan status, I admire him as a craftsman and a presenter of ideas at oblique angles. To see if he can still pull some master-tricks from his sleeve is of interest to anyone who writes. And the idea that a master-craftsman has spent decades writing and polishing his work, in an almost 'pure' environment, just excites me.

Like him or not, Salinger is vastly influential. Almost every single story, book, movie and TV show (from the '60's on)  dealing with young people and 'the discovery of the world', feels his influence, for good or ill.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 29, 2010)

*"What I was really hanging around for, I was trying to feel some kind of a good-bye.  I mean I've left schools and places I didn't even know I was leaving them.  I hate that.  I don't care if it's a sad good-bye or a bad good-bye, but when I leave a place I like to know I'm leaving it.  If you don't, you feel even worse."*  ~J.D. Salinger, _The Catcher in the Rye,_ *Chapter 1*


----------



## jesterscourt (Mar 31, 2010)

Since I haven't post here in a very long time, I thought this would be as good of a place if any to state my feelings on the passing of Mr. Salinger.  I read CitR decades after it was initially published, and like many other disaffected youths before me, understood Holden Caulfield.  I also read the other novellas/short stories, and even found some "underpublished/uncollected" stories on the net about ten years ago.  For the most part, all great stuff.  It is known that he wrote for decades, every day in what was termed a bunker on his property.  Now I don't know about the specifics of what he wrote in that time, or what if any the estate will decide to publish, but I hope that they hurry it up, we haven't seen new JDS material in over a generation!


----------

