Thread: J.D. Salinger dies.

..at 91.

That sucks.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

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It's big news because he and his daughter confirmed that there's plenty of unpublished material which would be given to the public only once Salinger passed on.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

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.

Originally Posted by SevenWritez

It's big news because he and his daughter confirmed that there's plenty of unpublished material which would be given to the public only once Salinger passed on.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

They aren't failures.

Originally Posted by Dr. Malone

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.

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SevenWritez

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

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.

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).

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.

I like Foster Wallace.