Subject: Re: salinger on radio
From: Tim O'Connor (oconnort@nyu.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 17:20:20 GMT
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:53:03PM +0100, Scottie Bowman wrote:
> I was only able to catch the last half - but will
> probably look out the repeat at Tim's indicated site.
Unfortunately, the site is misleading. It has a button for
"replaying" material -- but that button only leads to a list of shows
that can be replayed, and the JDS show is not (yet?) on there.
If it replays or makes its way to the play-on-demand page, I'll replay
it and record it for archival purposes.
> What I heard was certainly dull enough. I wondered
> which audience they might have had in mind. The
> presumption of ignorance was marked & there was
> nothing of the conflict of viewpoint that makes the list
> at its best so enjoyable.
I think this pinpoints it exactly. It was as if the makers of the
show thought we were all ignorant of what had happened in the last
fifty years. And they made some tenuous connections between
Salinger's writing and such cultural icons as James Dean.
I think A LOT of the connections they made were maddeningly obvious
or made unwarranted assumptions. And not that I want to insult any
group of people, but where, oh where did the BBC derive its version of
English? In all the years I've heard snippets of BBC programming, it
always involves a voice that is bizarrely modulated and is like
something from a Monty Python sketch, or even from A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
or DON'T LOOK BACK.
I contrast the production of this show, which seemed to have been made
by aliens to Earth FOR aliens to Earth, with the show Paul Kennedy did
for the CBC a couple of years ago.
Paul's show had warmth, human scale, no ghoulish or garish sensibility,
and a general sense of love for the work. The people at the BBC, in
contrast, seemed as if someone had put a copy of CATCHER in the hands
of one of the broadcasters, who then put together a program that showed
us the broadcaster trying to make sense of a book HE just barely
understood. If he truly read it with his heart open to what he was
reading.
That was my take on it, for what it's worth.
On to the discussion of The Hat.
For hunting caps in general, there's no better place in America than
good old L.L. Bean, at www.llbean.com, which offers all manner of
outdoor gear. For instance, this leads to one type of cap (this URL
is all one long line with NO spaces):
http://www.llbean.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/CategoryDisplay?
cgmenbr=1&cgrfnbr=18947&sc1=Search
I got there from the main www.llbean.com page by doing a search on
"hunting cap" (no quotes); then I followed my nose from there. There
are other kinds of hunting hats, but they are strange in appearance
and do not fit the description of Holden's, which was more like a
heavy-duty baseball cap with flaps than it is like any other kind of
hat I know. (And I'm something of a hat enthusiast; I have an infinite
number of them, though, no, I don't wear my baseball caps backward. I
have a cap like Holden's. The peak is made of suede, though, which
seems to be a popular approach for hunting hats.)
(Speaking of hat directionality and IQ for non-Americans: today on the
subway I saw a fellow with his hat pulled to the side and way, way
down so that it covered his ear. Would that reduce his IQ by 15
points on that scale mentioned in an earlier post?)
Have a look at the Bean site and see what you all think.
Scottie: Aside from the hat contributed by Mrs. B., what else did you
wear to convey "Holden-ness"? I am curious. I kind of envision an
easy kind of preppy dress, not unlike just about the entire men's
section of the L.L. Bean catalog! Chinos, slacks, button-down shirts,
gentlemanly neckties, conservative blazers, conservative shoes. I'm
curious about what people think when they imagine Holden's dress.
--tim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:39 GMT