Re: Sunday Times article
Jake McHenry (seymour@ktis.net)
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:53:05 -0600
I am wondering why in the world would our man Salinger hole himself up for
years writing and then opt to burn all of his work. Where did the whole talk
of the manuscript burning come from anyway? I am thinking that if he were to
plan on destroying his work then why would he even attempt publishing
Hapworth again. In my mind there are piles of pages of stories just waiting
for us to see. Ober and his team of rabid lawyers will see to it that
Salinger's wishes will be met regarding publication of his new work. ("Now I
mean nothing, but NOTHING, on the covers of my books. You hear me Ober?!
Just plain old white!") Even in death Salinger will get his way. (As he
damned well should, I think.) Truth be told, I just don't know if I can be
let down about it. I am nearly to a point where I almost NEED to hear about
Les and Bessie as youngsters and how they met and countless other small
things that are somehow important to me.
I just cannot buy for one single solitary second that he would burn his
work.
-Jake.
seymour@ktis.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Florie Sommers <writeflorie@hotmail.com>
To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Sunday Times article
>Dickinson also wanted her work burned when she died. Actually none of
>her stuff was published during her life time, it all came after she was
>gone thats why none of her poems are named. I worry though that Salinger
>is just smart enough to burn it before he dies. I want nothing more than
>to see all his hidden work published for everyone to love but I don't
>think it will ever happen. Firstly, because of my above stated reason
>and secondly because the people around him protect him to such a degree
>that I can see them betraying him even after his death.
>
>I also worry that his recluse writing will be disappointing. Because we
>have such a wonderful little group of work we figure that all his work
>is wonderful. I'm sure that there is stuff there that he wouldn't have
>published even during his publishing years. I worry that if it is all
>released we will be flooded with work that is not his choosing and not
>his best work.
>
>In a blue sky world I would love for him to choose the work that he sees
>fit for publication after his death and lock away the remainder. No
>matter how much we love him there is no way that all the writing he has
>done since he took off is as good as the work we already have.
>
>What do you all think?
>
>Florie
>
>
>>From: Camille Scaysbrook <verona_beach@geocities.com>
>>Reply-To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>>To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>>Subject: Re: Sunday Times article
>>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:20:01 +1100
>>
>>bob pigeon wrote:
>>> if he destroyed them that would be so ridiculous
>>> kafka's dying wish was that they'd burn all his books something like
>that
>>> and instead his friend published them
>>> hahaha
>>
>>This has happened to a lot of writers. My thought on the matter is - if
>>they didn't burn them themselves then possibly they didn't *really*
>want
>>them burnt at all. This is certainly the case with Katherine Mansfield,
>who
>>requested that her remaining writings go this way - then her husband
>spent
>>the next 30 years or so getting rich off them.
>>
>>Still ... we have the stories and that's the main thing.
>>
>>Camille
>>verona_beach@geocities.com
>>@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
>>@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
>>
>
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com