In a message dated 9/19/99 7:14:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, colin@cpink.demon.co.uk writes: << It was quite a shattering experience, the pain just came off the page and bit you. What had formerly been buried in the text was now blindingly obvious with the benefit of hindsight. -- Colin >> But that's just it...where do we get the idea that your previous reading of her script was a "misreading"? See, what you're doing is reading it in two different contexts -- one somewhat independent of the author's life and emotional state (because you were unaware of it), the other completely in terms of the author's emotional state. I'd say they're both valid readings. Especially since most authors I've known or spoken to don't write primarily to communicate their own emotions -- as if they were something important in themselves, or something to broadcast publicly. Their emotional energy may feed their work, but they are writing to communicate something else -- an idea or a feeling that's shared, relevant to someone besides the author. Or a commentary on the human condition. But not necessarily something that completely personal. I understand the feeling that People Are Stupid when it comes to reading books, and if I ever published anything nationally I'd probably get as frustrated as Salinger with the things people were saying about my work. But I do have some limited experience publishing, and experience getting direct input about my work from readers through writing groups. I've almost always had at least one or two readers who either knew what I was doing, or what I was trying to do. If NO ONE gets the point, then I'm inclined to think my writing was defective. But usually at least someone does, and they ususally confirm where I already knew I was going wrong in the story. I think if Salinger has to run away from his readers, that's HIS problem. Jim