An AP photo of Salinger, who has written new novels, but won't let you see them, so there.
A U.S. judge has officially banned the much-disputed reworking of Salinger’s ‘Catcher in the Rye’ from being published in the states. The book sounded worthless, but sometimes this use of tort law makes me squeamish. The judge’s statement actually contains some interesting thoughts on the use of parody, and what it might mean to parody someone like Holden Caulfield, already one of the most amazingly dismissive characters in American literature. My question: what would a 60-year old more widely read Holden – the subject of this barred book – think of Kerouac? or Spinoza? Salinger himself was a seeker after some pretty dubious truths later in his life. What would Mr. Caulfield have thought of his turns with yogic hinduism or the Christian Scientists?
A Quick Note: After I posted this I realized it might look as if I was implying that Hinduism or the Church of Christ, Scientist, are “dubious truths”. Let me say, even before anyone comments on that, that I don’t consider these to be any more questionable than other faiths or dogmas, a few of which I dubiously subscribe to myself. Predominant among these, and maybe most deserving of a scoff or two, are a belief in the worth of literature and the Liberal project and a touch of the ol’ Zen. Ridiculous, yes? Come pick holes in them with me sometime.
