jmak
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
Artist vs the Art.
Some people let the artist's behavior affect their appreciation of the art, some don't.
My friend thinks that Michael Jackson was such a bizarre and horrible person that she no longer cares to listen to his music. While I agree with her opinion on his character, I still enjoy many of his songs and give mad props to him as an entertainer.
Likewise, OJ Simpson's recent behavior has in no way affected my appreciation of his acting in Naked Gun. ;)
chaptal
West Side
Login to Send PM
Very interesting. Once Salinger dies, a brief interview with Bill Watterson, another writer who controls his creations, appears.
http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watterson_creator_of_belo.html
KSquared
Literally Hell
Login to Send PM
chaptal wrote >>
Very interesting. Once Salinger dies, a brief interview with Bill Watterson, another writer who controls his creations, appears.
http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watterson_creator_of_belo.html
I respect Watterson's decision completely. I only wish he could control those awful bootleg stickers of Calvin peeing on things.
lisathewaitress
SoHud
Login to Send PM
this whole thing has got me thinking. does the writer have a responsibility to be sure their work is accessible to everyone? do they have to answer letters and give interviews and sell their work to hollywood?
I don't have the answers, i've just been turning it over in my head since salinger died and i can't figure it out. i've always understood his decision to become a recluse - certainly the desire, at least. The press tries to make everyone look like an idiot and critics are around ever corner to misinterpret one's work, and typically most of the feedback which gets through is the brutally negative. And, while it might have been nice if he would have not been so stubborn, i have to respect his ability to do so.
It sort of reminds me of Dave Chappelle - I mean, here is a brilliant comedian who got what he always thought he wanted and then realized that to proceed, he would have to compromise his values, be controlled by money and people who didn't understand him, and eventually be worn down and ruined by the system. Instead, he decided to put himself and his family first and walk away from $50mil. Does he owe it to anyone to continue to produce? I mean, it isn't like he can shut off what makes him brilliant. but he can still choose not to share it, and I can't say I fault him for it.
You only have one life, and frequently when you become famous for something your life is suddenly controlled by others. There has to be a choice of living for the public - even when they hate you - or living for yourself. For a lot of people I think that balance is hard to identify.
Also, for people as brilliant as chappelle, salinger, or syd barrett, they might want to stop when they have produced what they see as good, and then stop before you start to go downhill and awry, like pink floyd since 1980.
kit444
Elsewhere
Login to Send PM
lisathewaitress wrote >>
this whole thing has got me thinking. does the writer have a responsibility to be sure their work is accessible to everyone? do they have to answer letters and give interviews and sell their work to hollywood?
I don't have the answers, i've just been turning it over in my head since salinger died and i can't figure it out. i've always understood his decision to become a recluse - certainly the desire, at least. The press tries to make everyone look like an idiot and critics are around ever corner to misinterpret one's work, and typically most of the feedback which gets through is the brutally negative. And, while it might have been nice if he would have not been so stubborn, i have to respect his ability to do so.
It sort of reminds me of Dave Chappelle - I mean, here is a brilliant comedian who got what he always thought he wanted and then realized that to proceed, he would have to compromise his values, be controlled by money and people who didn't understand him, and eventually be worn down and ruined by the system. Instead, he decided to put himself and his family first and walk away from $50mil. Does he owe it to anyone to continue to produce? I mean, it isn't like he can shut off what makes him brilliant. but he can still choose not to share it, and I can't say I fault him for it.
You only have one life, and frequently when you become famous for something your life is suddenly controlled by others. There has to be a choice of living for the public - even when they hate you - or living for yourself. For a lot of people I think that balance is hard to identify.
Also, for people as brilliant as chappelle, salinger, or syd barrett, they might want to stop when they have produced what they see as good, and then stop before you start to go downhill and awry, like pink floyd since 1980.
Judging by the intensity of the fan mail Salinger received, he may have concluded that becoming a recluse was the only way to maintain his sanity. And can you imagine the media scrutiny he would have received after Mark David Chapman claimed "Catcher" as his inspiration for killing Lennon? How many "How do you feel?" and "Do you feel responsible for the murder?" questions could one put up with?
AmyD
Columbus, Ohio
Login to Send PM
kit444 wrote >>
Here's an interesting article on Slate written by someone who had the responsibility of responding to Salinger's fan mail and got to meet him once in the 90's.
http://www.slate.com/id/2243299/
Fantastic! thanks for posting it
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
lisathewaitress wrote >>
this whole thing has got me thinking. does the writer have a responsibility to be sure their work is accessible to everyone?
I wouldn't suggest that it's the writer's responsibility. They're ultimately free to put together what ever kind of distribution they (and their publishers) like.
That said, you'll find that most librarians are fairly staunch advocates for equitable access to information. As I mentioned in my blog post, we like information to be available to the widest range of people possible. So while I recognize Salinger is free to do what he likes, I also know that from the standpoint of access to information, he's made himself a barrier.
ChrisSunami
King-Lincoln District
Login to Send PM
Having read all (I think) Salinger's published works, my prediction is that the vaulted stuff --if it sees the light of day --will not live up to what was published. Even in the later works, the Glass family was fast becoming his own private fantasy world, with less and less of it being for an outside reader.
Both his daughter and former live-in romance described him as more interested in his fictional characters than in real people. Significantly, by the last of the published works, he had already begun to conflate himself with Buddy Glass, allowing Buddy to claim credit for having written "Catcher" and "9 Stories". Yet Buddy's unabashed hero-worship of his dead brother Seymour was nowhere nearly as interesting as Salinger's much less sentimental introduction of Seymour in 9 Stories.
My guess is that the later works, if they make it to print, will be little more than footnotes to the published work, largely of interest to academics.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube