So Salinger died. Most viewed him as a quirky man who wrote, "Catcher in the rye" and that was about it. Funny, I enjoyed that book a lot, but what was amazing to me was how I found a fond attraction to his other works and more interestingly his life. Sure, I am no expert and not privy to his private life, but what I remember and loved was what was important and often written about his after life, or more to the point; after "Catcher in the Rye". It wasn't the laurels, nor the broadway fame or the reconciliatory nods that came with his success with "Catcher in the Rye" that made him famous, but what he chose to do after the book was written: seclude. After all, isn't it his choice to decide who reads his future work. Can't men keep their original gifts to themselves? Is it our duty, obligation, to share with the world something so personable, so private or for a lack of a better adjective, so right? I think not. The media so often glorifies the critic's, the Salieri's of the world, and empowers them into greatness. In the movie Amadeus, there is a telling prayer from Salieri to God. "From now on we are enemies, You and I. Because You choose for Your instrument a boastful, lustful, smutty, infantile boy and give me for reward only the ability to recognize the incarnation. Because You are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will block You, I swear it. I will hinder and harm Your creature on earth as far as I am able." Believe me, this is the same type of jealousy that happens in every form of media with lesser men, they judge and dictate what is good and pleasing to them, as they live out their fantasy's and passion on the creativity and thoughts of another man. So, is it so wrong that J.D. Salinger decided after his "big book' to cash in, live in the country and never write again? That way, us critics would never judge him again. As Salinger often wrote, "we are just phonies", and you know what, he is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment