Customer Reviews

Salinger: A Biography

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

Paul Alexander, the author of this biography, may have a genuine admiration for J.D. Salinger, but he clearly has no true understanding of the man. This biographer's approach to Salinger's life more closely resembles a tabloid publication's expose of a pedophile priest. Aside from the differences that any group of people can have over the interpretation of any story, it seems apparent that Alexander has no clear understanding of the classic literature that Salinger loved. He lists the authors that Salinger admired, yet doesn't seem to have an awareness of the works and how they're integrated into many of Salinger's stories. The most horrifying revelation of this biography, for me, is the realization that many people especially this biographer have misinterpreted the story "Teddy." Salinger chooses his words and titles painstakingly carefully for a reason. Alexander's conclusions (as well as the public's), that Teddy kills his sister in the story, shows either his lack of awareness of what's going on or maybe he never read the story. Eventhough, the story "Teddy" was extremely successful, Salinger's disappointment to the public's reaction of the story is apparent in his story character's and alter ego, Buddy Glass', comments in "Seymour an Introduction," " ... few years ago, I published an exceptionally Haunting, Memorable, unpleasantly controversial, and thoroughly unsucessful short story about a 'gifted' little boy... " These comments alone shows Salinger's disappointment in the fact that "people just don't get it." Though, Salinger needs no defenders, I believe his fascination with young people (including and especially young women) manifests from a pure source. It is his awareness that people are most whole when they're young and not old. It is his awareness of the time in peoples lives before they accept the limits, lies, and illusions of huge institutions and the infuences of self motivated family members and friends. It is Salinger's awareness of a time when the joy of life exists in experiencing and not acquiring. This book has some interesting facts that many people may find engaging and interesting. It is an easy enough book to read and enjoy. However, the best thing you can do if you truly want to know J.D. Salinger is to just read the books he wrote. And if you want more.. Read the books Salinger read... Rilke, Shelley, Fitzgerald, Keats, etc.....

Many of those who have commented on this work find author Paul Alexander to be hostile to his subject. That's not my read of it; to me, he seems more to be puzzled and saddened by the way Salinger has chosen to live his life. It could be argued that Alexander doesn't really understand Salinger; but can anyone really claim otherwise?

With Salinger, his family and past associates unwilling to cooperate on any kind of biography, Alexander has had to make do with the rather skimpy public record the world's most famous recluse has left behind. He seems to have put together as full a life story as possible, given these limitations. The perception of hostility may come from the fact that Alexander quotes extensively from the reaction of critics to Salinger's work--and sadly, for those who love it (including this reviewer)--the majority of the critics were negative about it. And Salinger's hostility to most of those in the publishing world is well-documented.

Perhaps Alexander's most intriguing contention is that Salinger, for all his public protestations of a desire to be left alone, actually wants the attention he generates. He says it's kind of a cat-and-mouse game with the public designed to maintain interest in his works.

If you're interested in learning as much detail as you can about Salinger's childhood, education, romances, buisiness dealings, and the like, this is probably the best book we'll have for some time.--William C. Hall

Yes, I am a huge Salinger fan. I should state that from the outset. But unlike most Salinger fans, I do not believe that J.D. should be free from criticism. I wanted to admire Alexander's courage to tackle the Salinger mystique head-on. Some of his assertions, I believe, are right on the mark. Salinger IS egocentric and very much aware that he's securing literary fame (and securing continuing sales of his book) by not publishing. And I do feel that people have been too soft on Salinger. Ian Hamilton, in his previous book on Salinger, treated the author with kid gloves, eschewing details of J.D.'s private life. Alexander, however, is not afraid to ask tough--even if ultimately unanswered--questions. Why did Salinger stop publishing? Was he tired of the critical abuse? (Salinger was not treated with kid gloves by literary critics and "Hapworth 16, 1924" was greeted with universal displeasure when it appeared in the June 1965 New Yorker) Why, as one of the reviewers above noted, does Salinger toy so much with the public, leave so many clues? If Salinger wishes to be undisturbed, why does he purposely draw attention to himself.

Sadly, though, Alexander's tough assertions, which the reader encounters and completely digests by page 26, give way to tepid biography, made only more tepid by the fact that the same material had been handled much more deftly in Hamilton's previous, respectful book on Salinger. In short, there's little new information here. Alexander mentions newly opened archives from the New Yorker, but one begins to wonder how much new, quality material there actually was. And so, with little to draw upon, Alexander turns to sensationalism to see his book through.

Perhaps most disturbing is Alexander's shameless attempt to make a connection between Salinger's emphasis on young people in his fiction and a personal penchant for young girls. Alexander even goes so far as to link Salinger's name with Lewis Carroll. True, Salinger has dated younger women. But to link him with a literary figure whose name has become synonomous with pedophilia? This sort of stuff is more suited, say, for a daytime talk show.

We live in a tabloid world. It should come as little surprise that one writer's desire to live unmolested by the media--whether the motive is sincere or not--matters little. Salinger: A Biography will make the perfect holiday gift for those who like their biographies juicy!

This biography presents a decent chronicle of the external facts of Salinger's life -- the timeline of writing his stories, his family ties, war experience, marriages. But when the author trys to string these facts together into a narrative by offering us his interpretation of the facts, one can't help but wince. He just doesn't get Salinger at all. As one reviewer already noted (see below), P.Alexander failed to understand that the wise child Teddy (in the story "Teddy") foresaw his death but accepted his fate calmly because he was unafraid of death. The scream of Teddy's sister is her horror at realizing that she had pushed him inadvertently to his death. Alexander's interpretations similarly slaughter the rest of Salinger's stories. It is no wonder that Salinger runs and cringes when he sees these journalists descending upon his house. {"Tell me, Mr Salinger, why did Teddy kill his sister?" "Why does Franny have to sit on a toilet in the restroom to cry?")

The journalists/public know Salinger wants privacy; they invade his privacy; Salinger tries to hide, and the journalists become incensed at Salinger's (!) rudeness and get even by spinning sneering interpretations of his life and art.

Usually, when I am about to write a review here, and I see
that others have made points I intend to make, I just forget
it. But it seems most appropriate for the point to be repeated
that this book is horrendous, syllable by syllable. Another writer says it shouldn't have been published, and that's a shrewd and exacting assessment. If not for the fact that the sense of debasement that such a master as Salinger suffers if palpable, there's also the issue of editorial scruples: doesn't this publishing house employ editors? Yes, Alexander's prose is poor (why did someone give him an MFA?). But it also includes grammatical mistakes and basic flaws in thinking and logic. Some sentences are repeated, a clear editing snaffoo. He often draws inferences that are unfounded or remarks on some coincidence or set of circumstances that he deems titillating or telling when these can be so easily dismissed.
The main problem is Alexander's infantile way of setting up a
simple dichotomy: Salinger either is a recluse at heart or
is trying to maintain prestige and import by remaining hidden. Is there nothing in between? Are people sure of their own motivations. Ultimately, the idea of thirty years of isolation as publicity stunt is hopelessly naive and insipid. It doesn't make sense and it looks at a man with a mind as great as Salinger's in an untenable fashion.
Also, there's the story of a newspaper article a girl published in a daily paper after telling S. it was for a school paper. This is a rumor, and Alexander's source is simply another magazine feature. This is one cardinal example of the flaw in writing a biography without doing research. Yes, Salinger is a tough ticket, but why didn't Alexander check out this story with those who knew S. at the time, the girl in question (if possible), the daily paper, etc? Instead, he's content to pass off this simple story as gospel on the word of an apparently ill-researched magazine piece.
Finally, a word on the story "Teddy." (Incidentally, I think Alexander's butchering of "Just Before the War With the Eskimos" is the most egregious of the bunch, with fierce competition.) When I first read the story, I, as Alexander did, thought that Teddy had killed his sister, because of the female scream. Many feel it is ambiguous. Alexander is at fault, not as much for his interpretation, but not for entertaining any others. However, I do think it's clear enough Teddy killed himself. That's where the story is heading. Also, earlier in the story, Teddy writes in his journal "it could be today or..." and then he lists a date several years later when he'd be sixteen.Later,
in a conversation with his college-aged companion, he says that he has told professors certain dates on which they should be careful because they could be in danger of losing their lives. So it seems the "it" referred to in the journal, not explained elsewhere, could be his death.
Well, alas, Salinger could be partly to blame. If you try too hard to keep biographies from being published, the publishing world becomes so greedy that any incompetent can sell one. It's too bad such a fascinating man has been degraded in this way.

I'm really very surprised that anyone liked this book at all. How could anyone who likes Salinger's writing stand reading Alexander's terrible prose? It is really painful, and that's just the starting point. As others on this page have mentioned, the author has little or no understanding of Salinger's work (his misinterpretation of the story "Teddy" is a particularly good example, but the book is strewn with them). Worse, the author isn't just ignorant but actually hostile to Salinger. It's hard to understand why someone would take the time to write a book about someone he clearly dislikes. If you must read this book out of curiousity, get it at the library. I felt really ripped off after buying this book, and wished I had not given a nickle to this creepy author. And if you are NOT familiar with Salinger, by all means do not read this book. Read Salinger. Your own speculation about the guy based on his fiction will make more sense that this so-called biography.

Paul Alexander pulls together what seems an accurate timeline of Salinger's life. Salinger is a legendary recluse and seriously uptight about leaking any personal information. A biography without his cooperation is inherently non-conclusive and hardly in-depth.

****A basic profile, however, still provides some interest. Alexander documents that Salinger was not a good student in his youth. His instructors evaluate him as having potential but no genius I.Q. or motivation. His ambition to write doesn't surface until he is almost in college.

****In World War II, Salinger serves in the Army, participating in D-Day and marching into Paris after Allied liberation. This is a particularly significant time for Salinger psychologically and in his writing. It's at this time that he develops "Catcher in the Rye". One can see where Holden's exhaustion, confusion, and melancholy come from. In large part, it's the war-weary Salinger channeled through.

****If Salinger is an autobiographical writer and we consider hints given in the Glass family chronicles like "Seymour: An Intro", then Salinger is a professor-figure who wants to cross the street whenever inquisitive, eager students approach. He believes there are no truly interesting questions anyone can ask him -- at least not so imperative as to justify disturbing his reclusivity.

****To be fair, answering all the fans (and fanatics) would be an overwhelming endeavor -- probably much like the circus that surrounds J.K. Rowling on book tours. Salinger is, in a sense, a lone Beatle. There's no confidante to understand what his celebrity is like.

****I'm guessing Salinger was himself a fan of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip. It would be rather appropriate since its creator, Bill Waterson, also retreated from the public despite phenomenal success. And as much as Salinger refuses to publish anymore, you'd like to imagine that he has access to the internet and that he's given some thought (if not contributed) to the anonymous "instant publication" happening on the world wide web.

Simply awful. I went through this book only out of respect for Salinger's work. I frankly admit that I approached it with a bias, suspecting, based on what little I'd seen of Mr. Alexander's other writing, another cheesy product by opportunistic bio-vultures who pass themselves off as biographers. I'm afraid that's what I found. Maybe Mr. Alexander hoped to reel in two audiences for the price of one--those in awe of Salinger's work and intrigued by the legendary reclusiveness, and then that far smaller fringe audience, those souls drawn to the chronically self-absorbed "Welcome to My Life" Joyce Maynard. Having read so few of these things (I really do chafe at calling them books), I don't honestly know if this one represents a new low even by the standards of these parasitic crank-outs. But whatever one thinks of Salinger as a writer or as a man, it's hard to imagine a more insipidly written, derivative, overreaching, and pathetic excuse for serious work about a serious writer. I guess I'm obliged, technically, to acknowledge that I did not--could not--read every single page.

It is a sad commentary on the state of the publishing industry (and its apparent lack of respect for the general population) that this book was published. It is evident that the author did little or no research, aside from reading parts of Hamilton's biography of Salinger. Even more sickening, it is apparent that the author has not even read Salinger's work. This book is replete with factual statements which are objectively and demonstrably false. The only accurate information in the book is plagiarized from earlier works.

The only 'new' material here is entirely fabricated by the author, who attempts to sensationalize Salinger's alleged attraction to young girls. It reads like the work of a person who is hostile to anyone who finds females attractive. Salinger seems lost and forgotten in a meandering attack on heterosexuality in general.

The author's transparent attempts to generate scandalous material are simplistic and amateur. As noted in one of the other reviews, the author references to 5-year-old Sybil in "Bananafish," 10-year-old Phoebe in "Catcher", but provides no evidence whatsoever that Salinger ever had a sexual attraction to children. To fabricate such a connection is just cowardly and pathetic.

Using the work of other authors and irrelevant biographical details, the author attempts to paint Salinger as a fantastic narcissist and child molester. The premise so outrageous and unsupported that it's difficult to decide if you should laugh or be outraged (likely, both). How did this book get published?

This book is very poorly done for so many reasons, but I will list just one. The author says that "Catcher in the Rye" was released in Signet paperback with a cover showing Holden wearing a baseball cap on backwards -- this, of course, as a baseball catcher would wear. The Signet cover, true to "Catcher in the Rye," shows Holden wearing a hunter's hat, complete with earlaps tied at the top. The hunter's hat is mentioned repeatedly in the book. Anybody who has read "Catcher in the Rye" with interest, much less someone who presumably studied it for writing the author's biography, should not have made this mistake. If anything, with a brief glance, you might think it was a deer stalker's hat. This biography is a sloppy effort, thrown together, it would seem, to cash in on the recent publicity on the tell-all book by Salinger's young girlfriend from all those years ago.