Salinger: A Biography

Rating:
Summary: There must be something wrong with me...
Review: I loved this book. I thought it was interesting and well-informed, and presented Salinger from every possible angle. I thought this was a great biography and I'm surprised at the bad reviews it has gotten. One man's treasure... I highly recommend it to any fan of Salinger's work.

Rating:
Summary: Raise High the Roof Beams, Salinger
Review: I suspect that half the people who declare that this biography is no good haven't even read it and are only too freak about Salinger that they think they connect with him and Holden in some personnal way. Salinger's by far my favorite author and I truly respect his view of the writing process and his will to be left alone, but I don't consider that people who want to write about him are phonies. I totally enjoyed this biography, which is honnest and gives a good portrait of Salinger's writing evolution and life. Even though I don't agree with all of the biographer's opinions, I think that his book deserves to be read, because in writing and researching about him, he in his own way paid tribute to Salinger, a strange and fascinating author.

Rating:
Summary: The arch-phony
Review: I'm not sure I understand why this book is rated as low as it is. As a fan of Salinger, I have read most of the newspaper articles regarding various citings and encounters over the years but there was never a single volume that put it all together. I found this book to be a smooth, easy read packed with information that I had not previously been exposed to. I would recommend it highly to anyone with an interest in Salinger and his work.

Rating:
Summary: So bad it should never have been published
Review: 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 (the example of his misunderstanding 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.

Rating:
Summary: The Mystery Of J.D. Salinger
Review: 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. 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 likes, this is probably the best book we'll have for some time.

Rating:
Summary: The arch-phony
Review: Paul Alexander has accomplished a stunning feat of embodying the antithesis to Holden's ideals. The protagonist of _Salinger: A Biography_ - Paul Alexander himself - shows masterfully that not only can a fictional character exist who hates all phonies, but that the perfect journalistic phony can also strike back with a story about the creator of the phonies-hater. Quite fittingly,in its closing lines the "biography" introduces its phony neologism: "acturally" [sic].

Rating:
Summary: Now we know why Salinger dodges and cringes ...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Who is J.D. Salinger?
Review: This book provides information about the life of J.D. Salinger that I have not seen in print elsewhere. It gives those of us not in the know the idea of what one of our favorite writers has been doing all these years. It of course does not tell us who Salinger really is, and what is the secret if there is one of his great literary ability and popularity.
As a longtime and repeated reader of Salinger and as a person who actually met and spoke to him once I do not believe I have much real understanding of what to me is the key question i.e. How is it that a person who wrote such great literature seems in his everyday life so ornery and petty? How is it that a person who champions ' higher ideals' seems so unkind in relation to all the people he has known? Is it the early fame that drove him to this? Or is it the fact that as often is the case the person of genius simply is not such a wonderful human being?
What I see is that the kind of selfish life Salinger has lived ( the life of every artist in a certain way) raises the question of whether the hidden treasure trove of Literature he has been accumulating is an esoteric bore or more of that remarkable revelatory stuff that he gave us in " The Catcher and the Rye" " Nine Stories" and to a degree in "Raise High the Roof Carpenter " "Seymour an Introduction" "Franny and Zooey?"
One other point. Salinger certainly deserves a better a deeper a more interesting work than this piece of biographical journalism. He could surprise us all by doing it himself and giving us a spiritual autobiography of depth and beauty. I for one doubt that he will do this . I think he made a critical tactical mistake in his ' spiritual search' in not having at least tried at some point to seriously relate to the vast and intricate and infinitely deep and beautiful Jewish spiritual tradition . But this is something he has always run away from.

Rating:
Summary: A travesty
Review: 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.