Show Hide image

Bumptious theorising: why does J D Salinger inspire such blind devotion?

While Rakoff’s memoir is full of fabrication and thin on revelation, Thomas Beller’s biography is free of insight and confessional to a fault. 

Master of elusion: J D Salinger

 

J D Salinger: the Escape Artist
Thomas Beller
New Harvest, 192pp, $20

My Salinger Year
Joanna Rakoff
Bloomsbury Circus, 256pp, £16.99

 

“A genius who can’t tie his shoelaces”, Thomas Beller’s description of J D Salinger (1919-2010), might not be far off, but why use a metaphor when the facts speak just as well? Salinger was a genius – a literary genius with a particular interest in human appetite – who didn’t understand that retreating from public life when he was famous and feted would, rather than secure his solitude, turn reporters into scavengers, neighbours into eavesdroppers, friends into witnesses.

And fans into biographers – and intimates into memoirists. The writing by Salinger legally available in book form amounts to one novel, The Catcher in the Rye, and 13 stories, more than half of them containing some allusion to the shimmering, fragile Glass children. The writing published about Salinger, which began pouring forth around the time he shut up shop in the mid-1960s, runs to thousands of pages. If you hive off the critical monographs and anthologies, which every writer gets these days, this work can be divided into conjecture-bound pseudo-biography undertaken by men – Beller follows recent works by Kenneth Slawenski and Shane Salerno – and none-too-conjectural, though possibly delusional, reminiscences offered by women. Of these, Joanna Rakoff’s new book is the least invasive, for the simple reason that during her “Salinger year” she spoke to the writer just a few times, by telephone and never for long, and shook his warm, dry hand but once.

At the time – “This was 1996. The country was in the grips of a recession,” and so on – Rakoff was working as an assistant at a place she calls “the Agency” and specifically for a woman she refers to as “my boss”. In the kind of disclaimer one doesn’t like to read at the beginning of a tell-all memoir (or any memoir), Rakoff states: “I’ve fiddled with the chronology of a few events, and I’ve changed the names – and identifying traits – of most, though not all, of the people.” You’d be forgiven for wondering what Rakoff didn’t change. You’d also be forgiven for wondering on what principle she has protected various glad-handing literary agents while betraying a deeply wounded eremite whose privacy she was once employed to protect: Salinger’s name and identifying traits remain unfiddled with.

Unfortunately, Rakoff had already sold her story to the online magazine Slate, where she happily identified the Agency as Harold Ober Associates and her boss as Phyllis Westberg. My Salinger Year is little more than a rehash of that 2,000-word piece, its stretched and padded character a tribute, perhaps, to Salinger’s later narratives, in particular his last printed story, “Hapworth 16, 1924”, which takes the form of a letter rightly described by its author, the seven-year-old Seymour Glass, as an “onslaught”, and with whose complicated afterlife Rakoff’s book is partly concerned.

Not long after she was hired, Salinger called the Agency to say that he was considering publishing “Hapworth 16” with Orchises Press, a tiny imprint, in commercial terms barely distinguishable from a vanity press. While Salinger negotiates with the sole employee of Orchises over details of design (he wants the title printed horizontally on the spine, hard to achieve in a book of under 30,000 words), Rakoff struggles to get over her “college boyfriend”, to get along with her current boyfriend, to get by financially and to get around to reading Salinger, the dramatic irony being that this would provide just the amusement and consolation – just the perspective – she needs.

Rakoff’s responsibility for Salinger, beyond putting his phone calls through to her boss, is confined to sending form replies to the stream of letters asking him to do things he would never want to do – deliver commencement addresses, for instance – or to passing along compliments he no longer wants to hear, if he ever did. She becomes fond of the letter writers but since she has presumably blurred their identifying details, who can say what they actually wrote?

While Rakoff’s memoir is full of fabrication and thin on revelation, Thomas Beller’s biography is free of insight and confessional to a fault. J D Salinger: the Escape Artist contains a wealth of detail about the writer’s Upper East Side childhood, his half-Jewishness, his brief apprenticeship and his war record, which involved the liberation of a concentration camp, though nobody seems to know precisely which. But the factual strands become lost amid the bumptious theorising about Salinger’s experience and numerous fussy descriptions of Beller’s adventures (the back-cover comparison to Out of Sheer Rage would give Geoff Dyer grounds for a libel suit). Collecting a copy of Ian Hamilton’s never-published J D Salinger: a Writing Life, Beller reassures us, “My host greeted me warmly.” And then: “There was a divan, or a chaise longue . . . He had to go do something before he could sit down with me . . . My host returned, and we settled in for a nice chat.”

There’s stuff like this throughout the book, as well as unconvincing asides on Philip Roth’s career trajectory and John Updike’s golf-worship, and the writing about Salinger, when we get it, is hardly a cause for cheer. In Salinger’s work, repetition is a tool of comedy and pathos. Here it becomes something like a weapon of torture. OK, Salinger met Hemingway in Paris. OK, the 18-year-old journalist Joyce Maynard, later the author of At Home in the World, an account of her somewhat creepier Salinger year, received, quite unexpectedly, a fan letter from the middle-aged writer. OK, Maynard’s book and a memoir by Salinger’s daughter Margaret, Dream Catcher, were published two years apart (or “practically back-to-back”).

The further you read on, the less optimism you feel about reaching solid ground. Much is made of Salinger’s association with the New Yorker and his fondness for its editors Harold Ross and William Shawn, though Beller’s speculations about the magazine’s impact on the young Salinger do little to claw back the authority eroded by his various errors. “Whether the Salingers subscribed to the New Yorker before or after they moved across town in 1932 I do not know,” he writes, “but I feel confident they did.”

Conjecture strikes again in a discussion of Salinger’s story “The Long Debut of Lois Taggett” and its use of the word “iceman”: “Eugene O’Neill’s play The Iceman Cometh had been written in 1939, but it would not be performed until several years after Salinger wrote the story. Maybe Salinger heard it discussed.” Considering the song “Begin the Beguine”, which he danced to with Joyce Maynard, Beller raises numerous possibilities for its significance – did he listen to it in Vienna in the 1930s? Elsewhere in 1940? At the Stork Club? – before declaring: “Or all of the above.”

Although one usually groans when books about writers show such scant interest in literature, it is in these cases rather a relief. Neither Beller’s speculations nor Rakoff’s rhapsodies (“I loved it all”) whet our appetite for more and, besides, Salinger is an author whose cause it can seem pointless to advance. The same characteristics are strengths to some, vices to others. Janet Malcolm’s essay “Justice to J D Salinger” – recently republished in Forty-One False Starts – assesses the views of Salinger bashers from a 40-year distance and says, in essence, “Wrong!” Where John Updike, in a well-known review of Franny and Zooey (1961), the second and most polarising of Salinger’s three story collections, grumbled about his writing’s “extravagant self-consciousness . . . wherein most of the objections one might raise are already raised”, Malcolm says: “Salinger understood the offensiveness of his creations perfectly well.” To Updike’s claim that “ ‘Zooey’ is just too long,” Malcolm replies, “Today ‘Zooey’ does not seem too long.” There’s a neat portrayal of this stalemate in Whit Stillman’s film The Last Days of Disco, when a young New York book editor tells a Salinger-loving female colleague that his work had been the subject of “devastating pieces” by Mary McCarthy and Alfred Kazin: “They really destroyed him.” Interest unpiqued, the girl leaves the room.

Stillman intended to show that no amount of Salinger scepticism will change a true believer’s mind. He also provided yet more evidence that true believers don’t always know what’s good for them. After an early screening, one of the film’s backers warned that the Salinger scene “will cost us $1m in gross” but Stillman kept it in. The film made a loss. Just as, in Updike’s words, Salinger loved the Glasses “too exclusively” and “to the detriment of artistic moderation”, so, all too often, readers love Salinger excessively, at a cost of either dollars or dignity.

Leo Robson is the New Statesman’s lead fiction reviewer

Leo Robson is the lead fiction reviewer for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 21 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Peak Ukip

DE AGOSTINI PICTURE LIBRARY / BRIDGEMAN IMAGES
Show Hide image

Eighty pages in to Age of Anger, I still had no idea what it was about

When Pankaj Mishra describes a “postmodern collage rather than a coherent doctrine”, he inadvertently summarises his own book.

Most books arrive on the market dragging a comet tail of context: the press release, the blurb on the back, the comparison with another book that sold well (sometimes this is baked into the title, as with a spate of novels in which grown women were recast as “girls”, variously gone, or on the train, or with dragon tattoos or pearl earrings). Before you even start reading, you know pretty much what you will get.

So I was particularly disconcerted to reach page 80 of Pankaj Mishra’s Age of Anger and realise that I didn’t really know what it was about. The prologue starts with a recap of the tyrannical career of the Italian poet Gabriele D’Annunzio, namechecks The Communist Manifesto, describes how Europeans were enthralled by Napoleon’s “quasi-autistic machismo”, links this to the “great euphoria” experienced in 1914, mentions that Eugene Onegin “wears a tony ‘Bolívar’ hat”, then dwells on Rimbaud’s belief that not washing made him a better writer, before returning to D’Annunzio to conclude that his life “crystallised many themes of our own global ferment as well as those of his spiritually agitated epoch”.

Psychologists have demonstrated that the maximum number of things that a human can hold in their brain is about seven. The prologue is titled “Forgotten Conjunctures”. I might know why they have been forgotten.

Two pages later, Mishra is at it again. How’s this for a paragraph?

After all, Maxim Gorky, the Bolshevik, Muhammad Iqbal, the poet-advocate of “pure” Islam, Martin Buber, the exponent of the “New Jew”, and Lu Xun, the campaigner for a “New Life” in China, as well as D’Annunzio, were all devotees of Nietzsche. Asian anti-imperialists and American robber barons borrowed equally eagerly from the 19th-century polymath Herbert Spencer, the first truly global thinker – who, after reading Darwin, coined the term “survival of the fittest”. Hitler revered Atatürk (literally “the father of the Turks”) as his guru; Lenin and Gramsci were keen on Taylorism, or “Americanism”; American New Dealers later borrowed from Mussolini’s “corporatism”.

This continues throughout. The dizzying whirl of names began to remind me of Wendy Cope’s “Waste Land Limericks”: “No water. Dry rocks and dry throats/Then thunder, a shower of quotes/From the Sanskrit and Dante./Da. Damyata. Shantih./I hope you’ll make sense of the notes.”

The trouble comes because Mishra has set himself an enormous subject: explaining why the modern world, from London to Mumbai and Mosul, is like it is. But the risk of writing about everything is that one can end up writing about nothing. (Hang on, I think I might be echoing someone here. Perhaps this prose style is contagious. As Nietzsche probably wrote.) Too often, the sheer mass of Mishra’s reading list obscures the narrative connective tissue that should make sense of his disparate examples.

By the halfway point, wondering if I was just too thick to understand it, I did something I don’t normally do and read some other reviews. One recorded approvingly that Mishra’s “vision is . . . resistant to categorisation”. That feels like Reviewer Code to me.

His central thesis is that the current “age of anger” – demonstrated by the rise of Islamic State and right-wing nationalism across Europe and the US – is best understood by looking at the 18th century. Mishra invokes the concept of “ressentiment”, or projecting resentment on to an external enemy; and the emergence of the “clash of civilisations” narrative, once used to justify imperialism (“We’re bringing order to the natives”) and now used to turn Islamic extremism from a political challenge into an existential threat to the West.

It is on the latter subject that Mishra is most readable. He grew up in “semi-rural India” and now lives between London and Shimla; his prose hums with energy when he feels that he is writing against a dominant paradigm. His skirmish with Niall Ferguson over the latter’s Civilisation: the West and the Rest in the London Review of Books in 2011 was highly enjoyable, and there are echoes of that fire here. For centuries, the West has presumed to impose a narrative on the developing world. Some of its current anxiety and its flirtation with white nationalism springs from the other half of the globe talking back.

On the subject of half of us getting a raw deal, this is unequivocally a history of men. We read about Flaubert and Baudelaire “spinning dreams of virility”, Gorky’s attachment to the idea of a “New Man” and the cultural anxieties of (male) terrorists. Poor Madame de Staël sometimes seems like the only woman who ever wrote a book.

And yet, in a book devoted to unpicking hidden connections, the role of masculinity in rage and violence is merely noted again and again without being explored. “Many intelligent young men . . . were breaking their heads against the prison walls of their societies” in the 19th century, we learn. Might it not be interesting to ask whether their mothers, sisters and daughters were doing the same? And if not, why?

Mishra ends with the present, an atomised, alienated world of social media and Kim Kardashian. Isis, we are told, “offers a postmodern collage rather than a coherent doctrine”. That is also a good description of this book. 

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era