The only book that I have read of his is "The Catcher in the Rye" and I loved it. I was wondering if anyone has read any other works of his and if they are worth checking out.

I, too, loved "Catcher in the Rye". I am now working on finishing his "Nine Stories" which is no where near as good as "Rye" but still pretty decent.

I really enjoy his books about the Glass family:

• "Franny and Zooey"
  
• "Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction"
  

Both books are divided into two stories. Franny & Zooey is probably the best book to start with. I understand that many people don't enjoy "Seymour: An Introduction" -- but I thought it was great.

I just finished reading all four of Salinger's works and unfortunately I'm still hungry for more. I'm not too caught up on the details of his biography, other than where he was born and such, so I was wondering if someone knows why, for whatever reason, he became a recluse.

Was it due to some event in his life, or did he feel he did all he could with the medium of writing and packed it up (like Duchamp ending his artmaking career to pursue such things as chess)?

I suppose I could just look this up, but thought it might create some discussion in which facts and rumors might surface.

Not fact or rumour, but conjecture.

I believe every artist (person) has one great work within them.

Some people will struggle all their lives to realise that work, and others will realise it very early in the piece (William Gibson).

After some have manifested this work, they will roll to a stop, by churning out more works with a similar feel to enhance reputation or wealth, or because they can not let go of the notion of fame.

This can be detrimental to the memory of the masterpeice created, and is ill advised.

Some people have their egos in check enough to realise they have done as much as they can with the ideas they have.

I beleive, (and it is only a beleif) that Salinger falls into the latter category.

I think you need to clairify some things before we continue one with this idea of finite self-expression when pertaining to artists, just so I'm not left to assume things before I give you my feelings on what you said...'cause granted we could be on the same boat, but again I"m not sure.

quote:

---

---

I believe every artist (person) has one great work within them.

I don't get what you mean by "one great work". Great in what sense? personally? historically? Can you separate the two with this statement? And whom do you consider deems a work by an artist great in this statement? A majority audience? The artist? A small group of friends? Galleries and Publishing Houses?

And finally:

quote:

---

---

Some people have their egos in check enough to realise they have done as much as they can with the ideas they have.

I was wondering if you can expand on this one as well. The way I read this is that you're hinting to the idea that creating work isn't an on-going, evolutionary process whereby asking questions not only of oneself, but also of the medium one chooses for self-expression, not only expands on the dialogue of art, but also leads to an infinite amount of more complicated questions that one will either choose to pursue or deny.

That second statement is where I get this vibe that you're saying that an artist's ideas are finite, which frankly makes me wince. Sure an author/artist/musican can have a large body of work that is inter-related in some form or another (i.e. theme, metaphor, icon, etc.) but by choosing to progress to another series of work, doesn't signify the "death" of the previous ideas. If anything, it's a reaction or expansion of those beforehand thoughts.

I mean, I could understand if Salinger felt a need to say, "screw it. i've loss the motivation to write anymore because the exercise just doesn't interest me like it used to." But the idea, that I believe your hinting to, is that he had this great self-realization that after producing these four novels, that anything he would write from that day forward would undermind "the greatness" of his previous work.

i apologize for the lack of quotes on top...I'm new at navigating myself around on forums. Here are the two quotes you made, the order in which I refered to them on my previous post.

sorry again.

first quote:

quote:

---

storm_chaser said: "I believe every artist (person) has one great work within them."

---

and

quote:

---

storm_chaser said: "Some people have their egos in check enough to realise they have done as much as they can with the ideas they have."

---

slackerjacks, I don't have the answer to your original question, but I can tell that this is serious for you, so I want to welcome you here, and I look forward to some serious discussions from you, in which I would gladly participate, but I don't have the knowledge on this topic. Hopefully, we'll intersect soon enough. Again, welcome and please post away!

I am not saying that an artists ideas are finite on any level in any way.

The one great work, in all of us is our final self expression of the summation of ones beliefs.

If the artist feels he has done that, why does he need to continue to express those beliefs in other forms?

Unless he is satisfied that he did not express himself adequatly in the first instance, or.....

Before I begin, I would like to just say that I've enjoyed this exchanging of thoughts between us and hope for more to come...

ok, here are my quick knee-jerk reactions to what you have just said:

quote:

---

storm_chaser wrote: "After some have manifested this work, they will roll to a stop, by churning out more works with a similar feel to enhance reputation or wealth, or because they can not let go of the notion of fame."

---

I can't say I agree with this at all. Let me just say, that if a person's continued motivation to write/paint/play music is soley based on notoriety, money, and/or fame they are no longer artists (living example: Thomas Kinkade). The reason I say this is that their work is no longer about dealing with their personal interpretation of the subjective world they live in, nor are they interested in contributing any type of needed dialogue within their medium. Sure they may still have an audience to consume their work, but an audience (or an audience's reaction towards the work)does not validate one to being an artist. To me, your statement describes entertainers rather than artists.

quote:

---

storm_chaser writes: "The one great work, in all of us is our final self expression of the summation of ones beliefs.
If the artist feels he has done that, why does he need to continue to express those beliefs in other forms?"

---

Because belief systems are subject to change. I have yet to meet a person who has not, in one form or another, had a radical change in some belief in their life. Thus is the necessity to continue to make work, in order to further explore these beliefs.

Honestly, I take what you're saying as a theory pertaining towards an artist's overall substaining QUALITY of work, rather than a question of what motivates an artist (Salinger in this instance) to continue to make work. Those to me are two very separate things.
The former deals with the consuming of the work, the latter deals soley with questions of why one would do it in the first place.

In your haste to get into a dialogue, I fear you might have missed my point.

You have a number of quality things to say, but I am concerned that they are not pertaining to the specific phenomenan I am trying to explain.

I could get tangled up in discussing each of the points you make individualy, but that would be going off track, and take way to long.

A person might feel at any one time that it is right for them to make a definitive statement and then, for whatever reason, decide that it is not their definitive statement after all, and attempt to re-adjust it to their satisfaction.

Then it was not the definitive statement in the first place.

I thought I'd already addressed this, but apparently not.

This is one example of the circular nature of the discussion we are engaged in.

I see your point of view, I wonder if you see mine?

quote:

---

storm_chaser wrote: "A person might feel at any one time that it is right for them to make a definitive statement and then, for whatever reason, decide that it is not their definitive statement after all, and attempt to re-adjust it to their satisfaction."

---

Noooow were on the same page and in complete agreement as to a possibility of why Salinger decided not to be published any longer. The reason for the misunderstanding lies in the fact that what you said in your inital post is fraught with blaring stereotypes and assumptions. But your most recent one, seems to be a reasonable wager for why J.D. did what he did.

But of course your statement leads to to an interesting expansion on my initial question which is:

If you think that Salinger had abandoned writing because he felt he had reached a definitive statment with his overall work, what do you suppose that statement is and why?

Woah Nelly.

Stop jabbing that finger in my chest!!!!!

well that aside, i did some reading up on mr. Salinger and found out that he ended up writing 35 short stories (the only one's he wished to be preserved in book form are the shorts featured in "NINE STORIES"). SO that leaves about 26 stories not currently being republished by Little, Brown Books. I've been trying to track more of his work down via the internet, and came across a piece called, Hapworth 16, 1924, which was originally printed in The New Yorker, June 19, 1965 that ran from pages 32-113. It was announced to be published, but later withdrawn at the last moment by Salinger himself. I have yet to read it, but from what I hear it's a letter that his character Seymour Glass, from the now infamous Glass family, wrote home while he was away at summer camp.

If printed out, it's about 35 pages long. I'd love to hear people's reactions to it. If I come across any more of Salinger's work, I'll be sure to post it here in the future.

Well first of all Salinger did not "have his ego in check". Salinger's work started to deteriorate towards the end of his writing career. He started continue sly write solely about the Glass family. Salinger let his ego get in his way and couldn't take the criticism so he separated himself from it. Some say he is still writing, but I could care less since I can not see any possible way that it would be any good.

This is all of course just my opinion.
Also, I would like to mention I love Catcher in the Rye and Franny & Zooey.

To the post above me: Don't bother to read that story. It is utterly horrible and will ruin your image of Seymour Glass more than Raise High the Roof Beams.