Feature
- Mental Health Screenings Not Necessary in Abortions
- The Burqa Ban is ON!
- Middle-Class Moms and Alcoholism: A Rising Epidemic?
- Murderous Moms: The Peters Tragedy
- Does Being a Pear-Shape Affect Long-Term Memory?
- Is Joan Rivers a Matriarch of Feminism?
- Mother-Murdering Teen Addresses the Media From Jail
- Forget Ron Burgundy ... Anchorladies on the rise!
- Celebrate! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage!
- Saudi Group Using “Prophet of Four” Concept to Control Women
Mikki Halpin’s got a bone to pick: Why is it that the many loving obituaries of J.D. Salinger have gilded right over his troubled history with women? Death seems to make saints of all of us — and to focus on Salinger’s reclusive life, Haplin says, is to cop-out of discussing a darker facet of the author.
It is a convenient cudgel with which to silence any discussion of Salinger’s personal life, particularly any revelation of unsavory truths about one of America’s most revered authors. Both Joyce Maynard and Salinger’s daughter Margaret were vilified for violating the great man’s privacy when they wrote about their own experiences with him and exposed his predatory, controlling relationships with women… Acknowledging the experiences of Margaret Salinger or Joyce Maynard would mean deviating from the Salinger myth.
Apparently, Salinger kept Claire — his first wife and mother of his daughter, Margaret — quite isolated and saw that she changed her religious beliefs as often as he did. An account of the psychological distress of this household can be found in Margaret’s memoir, “Dream Catcher.” After their divorce, Salinger, in his 50s, began a relationship with 18-year-old Maynard, who claimed she forwent college at Yale to continue their relationship, only to be dropped by him. shortly after.
Of course, none of us is perfect, and it seems unfair to unload the skeletons in someone’s closet after they can no longer defend themselves. Like many avid readers, I cherish Salinger’s writing — he created one of my favorite ladies in literature, Franny Glass. Still, I think context is important — in remembering the life and accomplishments of an artist, we can’t simply “shut down” the narrative thread of cruelty to women. That’s not fair either.
-
-
29
var feedback_widget = new GSFN.feedback_widget(feedback_widget_options);
The point of an OBITUARY is not to point out what an asshole a person was.
*sigh* THANK YOU Jorge. No kidding….
Hey ThatLisa! I don’t come here very often but I haven’t seen you in ages! Sweet that you posted.
aw, thanks. I still read occasionally, but really don’t post that much anymore. I think I had to take a break from in-depth internet discussions :)
oh and I adore J.D. Salinger, and don’t really understand why anyone would be confused why people weren’t calling him an asshole RIGHT after he died. Who the hell does that? These things (regarding him and women) have been known for plenty of years. Why wait until someone dies to start bitching about it now? I don’t see the point of it.
I guess it depends. Do they ‘gloss over’ to the point of talking about harmonious marital relationships, or do they ignore it completely? The latter seems appropriate for an obit (though probably not a bio), but I see reason to argue with the former.
I don’t know JD Salinger, so don’t really care. I only read one book he wrote, and hated it enough to lack desire to try another.
I get what you’re saying Jorge — and I would totally agree if these were in your normal “obit” sections of the newspaper. However, the format of an obit of an artist in the culture section of a major newspaper has a different form and intent — it’s more of a life-in-review, often thousands of words long. It’s hard to imagine Polanski’s scandal, for example, being overlooked in something like that …
Know what? I don’t care. I still love the man’s books and I know it’s popular to tear down anyone who might have a modicum of respect and lay them bare so that we can all see that they weren’t truly a genius, a good person, or whatever.
Upon our deaths is it so wrong to be remembered as the best, or at least better, version of ourselves? We live day to day with the burden of knowing what we’ve done or haven’t done.
Is this remotely relevant? Are you just spamming your way through?
Randomness FTW.
If a person does terrible, awful things during their lifetime, are we just supposed to forget about those things upon that person’s death and only talk about the good? That doesn’t sit well with me.
Salinger isn’t Hitler. We’re talking about a man who used women, not someone evil. Should we, upon his death, parade out every indiscretion every man has had or every woman he has treated poorly? When Tiger Woods dies should we only list the women he slept with outside of marriage in lieu of his golfing accomplishments?
I think what everyone wants is inside Salinger’s life because he was a recluse and we want that inside to be sordid with all sorts of juicy bits laying around for us to discuss. We’re looking for cavorting with the Devil, sex orgies with children, and the sort because he denied us access to his inner sanctum. And we are unwilling to forgive him for that.
I’ve read both books by Maynard and Margaret and there wasn’t even an Ann Rule’s worth of drama.
Hey, all I’m saying is, if you do bad things, those things don’t magically disappear upon your death. You don’t become a saint. You’re the same flawed person–except, you know…dead.
No. I’ve always found silly the idea of ‘don’t speak ill of the dead’. If it’s true, it’s true.
I think context matters though.
It would be entirely reasonable to me to write something about an author focusing only on his writing, and related bits, and leave out any personal life. That’s the part most fans probably care about.
But if you are writing a full bio or obit and are discussing his personal life, then it’s time for full disclosure. It is not write to only include the good parts.
OMG look! A troll! Careful now, if you feed it, it could become dependent on humans to survive.
Sasha…..block this idiot please!
The point of obituaries is to provide comfort to those still living. The dead are dead- we can say whatever we please about Mr Salinger- he’ll never get the chance to be angry, sad, or hurt by it. He isn’t going to change or learn his lesson. He will continue to be dead.
However, many of those who loved him are still alive, and I can see how it would be painful for people to try to hold on to his memory in a way that makes them feel better about the loss to have to read about all of the man’s wrongdoings. That’s not to say those we should never to speak of the failures and misdeeds of those who are dead- but people are still in mourning at this point.
If individuals are angry with Salinger, then it makes sense for them to voice their anger while he is alive so they can actually be vindicated. Now that he is dead, they are just spoiling his memory, which I suppose may offer them comfort, but in a very vindictive way which is likely not going to make them feel better when all is said and done. In reality, the best way for those individuals to feel better is to move on, and continuing to talk about how they were wronged in a public forum is unlikely to aid in the healing process (though talking to a psychiatrist might).
He’s dead. He can’t be punished more. And bringing the skeletons out of the closet will only hurt those alive to hear them.
Hm. this might run across difference of opinion. I don’t believe in speaking well of someone to comfort the left behind. I believe in speaking the truth at all times. But also in mentioning relevant things, and not throwing in unnecessary bits – good or bad.
An obituary is not the time to bring up the fact that he was domineering in relationships.
Also, he didn’t force any woman to do anything.
If a girl decides not to go to college for a man, isn’t that her fault?
If a woman actually changes her own religion to suit her husband, who’s fault is that?
It seems like he was guilty of being a control freak and he found women who allowed themselves to be controlled. Is that really a personality trait that needs to be discussed in an obit?
Thank you. Isn’t part of feminism being able to admit when we’re wrong? Somehow I’m supposed to degrade Salinger’s talent and memory because some women allowed themselves to be his pawns? I don’t think so.
You make a valid points, Al & Jen … but I think as feminists we ought to be as empathetic to emotional-abuse victims as we are to physical-abuse victims — male or female. If he battered his partners, would we blame the women for allowing themselves to be hit?
I do think there comes a time to “either shit or get off the pot.” If a women is involved in domestic violence her entire life, then yes, I would blame her.
Don’t get me wrong, we are all circumstances of our surroundings at one time or another, but the time comes when mentally you know better, but for whatever self reason (self image, insecurity and such) we don’t do what our brain tells us to do. I can and do understand the financial aspects of domestic violence, but again, work for something then get the hell out.
Some women like to be pawns.
Did he batter them, or just domineer them?
There’s a difference.
yay! Alzaetia is still awesome
[...] J.D. Salinger & The Women – Zelda Lily [...]
[...] J.D. Salinger & The Women – Zelda Lily [...]
Relevant to J.D. Salinger? Nope. Still not seeing the connection.
Is it possible to block via an IP address?
[...] know, if you have skeletons in your closet, it’s probably a wise idea to avoid politics. John Mantooth, who is a candidate for an Oklahoma [...]