J.D. Salinger Please Don’t be like Stephen Joyce
“Lawyers for Salinger, 90, have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan, seeking to force a recall of what it says is a copycat book titled 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, by someone writing under the name JD California. It also seeks unspecified damages.” [From the Telegraph]
I read yesterday that J.D. Salinger was gearing up to cause trouble for this unnamed writer: JD California. I think it’s sad. He hasn’t plagiarized any of Salinger’s work. He’s simply taking a character created by Salinger and continuing on. Isn’t that what literature is for? For the people to enjoy and be inspired by? Perhaps interpret? The Margaret Mitchell estate granted the rights for a sequel to be written for Gone with the Wind. Readers know that it’s a new author’s interpretation of an old author’s story. If they don’t want to read it, they won’t. It doesn’t diminish the original work in any way.
This act makes Salinger come off as a bitter old man. Just like Stephen Joyce. If you have two minutes, Google Stephen. Skim a few articles and you’ll see what a miserable person he is. He’s so resentful of being the unaccomplished grandson of James Joyce that he wields the power he has (which is unfortunately a lot for the time being) to stop public readings of Ulysses and other Joyce works. Come on! This is how James Joyce is going to live on and you want to stop it at all costs. I don’t understand!
June 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
i don’t know — i think salinger should be allowed to leave the story of holden caulfield where he wants. why ruin the original story with a sequel, anyway? especially such a classic. admittedly though, i am a literary purist. i can’t help it! i love salinger so much.
it doesn’t really seem fair to compare salinger to stephen joyce, since joyce is obviously on a power trip and at least salinger wrote the book he’s arguing for.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I agree with you regarding “isn’t that what literature is for” — authors allude to one another or reimagine works as an homage. (I do wonder if Austen is turning in her grave over Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. *grin* )
This is a wild generalization, but often this is done once the original author is dead.
This seems like a different situation than with Gone with the Wind, in that the Mitchell estate granted sequel rights, but Salinger does not appear to have been consulted at all. (I know he’s hard to reach!!!)
June 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I thought of Pride & Prejudice Zombies, too, Laura. I didn’t mention it because I’m not sure I’m okay with that interpretation. But at least it’s not the taking of the characters that bothers me =)
At first I thought the author of Scarlet just went ahead and wrote the book. I didn’t realize she needed the Mitchell Estate permission. As long as you’re not stealing what the orginal author has written then what does it matter? I don’t know. Maybe I’d feel differently if I penned GWTW or Catcher in the Rye. . .
June 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Thanks for chiming in Annie! I guess I just don’t consider it a sequel unless the original author writes it. If a newbie writes it then it’s an interpretation. Same way I’d feel if someone painted a picture of Holden.
And you’re right, Salinger should be proud of what he’s accomplished whereas Stephen Joyce has little to brag about. I liken the two because it seems that they risk living out their last days surrounded by piles of lawsuit paperwork. Why bother? Why not just live and laugh and love until the lights go out?