J.D. Salinger and "Catcher"

J.D. Salinger died a few weeks ago at 91, which prompted me to pick up that tattered copy of Catcher in the Rye that had been sitting around. Honestly, I think I was the only person in the world who hadn't read it. (As a writer, it was shameful.) The book was WAY too racy and suggestive for my small town Iowa high school to have on the freshman English reading list, but I finally got to it.

Some of it was fun, enjoyable, funny, and I was rooting for Holden Caulfield, the jock-hating teen outcast who'd just been kicked out of prep school. "I'm quite illiterate, but I read a lot." But really, really, I didn't see what was so great about the novel.

Sure, it expressed the teenage angst that many high school kids could identify with, and yes, the voice was crystal clear and believable, but over and over I kept thinking, "This whole passage, or this whole chapter would be chopped to death by any editor or agent today." It meanders, and goes on tangents that editors and agents would have no patience for today.

As I read it I kept wondering 'What in here would make someone want to kill John Lennon?' What was so damn profound? I never found it. Maybe I'm dense.

A writer friend of mine agreed, saying, "The New Yorker crowned Salinger a genius, for some reason, and he could do no wrong after that."

But maybe that is what makes a great novel great: it doesn't follow the rules. Like Miller in Tropic of Cancer it departs from accepted forms and rambles on. And on, and on, pounding the point home.

Sure, I was amused, even laughing out loud at his first use of the word "gorgeous" in referring to a sixty-five year old balding bellboy saying, "Anyway, what a gorgeous job for a guy around sixty-five years old." I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. But later in the book he used "gorgeous" 7-8 times so it just became part of the vernacular of the narrator, watering down the impact of the first use of the word, although I can certainly see that Salinger was doing what teens do: grab a word and use it over and over.

It's like that with some words that writers get hung up on. I remember proofreading a friend's manuscript -- a daunting task, since he held a PhD in English -- and finding the beautiful use of the word "pale." Pale is a great word. But then I noticed he'd used it 30+ times in the book, and it lessened the impact of the few, select good uses of it, and certainly had to be cut. Only then he died at 48 and never got any of his books published.

I suppose that's what drives me to publish books rather rapidly, and some say, imprudently. It's this creeping fear that death will cut off my work and I want it to go on record. And if I live long enough, I'll go back and make it better, or if I'm dead maybe some editor will clean it up, but at least it's out there. I mean, there are all sorts of "writers" out there who are great at critiquing everyone else, but they never get anything really done.

I did, however, notice and pay attention to the little tiny nuances of Salinger's Catcher, where he uses italics on a word or part of a word in the middle of dialogue, which brings it to life with its emphasis. It's how people talk. So don't think I didn't notice, J.D.

But when I look at the writing itself, it's not near what Miller did, or Fitzgerald or Hemingway (both of which he mocks in the book), or many others.

I read where Salinger befriended the editor of the New Yorker, that they were quite close and both recluses. And maybe that's what really makes a difference -- who you know.

The Big Black Cock Next Door (not what you're thinking!).

Well, I've been in Playa del Carmen for almost 2 weeks now, and the new place is pretty darn good -- ocean view from my balcony, an even better view on the rooftop, a short walk to the beach and tropical birds chirping each morning. Been swimming, taking walks on the beach, doing yoga, and getting cheap massages. Bought a new beach cruiser bike the other day so I'm just about set.

The downside, and, of course, there always is one, is the freakin' barking dogs, which get going in a maddening chorus now and then; but they aren't as bad as in San Miguel de Allende, or most places in Mexico. These people and their stupid dogs!

Then there's the big black cock next door (not what you're thinking).

This large, black rooster lives next door and he crows and cock-a-doodles to his buddies across the way, mostly in the mornings. Actually, he's not as bad as the dogs, I don't mind him as much. Sometimes I wonder what he's saying to the guys a block over:

"Cock-a-doodle-DOO!" (That's right, I just nailed one of my hen bitches)

"A-DOO! Cock-a-doodle!" (We got some fine hen biotches over here!)

"Cock-cock-a-DOO-ooo." (Whatever. You know, I COULD use some strange.)

"COO-oo0, a doodle! Cock, cock!" (Come on over! You can tap one of my biotches!)

"Cocka-coo-doo!" (I CAN"T FLY!)

"Coo-coo-cock-cock-a-doo!" (They gonna make soup outta you!)

"COCK-COO, cock-a doodle!" (Bullshit! Who's gonna poke them hens for 'em?)

"Cock-a-doo-doo-a doodle!" (They gonna get tired of eggs, bro'!)

"A-doodle! Cock-a-coo-coo!" (Man, I need to get a new gig. I'm flyin' the coop!)

"Cock-a-doo-doo-a doodle!" (These hens is wakin' up, gotta go knock off a piece!)

"Coo-coo-doo cock-a-doo!" (Me too, these ho's can't get enough!)

That Impending Feeling..... Change is in the AIr

Tomorrow I'm moving to a new place: in more ways than one. I came to Cancun last October and made several trips to Playa del Carmen, Tulum, and Puerto Morelos, trying each one on, to see if it would fit, if it could be a place where I could live and write. Cancun is too much concrete and plastic; Puerto Morelos is too dinky; Tulum has beautiful beaches and oceanfront but it's isolated and has a dinky, cheesy nightlife scene. PDC is super gentrified and commercial in the main tourist area, and beyond that, in the Mexican neighborhoods, it's not much to look at. Nothing like the beautiful Spanish architecture and balconies in San Miguel de Allende.

But I came to the Yucatan for the ocean, and to write.

The Caribbean Ocean is probably the most beautiful I've seen, with those warm turquoise and electric blue waters that you can see through to the sugary-white sands. And I suppose I've always had this sort of tropical fantasy, this dream in my mind for as long as I can remember. Like "Gilligan's Isle" only with electricity, cold beer and restaurants not far off. So I'm going to try it.

I have trepidations, and there is this uneasy anticipation and dread that is filling me; the fear of the unexpected, the excitement of a new place, new people, fresh salty air. Before I moved to San Miguel I was even more worried, since I sent off money and didn't have anything in writing and I was moving my life there. It worked out great! Beautiful mountain views, new friends, good restaurants, bars, parties. But the main thing was that I did what I planned when I moved there: I finished my novel.

I'm hoping these new Caribbean views are inspiring and relaxing and my new place will be a good place, and most of all, a good place to write. It doesn't makes economic sense to move here during the high season. But all I know is I cannot live if I cannot write.

Henry Miller and "Tropic of Cancer"

I finally read "Tropic of Cancer" last week. Great book. Very interesting in terms of style, that is, mixture of styles, unique blending of autobiography and fiction, and also his resultant influence on the next generation of writers.

Some of the book is very direct, stream-of-consciousness realism, including details of sex, pussies and dicks. Even v.d. (Funny, they worried about gonorrhea and syphilis back then, and had unprotected sex with hookers. It was a crap shoot.) At other times it is surreal and flowery stream-of-consciousness existentialist prose that evokes great imagery. I'm not doing it justice since there are other styles and influences interwoven into the work too. It's impossible to name them all and to do so would reduce Miller's work.

What I find really interesting is it was his first book, originally published in Europe 1934 when Miller was 43 years old. Rather old for a writer (I was 45!). He went to Paris in the late 1920s, the roaring 20s, and wrote the book when he was in his late 30s and early 40s. He didn't have much formal training in writing, he read a lot and was mostly self-taught. He got through by taking a succession of toiling jobs, including proofreader for the Chicago Tribune. He went to Paris with no money to become an artist in middle age. He had no money. Just a love of art. And he was a painter too! How cool is all that?

The book was finally published in the U.S. in 1961, which led to a series of obscenity trials. Crazy. They tried to make him out to be a commie.

When you read the book you can feel that there is something great in it, and it keeps you reading. But it doesn't follow any traditional form, or have any kind of traditional or expected plot development. It drove home what I was trying to say last summer when I did a book reading/signing in Berlin and got into a (labored) discussion of the state of literature today. I say just write, do it, and throw out conventions. Invent, create, push the limits, do something different, create new language. (Shakespeare create thousands of new words!) That's the only way anything new will ever develop. In Berlin, I got myself caught in a web of English majors, you know, those non-producing perfectionists who have memorized all the proper uses for the semicolon and all. But they've never written a book, or if they have, they've never published it. They have never put themselves out there to be devoured. So what, really, do they know?

I could see direct linkages from Henry Miller to Bukowski, although little has been made of it. It seems obvious to me. He was a GREAT influence. It starts with the frequent use of harsh words that shock, like "cunt" or "turd" and goes on to be autobiographical and very direct about drinking, sex, and men and women. Bukowski went farther, to the point where sometimes he was beyond disgusting, simply pornographic. But he makes me laugh! There's actually some delicacy or sensitivity in Miller's writing and Bukowski just throws that out the window.

Also, having read Burroughs' "Naked Lunch" and Kerouac's "On the Road" last summer, they are fresh in my mind and I found Miller to be the father for some of their (the Beats') writing, most especially Kerouac's autobiographical stream-of-consciousness style and the freaky surreal stuff that Burroughs gets in to, talking about protoplasm and all. Only Burroughs goes farther so as to sometimes be just plain crazy. I mean, he repeated himself in "Naked Lunch" several times and he jumped all over the place, which reminded me of those types of paintings that are so fucked up and nonsensical the artist has to explain what it is. And I prefer art that I can just look at and appreciate on an intuitive level, art that doesn't require that much thought to see its beauty or genius.

Henry Miller led this extraordinary life, after growing up in Brooklyn and spending time in New York, he lived in Paris and eventually moved out to the California coast in Big Sur and lived to be 88. George Orwell wrote of Miller, "Here in my opinion is the only imaginative prose-writer of the slightest value who has appeared among the English-speaking races for some years past. Even if that is objected to as an overstatement, it will probably be admitted that Miller is a writer out of the ordinary, worth more than a single glance; and after all, he is a completely negative, unconstructive, amoral writer, a mere Jonah, a passive acceptor of evil, a sort of Whitman among the corpses."