J.D. Salinger ~ A Life Raised High

We cannot do great things on this earth.
We can only do small things with great love.
~Mother Teresa~

For the past seven years, I have devoted myself to researching and respectfully crafting a comprehensive biography of author J.D. Salinger and a tribute to his writings.
I would like to announce that work is complete and available to readers.
After so many years of labor, I had imagined this would be a joyful moment. But it is instead coupled with sadness, a deep feeling of loss for the man I have come to honor and understand - in a way, my constant companion.

Those readers familiar with this site will know the high level of integrity I have demanded of myself while writing this book - that it is a true labor of love. Painstakingly researched, with over 400 citations and interviews, A Life Raised High reveals an account of Salinger's life that is both sweeping and intimate, a far richer story than has yet been told. Equally important, it delivers genuine appreciation of Salinger's works and a recognition that Salinger's own story is inseperable from the characters and worlds he created.

Publication is set for March 15, 2010. Copies may be pre-ordered through the publisher website, Pomona Press HERE and by clicking the book cover at right.
Profuse apologies for the unseemly promotion.

January 28, 2010 ~ J.D. Salinger Passes Away at 91

It is with feelings of sadness and loss that Dead Caulfields shares the news of the death of author J.D. Salinger, who passed away at his home in Cornish, New Hampshire on Wednesday, January 27. According to his son, Matthew, Salinger died of natural causes and in keeping with his wishes, no public memorial is planned. However, I would like to offer a suggestion to all who seek to honor the legendary writer at this time: Read. Explore, whether for the first time or twenty, The Catcher in the Rye, read Nine Stories, Franny and Zooey, Raise High and Seymour. Re-experience Salinger's works in tribute to the author who is so deeply embedded within them. Salinger the man may be gone from us now - and the world is an emptier place for that - but he will always live within the pages he created, and through his art remain as vital today and tomorrow as when he strolled the boulevards of New York and the woods of New Hampshire.

Sympathy and respect goes out to the Salinger family.
A short review of Salinger's legacy is offered at right, courtesy of NBC News.

January 1, 2010
Tributes to J.D. Salinger on his 91st Birthday

Dead Caulfields would like to express its warmest satisfaction on the occassion of the 91st birthday of author
J.D. Salinger by offering the following tributes:

A re-post presentation contemplating one of the most beloved of Salinger short-stories, "The Laughing Man", which can be accessed HERE.

An exceptional article written by Sam Buntz of The Dartmouth.
In short, Mr. Buntz has got it spot-on with a perception not expressed since John Updike and Eudora Welty pondered Salinger's psyche and gifts to the world in their own unique ways decades ago. Bravo and thank you.
Please read the Dartmouth article HERE .

2009 - Salinger v Colting: an Overview

For those not clued into All-Things-Salinger, here is a video synopsis of J.D. Salinger's latest legal melée, courtesy of Reuters.
The clip will hopefully serve as a segue into the information offered below, which follows the trial through in-depth legal documentation.
Simply put, the author is attempting to prevent the publication of an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye; but the case has taken on far-reaching implications concerning the First Amendment and the ownership of art.

Appeal Filed in Salinger Case;
Media Giants Mobilize to Overturn Decision

August 14, 2009 - On July 23, Fredrik Colting (aka J.D. California, aka John Doe) formally filed for appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals, challenging the June 1 District Court decision that ordered a preliminary injuction against his sequel to The Catcher in the Rye.
Although better crafted than his arguments presented in District Court and certainly more emphatic, the appeal itself was not surprising. (A copy is offered HERE and to the right.) In delivering her decision, Judge Batts had come close to producing legal precedent - and precedent is normally challenged. Still, the odds seemed stacked in Salinger's favor. He had won in District Court; unlike Colting, he was a world famous and revered author; his past legal triumphs were legend; and his funds ran deep and wide.
Enter the White Knights:
On Friday, August 7, the Appellate Court was presented with an amicus brief, a legal pleading in Colting's defense obliquely threatening recourse to the United States Supreme Court if the District Court decision in Salinger's favor is not overturned. The petition was filed by four of the nation's most powerful media giants: the New York Times Company, the Associated Press, the Gannett Company and the Tribune Company. The brief is acute and unequivocal. It presents the June 1 decision “banning” Colting's book to be in clear violation of the First Amendment, “where,” the brief reasons, “ the only harm appears to be to the pride of a reclusive author in not having his desires fulfilled” (42).
The brief can be read HERE or at right.
On August 13, Salinger's attorney, Marcia Paul, submitted a counter argument to the Appellate Court, rebutting both Colting's appeal and the petitions of the amicus brief. In the filing, Paul expounds the lower court opinion that the enjoined Catcher sequel is in violation of Salinger's copyright. (Although the term “plagiarism” is used only once in the document – and even then, parenthetically – the insinuation is clear throughout.) Recognizing the potential impact of the perception of precedent in this case, the brief goes on to charge both Colting and the media moguls of “proposing sweeping changes in the law and entirely new standards for granting a preliminary injunction” by demanding a reversal of the lower court's decision(1).
Salinger v Colting is an important case. It exposes a critical dilemma, a precarious balancing act that has vexed society for generations: where does the First Amendment end and Copyright Law begin? When all of the legal posturing has been stripped away from these documents, at the core of this case is the question of whether Holden Caulfield, as a character of fiction represented only through words, is legally included in Salinger's copyright of The Catcher in the Rye. Famous images are often copyrighted: logos, cartoon and movie characters, and works of art. But Holden Caulfield has no physical representation, indeed Salinger has held steadfast that he should not be depicted on stage or screen. Still, he has managed to become an iconic figure nonetheless – if only through the force of Salinger's text. In fact, the District Court has determined that Holden is as recognizable – and therefore copyrighted – as any famous image or work of art. “Holden Caulfield is quite delineated by word,” the court ruled. “It is a portrait by words”(11).
The Salinger brief can be read HERE or at right.
The Appellate Court will hear the case in September.

Federal Court Blocks Catcher Sequel

July 3, 2009 - On July 1, Federal Court Judge Deborah Batts delivered her decision in the case of Salinger v. John Doe, issuing a permanent injunction against the U.S. release of what the Court determined to be an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye. The book's author, Fredrik Colting, founder of Nicotext Press, maintained that beyond being a sequel, he had written a satirical parody of Salinger's original classic and that it was therefore protected by fair use clauses under the First Amendment. When Salinger's council produced documents on June 1 demonstrating his continued legal copyright of the novel (among other works), Colting ineffectively attempted to retract the claim that he had ever intended to produce a sequel and his case diminished into an appeal of fair use on the basis that he had crafted a parody.
In the end, Judge Batts found for Salinger on every point of argument, ruling that the character of Holden Caulfield was indeed protected by Salinger's copyright and determining Colting's book to be “a derivative work” rather than parody (34). She further found Colting's attempt to be a far less “transformative” work than claimed by the defense, pointing out that the more one borrows from the original, the less transformative the result becomes (22).
While couched in the Law, not all of Judge Batt's contentions were exclusively legal. The Court also insisted upon preserving the spiritual integrity of Salinger's novel as he designed it, and in doing so, defended the rights of readers: “an author's artistic vision,” the Judge asserted, “includes leaving certain portions or aspects of his character's story to the varied imaginations of his readers” (35).
So, J.D. Salinger has once again won his day in court, through a decision that Dead Caulfields unabashedly applauds. The Court's verdict was sweeping and conclusive; it maintains Holden's character yet frozen in time. In doing so, we may be reminded of The Catcher in the Rye and Holden's desire to preserve a suspended world of stuffed diorama. But we should also remember that the Law is a fluid thing, intended to serve a society whose vitality is rooted in its predilection for change. Holden Caulfield may not have seen his last day in court. The day when Salinger will lose reign over his characters may be inevitable. But for now, we can continue to craft Holden Caulfield in our own minds, granting his character individual transformations that even Salinger would agree to.
Here is the Court's decision, in all its 37-page glory: 070109.pdf

The Verdict

June 19, 2009 -�The Verdict� refers to the question posed in the segment below and not to the Salinger litigation. Yesterday, Judge Bates placed a ten day injunction on the release of the alleged sequel to The Catcher in the Rye while she contemplates the arguments of both sides.
I had not intended to post a word about the court's decision. Dead Caulfields wants this whole mess to go away. But I was awakened by a perceptive and gentle editorial in yesterday's New York Times that rose above the clamor and seemed to answer the question of The Debate.
You see, I have long believed that the ambiguity of the ending of The Catcher in the Rye is what often draws readers back to it, causing us to reexamine not just Salinger's words, but also our personal experience as human beings. As the novel ends, Holden's position is intentionally unsteady. The author has deliberately left it to us as readers to insert our own selves, our own doubts, aspirations and dissatisfactions, in order to complete Holden's journey, which then meshes with our own. No one can do that for us � nor should they attempt to.
This is, of course, a spiritual argument and not a legal one. But it is perhaps part of a larger concept that will endure. Long after the lawyers have sounded, the pundits have held forth, the judges have pronounced, and the talentless have withdrawn their greed, Holden Caulfield will remain. In the end, it is Holden Caulfield that will prevail. At times he will indeed belong to us, shifting as our own lives rearrange, just as he is on temporary lease to his creator. But in the end, Holden Caulfield belongs only to Holden Caulfield, just as any worthwhile work of art stands eventually on its own, apart from its maker, its viewer, or any interpretation.
Please read the New York Times editorial. Click the carousel pic or access it HERE.

The Debate

June 12, 2009 - Just days before Salinger's surrogates head down to Foley Square on his behalf, the Press and Internet debate over whether he is justified in seeking an injunction against a self-confessed unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye has become louder and seems to have congealed into three all-too-familiar factions: The Thoughtless, seizing upon any Salinger news as an opportunity to display talents for snarkiness as opposed to insight; The Resentful, still fuming over Salinger's refusal to publish-on and laying in wait for any excuse to release a torrent of recrimination in belated retribution; and The Protectors - those who feel it their near-sacred obligation to come to Salinger's defense, whether he is right or wrong.
To the surprise of very few, this site lies in the third camp. Yet, each of these viewpoints suffer from an equal lack of objectivity, Dead Caulfields' included.
That's to be expected, though. In the current discussion we are not speaking solely about J.D. Salinger, the man, myth, or author. We are also deciding the future of Holden Caulfield, and through Holden, a portion of our own self image. Any redepiction of Holden's character will be a redefinition - not only of a character of fiction but perhaps too of a familiar connection with our own adolescence. For many then, the greatest fear is not that Holden Caulfield will be stolen from J.D. Salinger, but that Holden will be stolen from us.
So, who owns Holden Caulfield? Here are two excellent - and heated - arguments. The first, by Susan Weissman of the Huffington Post, takes a personal view of Holden's character and is expounded upon by author Jack Englehard, whose reverence for Salinger is plain. Their individual viewpoints can be found here:
Weissman's article: Right or Wrong: J.D. Salinger Wants Holden to Stay "Forever Young"
Englehard's article: "Strange Deafness Afflicts Salinger Lawsuit"
Both reflections are in possible reaction to reports like that of Australian journalist Brigid Delaney, whose article here (three pages) takes an opposite point of view:
Delaney's article: J.D. Salinger, it's time to let your baby go"
You decide. Holden would like it that way.