Salinger 2009?

I can't help but wonder why the New York Times posted someone's book report on J.D. Salinger. Ok, perhaps that's unfair, but would this recent article — a fairly lengthy one that appeared on the final day of 2008 — have been published if it weren't the end of the year?

Now, it's true that Salinger's birthday was on Thursday; he turned 90 on New Year's, so an argument can be made that there's a news hook to attach to the piece. But otherwise, it's primarily a review of Salinger's last published short story. At times, the piece seems eager to poke at Salinger, to prod him as though he might start publishing again.

But honestly, what's the point? He's 90 and whether he's healthy and vital or old and infirm, he has made his place in the world of literature. If there is anything of his to publish after his death — and I suspect there will be — then why hustle in that new era of regard for Mr. Salinger.

There will be at least three periods of Salinger: his active writing, during which he penned some of the greatest short stories and wrote The Catcher in the Rye, where he developed at least one of the most enduring characters in American literature; his quiescence, during which Salinger was an enigma; and his literary resurrection. We don't know what will come of this next life. For sure, there'll be new devotees who emerge. He may come to redefine American literature again. Or he may show that he has been truly a hermit and his work has not advanced but merely rehashes his Glass families foibles, leaving Salinger like some sad scientist who can't turn away from his samples to see how the real world is changing.

Of course, I will read the next Salinger – living, dead, somewhere between or above. What writer wouldn't? Goddam, he's J.D. Salinger! But the thing about great literary writers is that they survive forever, regardless of when their bodies start to decompose. It's their minds that zombies like me devour.

So, I suppose I've answered my own question — the one about the book report and the Times. Because there's other people like me out there who love to read about J.D. Salinger, even if he hasn't published a word in four decades.

What the Kids Are Reading Now

This past weekend, the New York Times touched on a subject that I've thought about frequently: what and how are people reading in the 21st century. Like any informed American, I spend a lot of time on the Internet, reading and researching things for work and for my personal hobbies (such as reading and writing) and for topics related to family life in general. So I'm certainly not averse to people reading online.

Indeed, I applaud it; at least people are reading. And I believe that people are not afraid of writing for themselves. The explosion of blogs and social networking sites and twittering tidbits of foolishness at all hours of the day are strong anecdotal evidence that people are writing more now than they ever have.

I also know from experience that some kids are more likely than others to read books. Back when I was driving kids from schools to a YMCA for an afterschool program, there was one kid in particular (I think he was in first grade when I met him) who'd graduated from picture books to those in which only an occasional sketch was included (think Charlotte's Web or the original Winnie the Pooh books). He even remarked to a friend about how adults read books without pictures as though the concept was incredible.

Still, I can't help but see a healthy dose of pomposity in the views of those in the article who believe children can't learn without reading great books. Of course, they need first to be literate; it's a crucial life skill on par with the ability to communicate (note, I didn't say speak. Moreover, even the most affected by autism are able to communicate as long as we are willing and able to learn how to do so with them.)

I read often — great books, mediocre books, magazine articles, Web sites, academic studies — so I realize I'm not quite the average reader. But there are things I've not even thought of as readable areas that the kids described in this article devour.

Fanfiction.net, for example, is a site I've heard of but that's about it. It doesn't look familiar, so I'm not sure I've ever examined it before. But the girl in the article reads reams of Web pages there, eschewing television. Say what you will about the value of "great books," but I believe a kid who is that devoted to reading now is more likely to both read and possibly write as an adult. Good for Nadia!

Deeper in the article, there's a reference to a 2006 study that found, among other things, that the only kind of reading that related to higher academic performance was frequent novel reading, which is directly related to higher grades — especially in English. The key value of reading book-novels, academics argue, is that it allows readers to mentally chew over the ideas proffered in the works. Indeed that's true, and when people have read books in common, this spurs conversation and further reflection, which embeds the ideas deeper into a child's or adult's brain. This is where the Web is perfect!

So, if I can suggest anything in this post, it would be to encourage everyone to read — novels and short stories, works of nonfiction, newspapers, Web sites, the NYT article from which this post is inspired — and then talk about these things with other people. Reading fosters intelligent discussion. Conversation builds community. Strong community bonds can instill more democratic governance. There's a slogan in the waiting: Literacy Builds Democracy. I think both Republicans and Democrats can support that.

Why Does Publishing Take So Long?

I was fascinated by a story about the publishing industry that appeared in this past weekend's New York Times Book Review. The article starts from the premise that, given the advent of electronic communication, publishing should have speeded up like the news cycle. But that's not true.

Although technology makes it easier to turn a manuscript into a finished book, it still takes a long time to build a book that'll sell. Word of mouth is still paramount.

The book I'm reading right now would agree. It's called The Practical Writer, and it's published by the folks who put together Poets and Writers magazine. Published in 2004, it is compiled with an awareness of the importance of Web sites in the process of finding an agent and developing an audience. The essays seem to be written around 2002, so blogs were still in their nascent stages. [A late chapter on authors developing a presence on the Web makes no mention of blogs.] The book, which consists of essays by publishing professionals of all stripes, is a perfect example of what the Times article is talking about; the writing is roughly two years old by the time it appeared in print.

The article outlines the carousel of the publishing game. While all the pretty horses are going up and down, the music playing in the background is publicity. The Practical Writer's description of this aspect of publishing is contained in several essays -- the one by the bookseller is a good example as are the items by agents and publicists.

I've always expected that if I'm able to sell my first novel, this blog will be the basis for developing a community of readers -- or perhaps it'll remain a hidden little alcove not far from an as yet undeveloped "professional" Web site. [Of course, if I never see my book in published form, I'll still enjoy writing. It's what I do.] The key is to develop word of mouth, and that will require an online presence, an expansion of my freelance writing, and probably reaching out to book clubs and readers through other literary sites.

Ultimately, the goal is to develop an audience. I hope the forty people or so who visit per day like what you see and stick around.

Read for Fun, America!

I meant to write about this weeks ago, but I was having too much fun reading other things. Back in November there was an article in the New York Times about how fewer people are reading for pleasure. It was based on a National Endowment for the Arts study. It got me thinking: What does this say about the state of publishing?

I believe that lots of people read for fun. I see it on the train every work day. But I'm also seeing a lot more people using their portable DVD players, and it seems every other person has iPod buds sticking out of their ears. And of course, there are several masochists who do work on the train (full disclosure: I do too, sometimes, but I don't enjoy it).

Books and a train commute are a perfect combination, so why aren't more people reading? Perhaps it's because so many books out there suck. A possibility, at least. But I suspect it's because the marketing doesn't know how to build or develop an audience -- especially for mid-list writers. Let's face it, it's easy to publicize a Stephen King novel. He's got years of successful novels under his belt and has connected wiht his audience better than any writer I know of. But why don't more people know about Christopher Moore? He's funny, he's entertaining, he's occasionally irreverant. Lord knows how many people are fans of his type of story, but it's a lot. This past year, when he released You Suck, the book was reviewed by the Times. Yet, there aren't enough people who know about him. I mention his name to other voracious readers, and they've never heard of him; when they read him, they like him.

One of the reasons I created this blog was to promote writers I like (of course, no one reads this either, so there you go!). I don't mean promote in the marketing sense; lord knows I'm no marketer.

Ultimately, I hope to create an audience for my books, which I think people will enjoy and believe they'll enjoy the subsequent books I produce. I'm sure this is naive, but I'm looking forward to speaking with readers, even if they challenge me to justify scenes or characters or a story's premise. The author is the best marketer for his or her work, but authors need publicists and strong editors and a team of professionals to make things sing. That's one of the reasons why publishers get the percentage of sales that they get; they're paying for the risk and for the overhead.

As readers, we don't have to worry about all that. We just have to read and enjoy. So read for fun, America! Use the imagination that you've been blessed with!

And if you happen to be on my blog, let me know what you've been reading and why. I'll share it with others. Let's get more people reading!

Hey Jack Kerouac, I Think of Dr. Seuss...

I apologize for mangling a Natalie Merchant lyric for my own devices, but it's what came to mind after reading David Brooks' very funny social commentary in his recent New York Times column. Perhaps if I pondered longer about his column, I'd find a better title for this particular entry, but in a convoluted way it helps characterize the point I'm trying to make (and what else is a good headline to do?).

Brooks discusses Sal Paradise, the main character of Jack Kerouac's On the Road, and points to a literary debate that apparently is broiling in the English departments of America's Ivory Towers: Is the book about youth's frenzied search for affirmation or is it about loss. Of course, to a liberal arts major like myself, the answer is easy: I can say without a whiff of irony that it's both -- and probably more.

But Brooks took a much more interesting approach to the issue. He argues that all cultural artifacts -- and at a half century, On the Road is certainly a dusty artifact in my opinion -- have to be interpreted through whatever experiences the Baby Boomer generation is going through at that moment.

How typical of a Boomer to say that. I'm no Boomer, thank you, but I can still chuckle at this line:

“On the Road” is the book you want to read if you find Sylvia Plath too upbeat.

Though, I'll admit I laughed out loud when he wrote:

In 20 years, "The Cat in the Hat" will be read as a commentary on unreliable home health care workers.

Still, I was struck at how true his words rang in my head when he noted that the real secret of the book was its discharge of youthful energy -- "the stupid, reckless energy that saves On the Road from being a dreadful novel. The delightful, moronic, unreflective fizz appears whenever the characters are happiest, when they are chasing girls or urinating from a swerving flatbed truck while going 70 miles an hour."

I can relate to that, and I think I can draw from that in my own work. (After all, I come from a generation balanced between everything being about Me and 'greed being good.') But I wouldn't cast all Boomers with the same brush strokes. Technically, the Baby Boom lasted until 1964 or '65. But I think there's a major difference between those kids who came of age during the Summer of Love and those who learned about life after waiting in line to get into Studio 54.

Kerouac wrote about the thrill and fearfulness of being a teenager. Even teenagers with the blues may be guilty of pissing off the backs of moving vehicles. Put into a good literary context, that can be powerful stuff. I don't think being reminded of that will be enough for me to wipe dust off my Kerouac, but if I write a little better now because of it, I'll tip my glass to the ol' drunk and take another sip from the sweet nectars of the Knowledge Tree.

Alive, Yes. Well? Not So Much

Thank God for Stephen King! If not for him, the market for short stories could very well perish. But because he's the big-shot, commercially successful writer that nearly everyone in America can identify by sight, he's able to get his comments in the New York Times. Now, I realize he's pitching the collection of short stories that he edited, but he's also advocating for those writers who are struggling to get noticed. This man deserves his plaudits and his millions, not because he writes great literature (he writes entertaining literature, I wouldn't call it great), but because he is a champion for all of us who hope to have an audience to develop.

A (Brief) Conversation With Carl Hiaasen

Carl Hiaasen is one of the writers I've not read that I know I'll enjoy. Call it guilty pleasure by association, but knowing that he's got a yen for Christopher Moore's work and that of N.M. Kelby, whose Whale Season was fun, suggests that I'd like Hiaasen's work too.

To get a slightly better idea of who Hiaasen is -- other than his being a writer for the Miami Herald -- take a look at this blog entry at the New York Times. It's pretty slim pickings, actually, but I'll accept it and wait till I get something tastier and even more satisfying.