I agree that we have some sort of claim on Salinger’s work, even if it’s only emotional/intellectual and not in the legal sense. It is ours in that we have thoughts/experiences independent from the original piece of art in question. In the case of whether or not to grant a deceased author his post-mortem privacy, it’s not really straightforward. It doesn’t so much matter to him now that he is dead, as you say. But it still seems unfair in a way to read what an author did not want us to read. How much weight do we put on the author’s purpose now that the work is out of his head and on paper? Once he wrote something on paper, it does exist as something outside of himself, and is therefore able to be consumed by another. Should his intention of privacy be the driving force behind what is done with the materials, presuming there are materials at all, and presuming the legal will doesn’t address the issue? While the thoughts have been externalized from the author’s head and are now separate from him (especially since he’s no longer alive to have those thoughts), they still exist as his property. or at least the property of his estate. Our interactions with the work in question (should we ever be allowed to have any) will be our own, as they are with any piece of art, but any claim we might have on the work is solely dependent upon the execution of the author’s will.

Derrida’s theory on Logocentrism and my recollection of Post-Modern Philosophy have me thinking about this in terms of the “metaphysics of presence”. If speech is the orginal signifer (and this is true, with no other evidence necessary than the fact that we THINK in terms of speech) and writing is an externalization of speech, then writing is the originally concieved thought Once Removed. Then the writing is experienced by a reader outside of the writer’s presence and not spoken by him (making books on tape read by the author a unique experience in connecting with this original source of creative intent to create meaning) – making it even further removed from its original state of purpose; its left to be interpreted in another mind, formulating thoughts often expressed through speech and writing, giving way to, while simultaneously being stimulated by the dilluted original thought-speech-writing attempt to create meaning, a cyclical process amongst academics and intellectuals. It’s almost like a cycle which continually dillutes the original inception, but still posseses some of that original energy; a line of thought ancestory (and again this brings me back to the second law of thermodynamics).

And if it is in fact so far removed from Salinger’s original speech-thought-writing externalization process now that he is dead, then would it even make a difference whether someone else reads it? For no one will ever know its true intent, no one will ever think the original speech-thoughts that Salinger did while creating his meaning. This being the case, I am now seriously contending that perhaps we do have claim on it: for it will never be what he meant it to be. It will only exist in our subjective interpretation, and since he physically externalized what could have been kept pure in simple speech-thought expression, he in essence gave that energy up to the ever evolving field of thought.

I think we should be able to read it. His original work will always be preserved for he is dead and its meaning died with him, but he can still contribute to the intellectual growth and the raising of consciousness through his delivery of post mortem thought provoking writing.

But then I think of diaries and journals and my own writing that I don’t necessarily want anyone to read, yet I feel the need to externalize my thoughts. Once on paper though they are no longer mine alone -they exist outside of me-, and if read by a snooping mother – then they become something even less mine, for they are now stimulating her thoughts and interpretations without her knowing the depth and meaning of my original thoughts.

Amanda: I immediately thought of this in terms of Schrodinger’s Cat, and I think Salinger’s Box is a perfect phrase to use in this case. We don’t know what’s there until we observe it. Also, you hint at something quite interesting re Derrida and Hiedegger: if Salinger’s work was only for his personal amusement, then (as he concieved it) it no longer has any purpose given that his potential for being amused by things is no longer a variable in this equation. Therefore, according to that assessment, it can and should be destroyed. But we as a potential audience might feel entitled to read what he wrote after his death, given how we perceive the function of the artist and his work. What, then, is the function of the artist and his work after the demise of the artist? How does it function in society? Do we have any claim on it as something outside of what the artist himself intended? All very interesting to mull over, even if I do agree with Joel’s argument that the materials shouldn’t get published if that’s what the author wanted.

Also, I didn’t really enjoy Catcher in the Rye. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t agree that it was an important work of 20th Century literature. It certainly was influential. I do think that Frank Portman in King Dork did a fantastic job summarizing the “Catcher Cult” (as he put it). The protagonist, Tom, has quite a lot in common with Holden Caulfield, despite his contempt of those (teachers and parents, mostly) who think Holden Caulfield is the bees knees.

I am as equally intrigued by the contents of that safe. I think there is an interesting psychological dynamic to writers who choose anonymity and seclusion, for the very act of writing is an engagement in communication; externalizing an internally propelled creativity (and I’ll leave it at that, though I am tempted to bust into Derrida and Hiedegger philosophies detailing the role of the artist and specifically writers).

Another brilliant writer that actively evades any sort of publicity and encounter with fans and the like is Thomas Pynchon. He wrote my favorite book: The Crying of Lot 49. I guess a man who writes creatively about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as it pertains to human existence and our struggle to find meaning within the chaos would be somewhat hard to follow in general conversation anyway.

I think Salinger’s Box, (which I intend to call it forever) will be filled with works of a faded genius. For although it is taught in high school curriculum and commonly carried by assasins, Catcher in the Rye just isn’t that great of a story. Teenager angst and sexual repression? Jesus, we’re the Columbine generation – hookers and profanity ain’t got nuthin on gothic cloaked angst fed by prep boy cruelty resulting in mass murder and booby trapped suicide. Someone should write a story about that, and they should call it: “Salinger’s Box”.