Product Description

In researching Salinger: A Biography, journalist and biographer Paul Alexander conducted over forty interviews with major literary figures including George Plimpton, Gay Talese, Ian Hamilton, Harold Bloom, Roger Angell, A. Scott Berg, Robert Giroux, Ved Mehta, Gordon Lish, and Tom Wolfe. Alexander's research also took him to newly available archives at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and Columbia universities, NYU, and the New York Public Library. Response from critics has been overwhelming.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #313691 in Books
• Published on: 2000-07-14
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 352 pages

Amazon.com Review
So averse to any kind of publicity that he went to court to prevent a previous biography, J.D. Salinger will undoubtedly be distressed by this book as well, especially since author Paul Alexander suggests that the writer's reclusiveness might be just a shrewd ploy to pique readers' interest and maintain good sales for his books. The Catcher in the Rye hardly needs that kind of help; the novel has been hugely popular since its initial release in 1951, though even then Salinger found the publication process distasteful. What made him abnormally sensitive to the stresses of public life? Readers won't find out here, although Alexander capably narrates the scant biographical material available: Salinger's birth in 1919; his aimless, academically underachieving youth; military service in some of World War II's grimmest battles; two failed marriages; self-exile from publishing at the height of his fame; the 1973 affair with teenage writer Joyce Maynard; and her arguably revengeful 1998 memoir. It would probably please Salinger that the psychological forces that power his creativity and eccentricity remain a mystery. Alexander notes the writer's near-exclusive focus on young people in his fiction, as well as the fact that Salinger's romantic relations have almost all been with very young women, but he can't really explain these facts. There just isn't enough information, although some enjoyably gossipy quotes from various interviews (ranging from usual literary suspects like George Plimpton to Salinger's former housekeeper) keep the book quite readable. --Wendy Smith

From Library Journal
This biography's dustjacket features a blurry photo of an aging J.D. Salinger superimposed on a picture of the young author of The Catcher in the Rye. While designed to capture the elusive quality of the notoriously reclusive writer, the jacket also reflects the book's fuzziness and skimpy feel. Although Alexander, who wrote a biography of Sylvia Plath, interviewed a number of people and used the research files of Ian Hamilton (In Search of J.D. Salinger) and the newly opened New Yorker archive at the New York Public Library, the result is primarily a cut-and-paste pastiche of secondary sources. This is not entirely Alexander's fault; like Hamilton, whose attempt to publish a biography was thwarted in the courts by Salinger, Alexander was unable to quote directly from Salinger's letters, and of course the man himself has long refused to be interviewed. Still, Alexander has drawn an eerie portrait of an increasingly eccentric writer whose attempts to maintain his privacy is actuallyAin Alexander's opinionAa manipulative way of promoting himself and his books.AWilda Williams, "Library Journal"
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
From the author of the fancifully titled Boulevard of Broken Dreams (1994) on the life of James Dean, comes this plainly titled, johnny-come-lately with its amply leaded pages (except for the index) sans illustrations. It's what we lived for. Bonnie Smothers

Customer Reviews

A Tabloid Expose in Book Form (A True Shame)
Paul Alexander, the author of this biography, may have a genuine admiration for J.D. Salinger, but he clearly has no true understanding of the man. This biographer's approach to Salinger's life more closely resembles a tabloid publication's expose of a pedophile priest. Aside from the differences that any group of people can have over the interpretation of any story, it seems apparent that Alexander has no clear understanding of the classic literature that Salinger loved. He lists the authors that Salinger admired, yet doesn't seem to have an awareness of the works and how they're integrated into many of Salinger's stories. The most horrifying revelation of this biography, for me, is the realization that many people especially this biographer have misinterpreted the story "Teddy." Salinger chooses his words and titles painstakingly carefully for a reason. Alexander's conclusions (as well as the public's), that Teddy kills his sister in the story, shows either his lack of awareness of what's going on or maybe he never read the story. Eventhough, the story "Teddy" was extremely successful, Salinger's disappointment to the public's reaction of the story is apparent in his story character's and alter ego, Buddy Glass', comments in "Seymour an Introduction," " ... few years ago, I published an exceptionally Haunting, Memorable, unpleasantly controversial, and thoroughly unsucessful short story about a 'gifted' little boy... " These comments alone shows Salinger's disappointment in the fact that "people just don't get it." Though, Salinger needs no defenders, I believe his fascination with young people (including and especially young women) manifests from a pure source. It is his awareness that people are most whole when they're young and not old. It is his awareness of the time in peoples lives before they accept the limits, lies, and illusions of huge institutions and the infuences of self motivated family members and friends. It is Salinger's awareness of a time when the joy of life exists in experiencing and not acquiring. This book has some interesting facts that many people may find engaging and interesting. It is an easy enough book to read and enjoy. However, the best thing you can do if you truly want to know J.D. Salinger is to just read the books he wrote. And if you want more.. Read the books Salinger read... Rilke, Shelley, Fitzgerald, Keats, etc.....

So bad it should never have been published
I'm really very surprised that anyone liked this book at all. How could anyone who likes Salinger's writing stand reading Alexander's terrible prose? It is really painful, and that's just the starting point. As others on this page have mentioned, the author has little or no understanding of Salinger's work (his misinterpretation of the story "Teddy" is a particularly good example, but the book is strewn with them). Worse, the author isn't just ignorant but actually hostile to Salinger. It's hard to understand why someone would take the time to write a book about someone he clearly dislikes. If you must read this book out of curiousity, get it at the library. I felt really ripped off after buying this book, and wished I had not given a nickle to this creepy author. And if you are NOT familiar with Salinger, by all means do not read this book. Read Salinger. Your own speculation about the guy based on his fiction will make more sense that this so-called biography.

A travesty
Usually, when I am about to write a review here, and I see
that others have made points I intend to make, I just forget
it. But it seems most appropriate for the point to be repeated
that this book is horrendous, syllable by syllable. Another writer says it shouldn't have been published, and that's a shrewd and exacting assessment. If not for the fact that the sense of debasement that such a master as Salinger suffers if palpable, there's also the issue of editorial scruples: doesn't this publishing house employ editors? Yes, Alexander's prose is poor (why did someone give him an MFA?). But it also includes grammatical mistakes and basic flaws in thinking and logic. Some sentences are repeated, a clear editing snaffoo. He often draws inferences that are unfounded or remarks on some coincidence or set of circumstances that he deems titillating or telling when these can be so easily dismissed.
The main problem is Alexander's infantile way of setting up a
simple dichotomy: Salinger either is a recluse at heart or
is trying to maintain prestige and import by remaining hidden. Is there nothing in between? Are people sure of their own motivations. Ultimately, the idea of thirty years of isolation as publicity stunt is hopelessly naive and insipid. It doesn't make sense and it looks at a man with a mind as great as Salinger's in an untenable fashion.
Also, there's the story of a newspaper article a girl published in a daily paper after telling S. it was for a school paper. This is a rumor, and Alexander's source is simply another magazine feature. This is one cardinal example of the flaw in writing a biography without doing research. Yes, Salinger is a tough ticket, but why didn't Alexander check out this story with those who knew S. at the time, the girl in question (if possible), the daily paper, etc? Instead, he's content to pass off this simple story as gospel on the word of an apparently ill-researched magazine piece.
Finally, a word on the story "Teddy." (Incidentally, I think Alexander's butchering of "Just Before the War With the Eskimos" is the most egregious of the bunch, with fierce competition.) When I first read the story, I, as Alexander did, thought that Teddy had killed his sister, because of the female scream. Many feel it is ambiguous. Alexander is at fault, not as much for his interpretation, but not for entertaining any others. However, I do think it's clear enough Teddy killed himself. That's where the story is heading. Also, earlier in the story, Teddy writes in his journal "it could be today or..." and then he lists a date several years later when he'd be sixteen.Later,
in a conversation with his college-aged companion, he says that he has told professors certain dates on which they should be careful because they could be in danger of losing their lives. So it seems the "it" referred to in the journal, not explained elsewhere, could be his death.
Well, alas, Salinger could be partly to blame. If you try too hard to keep biographies from being published, the publishing world becomes so greedy that any incompetent can sell one. It's too bad such a fascinating man has been degraded in this way.