J.D. Salinger died on Wednesday, and so did Howard Zinn. Their deaths are interestingly coincidental in that both writers share the commonality of having their careers defined by a single book—The Catcher in the Rye and A People’s History of the United States respectively—and also in the opposite ways each author handled the success of that book. Salinger, of course, received a great deal more fame upon the publication of The Catcher in the Rye, and to me, his response (seclusion) doomed him to be more of a literary celebrity than accomplished writer. I should qualify that pronouncement with the disclaimer that I value an artist’s oeuvre much more than any one piece; anybody can be lucky once, but a true talent is able to continually produce good work. I also believe it is much more difficult to create something as an artist of some renown—when you know that a novel will be widely read and reviewed—than it is when you are working in obscurity, unsure if your art will be seen by anyone. Whether it was his intention or not, Salinger’s withdrawal from the literary world was an admission that he could or would not produce fiction that lived up to his celebrated novel.
I have only one point to make about The Catcher in the Rye, which is that it’s more famous than good. See, everyone knows the book since, being mostly harmless and relatively short, the novel has been read by high school students for years, many of whom cannot name any novels they weren’t assigned to read in an English class. [Quick tangent: In high school I took English for dummies for four years (by which I mean that I enrolled in the regular English courses for non-honor students), so my opinion of high school English is admittedly skewed. That being said, I really do believe every book assigned to high school students will invariably have two things in common: it will be short and it will be easy to understand. (A quick tangent to my tangent: I know it seems incongruous for a brilliant literary mind, such as myself, to be in English classes filled with students reading on the 6th grade level instead of challenging himself with advanced courses. However, consider this: one semester we spent six weeks reading To Kill A Mockingbird in class—we literally did nothing but read at our desks four days a week. Needless to say, it only took me a few days to finish the novel, and after that I had an hour to read Hunter Thompson or anything else I wanted each day.)]
Though less widely known than Salinger, Howard Zinn is a much more interesting author. I’ve read A People’s History, I’ve watched the documentary about his life, and I’ve even seen Zinn speak in person. And I’m impressed by him for two reasons. The first is that throughout his life he remained involved in the subject he wrote about. Unlike Salinger and many other writers, he didn’t avoid the public or try to sequester himself. Instead he seemed to relish the opportunity to constantly engage with young, socially minded people and to be part of the struggle, whether for civil rights in the sixties, or against war in the seventies and again in the past decade.The second thing I like about Zinn is that he was reasonable. Yes, he advocated social reform but it was in a calm, persistent way, which is a welcome change from the aggressive and self-righteous radicals I come across who use the word ‘bourgeois’ the way some people use ‘like’, and who leave me with the distinct impression that they would love nothing more than to be cracked over the head by a cop so they could go around telling everyone about it.
Two examples of Zinn’s rationality at work: There was a question and answer segment at the end of the speech I attended, and you can imagine the kinds of things twenty-year-old kids drawn to the far left would ask. Two of Zinn’s answers from that night stick in my mind. When one student asked how we (the lefties) could best go about reaching members of society—the poor, the uneducated—who may never otherwise come in contact with the message they are trying to get out, Zinn answered that it is unwise for college students to attempt to reach those people. We can only hope to influence people who exist in the same sphere of society as ourselves, he said. For instance, despite his standing in academia, Zinn didn’t believe he could approach a group of coal miners with the intent of teaching them about the exploitation of workers and pushing them to fight for more favorable conditions and better compensation. Your credibility is diminished by being an outsider, he said. Instead, the most efficient use of your time is to operate as a force for good in the world you know and not condescend to groups you believe need your help.
Another student earnestly asked why, if he found so much to dislike in the United States (and at this point he went through the typical litany), Zinn hadn’t left this country for another that was more inline with his political inclinations. Zinn’s answer was that he found many things to like about the United States (specifically the Boston Red Sox and Dunkin Donuts) and that despite the obvious flaws, he saw no reason to leave. In other words, he implied that you can’t flee from the world just because you encounter a few things you don’t like about it.
And yes, I did intend for that last line to be a critique of Salinger.
Pingback: WeHaveBeards
Pingback: Ryan Riley