Hapworth 16 1924 [E–pub New]

Ve than in the other Glass family works the others you might doubt but probably won t disbelieve All the same it was fun for me in the middle of a necessary Salinger fest and it does give great insight into the person of Seymour he shapes so much of the family s later actions but the reader knows him personally almost not at all After reading this it makes sense that the loss of him sets adrift the remainder of his siblings and that they sort of go down like dominoes So if you re a great lover of the Glass family cycle And Haven T Read It Yet By All Means I haven t read it yet by all means I read this in an anthology of Salinger s work while doing research for a term paper on the Glass family It is a letter from camp written by seven

year old seymour 
old Seymour main character of A Perfect Day for Bananafish After its appearance in The New Yorker in 1966 Salinger uietly disappeared and stopped publishing altogetherIn 1996 a small publishing house in Virginia announced that it would reprint Hapworth but shortly before the books were to be shipped Salinger changed his mind and the work was withdrawn It is scheduled to be published finally on January 1 2009 which will be JD Salinger s ninetieth birthday I recommend to anyone who likes post modern lit Hapworth is like an unpolished gem Most people will stumble over it countless times never giving it a second glance But ventually someone sees its potential picks it up takes it home and with the utmost care begins the painstaking process of cleaning polishing and sculpting it until its beauty shines brightly At face value there isn t much to see in Hapworth Its reward lies in understanding its function This is neither a gripping tale nor a self contained piece It s merely an xaggerated vignette about a character whom the writer hopes you already know It s pure characterization literary psychology There s no plot no purpose other than saying now do you understand why he s so weird and suicidal later in life What seven year old is ven conscious of his death let alone know the means by which it will happen A tragically flawed one of courseWhile Holden may be the most famous of Salinger s characters Seymour is certainly his most covered character It would do any author good to write a long short story taking place during the childhood of said character if only for the author s own purposes of getting to know why the character is the way heshe is And although Hapworth 16 1924 is neither ssential to understanding Seymour nor particularly ngaging as a piece it plays an indispensable role in creating a well rounded depiction of such a tragic and mysterious young man At times in this and the other Glass family stories in which he describes Seymour we get the sense that Salinger is trying to let us in on an inside joke but nds up saying you had to be there over and over It s true Seymour is a one of a kind guy and thus warrants and reuires a lot of characterization And while Salinger gets his point across in staying true to what Seymour would do write a 50 page letter home from camp he asks much of his reader to follow along This is not Salinger 101 or ven 251 But for those readers who are nad with Seymour Buddy and the rest of the Glass family Hapworth answers your wishes to learn about what makes the characters tick Similar to a young person asking his lderly grandfather what life was like when he was growing up the story might bore you to tears but in the nd you got what you wanted and the information shed new light on a person to whom you couldn t ven begin to relate It was not A Certain Justice (Adam Dalgliesh, enough for Salinger that we know that Seymour is a genius he must be a child prodigy whose abilities and wisdom in childhood surpass most learned adults It is because of Seymour s greater than reality life that Buddy feels his brother is worthy of such focus adoration and in depth description Seymour is the Einstein who never got famous Salinger harnesses the innate idolatry a boy has for his older brother but then takes it a step further by making that older brother in actuality as amazing as a child syes sees him Hapworth is important because it is a primary source seven year old Seymour s own letter home where Buddy can finally say See It s not all in my head He really was this incredible No wonder Buddy is so haunted by the loss of Seymour On this subject Seymour mentions in his letter that his father had pointed out that Buddy is indifferent to anybody but Seymour And while Seymour fervently refutes this claim we think that there is some grain of truth behind Les statement Perhaps Seymour doth protest too much We know that Buddy s attachment to Seymour is like that of fatherson and with parents like theirs it s not surprising so the sudden loss of his pseudo parent would thus be downright traumatizing I don t ven know what the hell this thing is much less what to say about it I was at various times amused moved bored and forced to use a dictionary Also kind of made me want to revisit Raise High the Roof Beam Carpenters and Seymour An Introduction. Gns of being the sensitive outsider trapped in a world that can have no comprehension of who he.

J.D. Salinger ✓ 6 REVIEW

I feel deeply moved by reading this and ven though the main concern of Cinderella Unmasked (Fairytale Fantasies everyone in here isither can or cannot the prodigious Seymour Glass be the author of main concern of veryone in here is ither can or cannot the young prodigious Seymour Glass be the author of touching intimate spiritual letter I don t consider this matter to be relevant at all If Salinger considered the matter of credibility important he would asily attributed this letter to an older alter go of Seymour but regardless of verything he didn t This too has a meaning It testifies our ability to transcend the innate inclination to judge things based solely on the dictates of so called teluric reason Secondly the situation itself may drop a glimpse so called teluric reason Secondly the situation itself may drop a glimpse light on the future suicide attempted by the author of this intricate letter showing that the impossible sense of fulness that he achieved can be unbearable or liberating Thirdly it s hardly ven a bit important to think about Seymour as a 7 years old boy this being accentuated by him repetitively making reference to his age as something that must impose some restrictions on him but it vidently and ironically doesn t Therefore don t perceive the author of this letter as being mbodied Seymour is merely a person he is a ghost This letter seems to give a lot of speculations towards the way he is still haunting the Glass family after his death as he did when being alive I may approve the fact that this review doesn t make a lot of sense But this wasn t the purpose of it anyway The bookish list at the The Case for Paleolibertarianism and Realignment on the Right end draws on a little long but the rest adds sincere and interesting illumination to the finite Glass stories a family tree I desperately hope to see of in my lifetime I am a big fan of Salinger s work and was delighted to read this long lost addition to the Glass family saga that I think actually predates the published volumes This story was original published in the New Yorker taking up thentire issue it s of a novella than a short story But it was never published anywhere Oh My God, What a Complete Aisling else lapsed into obscurity and in the days before the internet unless you happened to find a copy of the New Yorker or get it on microfilm you were out of luck Apparently a university held the only copy of this story which could be read only in the building under strict supervision apparently to prevent copying Somehow it leaked out a pirated versionnded up on Monsieur Pain eBay and from there this story and many other unpublished Salinger works were in circulationUnfortunately this was a huge disappointment It takes the form of a letter purportedly written from summer camp by seven year old Seymour Glass to his parents The letter reads like it was written by a PhD candidate in literature at an Ivy League school It really stretches credibility thatven a seven year old genius could have written this and the reuest for scholarly books is uite ludicrous not to mention the huge SAT words liberally sprinkled around It really is a pretentious style of writing not very much like the published Glass works Parts of it are a bit creepy seven year old Seymour describing his mother s whom he calls by her first name saucy bosoms and fresh hinduarters lusting after a pregnant camp counselor and begging his father to share his masturbatory fantasies it s cringe worthy and all a bit much ven for a child genius To be honest I couldn t get through the whole thing as much as I tried It has none of the wit and humour of the published Glass stories I suppose Salinger refrained from publishing further partly so people like me wouldn t rip apart his work Nevertheless he did continue to write for the rest of his life and there s a whole set of unpublished short stories out there so maybe this one is just an xception Salinger at his most aimless and Sisyphean The xtraneous detail adds little to the glass family s literary identity other than stressing their precocious dexterity to unbelievable lengths The idea that a seven year old kid would write this letter home to his family from camp ruins the narrative before it can ven begin to develop out of its mbryonic state Further the writing is dilapidated and stale just steeped with unbelievable haughtiness Salinger has no focus here other than pushing forward with a strange age related symbiosis where a child can have the same wisdom and rudition of a middle aged man It s ironically a really unlearned and stupid interpretation of how children think and how they structure and link thoughts together So what could be at work here Could it be a case of Buddy Glass lying and not reproducing an Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. exact copy of the letter he introduces Could it therefore be a case of unreliable narrator given its tampered with content These interpretations make little sense given that Semour is part of a family which isndlessly praised for its wit and precocious knowledge in very other glass story Buddy doesn t seem to have a reason to alter or rewrite a letter in this fashion Could Buddy be writing a fictional text whereby he merely uses his brother s voice in his later years and sutures it to a younger self If so what again is the purpose It does se. This novella in letter form was first published in The New Yorker in 1965 An almost superhumanly. ,

Em odd that Seymour predicts that Buddy will write in the future and his observations indicating that Buddy was writing long and detailed short stories at the age of five and memorizing ntire books Could this be the mind of an gomaniac rewriting a family log to make himself and his brother better If so why did he reproduce the tale of his brother oddly committing suicide in a perfect day for bananafish where he comes across as a bizarre introvert who cannot connect in basic ways with anyone other than a child Is his connection with a child in that story reflected here symbolically in taking maybe a suicide note
and reworking it 
reworking it a child s voice I don t think so Salinger is totally aimless here and it I don t think so Salinger is totally aimless here and it no sense whatsoever Salinger was full of ndless praise for this story saying that it represented a high point in his oeuvre which doesn t bode well for his posthumous works at all if they actually unlock his magical volt which contains all of these supposed works This story got its fair share of criticism and it s supposedly this that turned Salinger in on himself Despite being a fan of his work generally this is really pathetic and the outrageous conduct he displayed when working with Orchises Press should be the subject of scorn for all readers This was published in The New Yorker in 1965 Incredibly I still had my copy from then okay I am something of a packrat and came across it when going through boxes I have failed to unpack in nine years of living in Longmont so I had to reread it It is another of the stories JD Salinger wrote about the Glass family Franny Zooey Seymour An Introduction Raise High the Roof Beam Carpenters and the chilling short story A Perfect Day for Bananafish and was never published outside of that New Yorker magazine a whole issue was almost Glitter Bomb (A Scrapbooking Mystery, entirely given over to it Hopefully now that Salinger has died it will be in print andasily accessible together with the other things Salinger has written since 1965 and never released It is now at least widely available on line for those who are not packrats of 50 years duration Can we really believe that an 8 year old could write such a thing in a letter to his family from summer camp Camp Hapworth which Il morto di Maigret explains the name of the novella Maybe someone as smart as Seymour No not really But it is worth reading if you know and admire the other books and the short story about the Glass children as I do I hope others are released while I am around to read them I am glad to have reread this after all this time Salinger s famously unrepublished Glass family novella Anxcellent account of this great publishing disaster recounted by the publisher can be found here It has a tendency to suddenly reappear on then disappear from the internet I myself got a copy in the most delightful black market fashion Having struck up a conversation with a customer about Salinger who had recently died and who I was rather publicly mourning with a pleasantly profitable front counter display we rolled around to the subject of this story and the customer s voice dropped his manner turning clandestine He admitted that he had a copy typed out for him by some kind soul from the original New Yorker publication would I like to read it Would I It was less than a week later slipped to me under plain manilla covers and I took it home feeling like some of the original readers of Lady Chatterley s Lover or of you know PornAnyway that was all uite fun But what of the story itselfSeriously I need help with this I love the Glass family stories so much as this bit of gushing illustrates but making this tale fit with the rest of the canon makes my head hurt My anonymous benefactor felt similarly when we met up again beneath a picturesue bridge or in a shadowy parking garage perhaps to discuss the work The story takes the form of a letter home from camp by a seven year old Seymour Glass the letter however comes to us introduced by Seymour s brother Buddy and like much of what we know of Seymour one must wonder how much of it is authentic and how much shaped by Buddy s hand In this particular case one is inclined to believe that the whole thing is fabricated as the letter seems impossibly and ven creepily precocious for someone of Seymour s purported age But if that is the case what is Buddy trying to convey what ghost is he trying to xorcise by portraying his brother and his family in this way Without a doubt Hapworth 16 1924 is by far the most mysterious and bizarre of the often mysterious and bizarre Glass family tales and it casts an odd light on the rest of the canon Data Data Data she cried I can t make bricks without clay Which I suppose is my way of saying it s been almost a year already Where s this vast store of Salinger s unpublished work that was supposed to appear following his death Stop tormenting me from beyond the grave JD It s just petty This novella is undeniably odd and probably only really worth reading for the real Salingerites out there The sense of unreality that hangs over it is pervasi. Precocious Seymour Glass age 7 writes home from camp describing his life and already showing si. Hapworth 16 1924