The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Should authors privacy be respected?
salinger and pynchon are / were fascinatingly private. given they write novels rather than appear in movies or sing songs i think their privacy is their right. as much as i wish salinger had released more novels i'm happy with what he did release and i think it's great he managed to disappear into the backgroundwhat exactly is it you wanted from him beyond his books?
Demetrius wrote: "Sallinger could be a private person. He did step out to speak to the townspeople and such as a recent special showed. But he was photographed without permission, and criticized for being private...."
A writer has just as much right to privacy as anyone. If he she asks for privacy it is rude not to honor the request. And sometimes illegal.
Of course it was absolutely his right (or anyone's right) to be private. He came from a different era, one that did not involve the intrusions we have today.
Yes. Writers have the option of sharing their work with the world, the world has the option of buying their work. That's where the relationship should end unless both parties mutually agree otherwise, but unfortunately that's not the society we live in.
In the old days before the internet and camera phones, few people knew what any author looked like unless they were particularly active in pushing themselves in front of a camera. Authors were not regarded the same as pop, sport and film stars (except perhaps in France)and if you go on YouTube and compare the views for a Philip Roth interview vid with a Lady Gaga one you'll see it's not the case. Authors used to be able to let their books do all the talking for them.But now all authors are expected to promote themselves and it's very hard to maintain privacy. Even established authors with publishing deals are still expected to promote themselves, it's only the upper echelons of the Kings, Rowlings etc who have publicists doing it for them.
If an author credits they have something worthy of saying in a book that demands to be read by readers, then they kind of have to be prepared to back their work if readers challenge them on aspects of it they may not like. Is this the same as knowing what the author had for lunch that day? No, but there again today's author will probably tell you that anyway via social media...
Famous or not, everyone's privacy should be respected.
Privacy should be respected even more so if it is requested. I love that some stars, authors, famous people desire to be private. But choosing privacy allows a mystery to build, which makes people pry into their lives.
Inaya wrote: "Famous or not, everyone's privacy should be respected."I would argue that minor celebrities and TV reality 'stars' who court publicity without which no one would have heard of them, cannot turn round and complain when the Press dig up stuff on them they'd rather not appear. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Let's get back to when authors could just let their books do the talking for them.
Have I missed something? Is TMZ chasing after authors now? :}
I think authors have every right to their privacy if that is what they choose.
I vote with the majority. Yes! Privacy is for everyone.I'm "friends" with quite a few on Facebook. I may comment on a post; it's allowed... Now, I admit to not liking some of them, once I "meet" them ;)
But most are fine people!
If a famous person really wants privacy, there are ways to live to obtain that. For the most part anyway. Sadly, most of them live for the attention, wallow in it even.
IMO, any person who gained their fame in the entertainment field (acting, theater, authors, art, music) does owe the public something, whether it's a scheduled autography session, interviews, special appearances or what have you; because with the fans they would not have the recognition / fame. But - unless it's something they encourage or welcome, the public and the media should also respect requests for privacy.
The only people who are not entitled to privacy are elected officials. We give them power over us and we need to know to whom we're giving that power. Anyone else, we're just being nosey.
James wrote: "Unless there is evidence that a crime has been committed, everyone's privacy ought to be respected. What would you want?"Crimes are already public record by law, so we're good to go with that.
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes Craig. It's pure nosiness. Why do we care about the personal lives of the famous? It's NONE of our business. They owe the public nothing. If they choose to be open about that, fine. Otherwise i..."*Tips his hat* Cheers Jamie.
As a writer and one who wants privacy, I say yes we have a right to privacy. I want people to like or dislike my book for what I wrote not because of what I ate for lunch, or what school I went to, or whom I'm dating. Unfortunately, I hear more in the media about the author of a book than the book. Do I care if Salmon Rushdie was seen in a restaurant with his latest girlfriend? No, because that will not change his style of writing. Most literary writers are loners. Writing is a profession that requires one to be alone, ponder, meditate, research, and more. We cannot do that if we are being chased; if we cannot go out to have a quiet dinner or sit on a beach in solitude. Mae Sarton's Journal of a Solitude reveals the true life of a writer.
Elisabet, I think that was true of previous generations, but unfortunately not so now. The market has become flooded with titles of new books, so to try and get noticed authors shout and dance to attract attention to their books by promoting themselves as 'personalities' on social media. A Salman Rushdie may not need to do promotion off his own bat as his publishers will support him, but that is no longer true of mid-list authors with publishing deals, as their publishers simply don't have the budgets to do their marketing, concentrating only on the superstar authors they have. I also don't agree that writing is still a lonely act as not only does the writer have to reach out beyond their book to engage an audience, but also there is plenty of collaboration in this digital age as writers have websites and do videos that may well need technical help from others. I wish the book's words were allowed just to speak for themselves, but we've moved well beyond that
Yes. I write books myself. People may enjoy them - or not. It does not give them the right to invade my privacy.If an author makes a point of turning him/herself into a 'celebrity' that is perhaps another matter. But even then, it should be borne in mind that it is often the publisher and/or agent who is pushing for publicity, not necessarily the unfortunate scribbler.
How can we distinguish between reaching our for readers and inviting readers into details of our life? Would you not respond to readers who contact you via social media at any stage of them browsing your book, buying it, reading it and having finished it? I've had online conversations with readers at each and every one of these stages. I'm not sure if an author is saying that their books are worthy of being read, that they then also have the right to put up the shutters against any other sort of interaction.
E.D. wrote: "Have I missed something? Is TMZ chasing after authors now? :}"TMZ Literature, hahahaha...
Philip Roth interview on YouTube 8,000 viewsLady Gaga video on YouTube, 1 million subscribers, not even views, just subscribers...
Jamie Lynn wrote: "In Salinger's case a guy came to his house asking for personal advice about his life. Salinger told him he's not a therapist. I think interaction is a good thing if it's your choice and in the way ..."if I ever get to Salinger's level, then I'll have to weigh up the risks :-)
Jamie Lynn wrote: "I agree Elisabet. The writing should speak for itself."JD Salinger and Harper Lee would agree completely.
But the publishing world has changed dramatically, and, thanks to the Internet and self-publishing and waves of consolidation in traditional publishing, there is today a host of books competing for the public eye. Writers who are willing to suffer the indignities and cost of self-promotion have a large advantage. Self promotion can (and often does) involve letting people get to know you and what you stand for.
The more open (and honest) you are, the better your chance of building a following, a reading audience.
No one's beating you over the head to be "out there." But no one will beat a path to your door either, unless you are already established.
To get read by a mainstream publisher unknown authors must have an agent. Agents look for an established marketing platform, which includes an "interesting" biographical sketch. (You will also need this to self-publish.)
Being interesting often means taking a stand on controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, religion, divorce, gay rights. Depending on how respectfully you express yourself on these issues, even if they don't agree with you, they will buy your book because they KNOW YOU.
There may be exceptions these guidelines, but I've yet to hear of an notable one.
It is a matter of how many books you want to sell.
What's the point of writing if you you aren't being read?
The writing DOES speak for itself! Period. Yeah yeah, we are in an age of digital clutter-f*ck. So what? Give me a good book any day over some goofy e-info. (just my humble opinion)
James wrote: "Unless there is evidence that a crime has been committed, everyone's privacy ought to be respected. What would you want?"Here, here!
Richard wrote: "salinger and pynchon are / were fascinatingly private. given they write novels rather than appear in movies or sing songs i think their privacy is their right. as much as i wish salinger had releas..."I agree. Their writing should honored as enough. It's not like Salinger's face was on the big screen or he was writing columns for a big newspaper. He wrote stories and that's all he cared about. Leave the guy alone.
Did you know, starting in 2015, Salinger's unpublished work is being published? A book a year until 2020; everything he wrote while in recluse all those years. I can't wait! Watch the documentary SALINGER.
It's a must watch for any Salinger fan.
Andrew J. Frischerz
Author of PACIFIC BEACH
andrewjfrischerz.com
Jamie Lynn wrote: "I think everyone deserves their privacy. I couldn't stand to live in the spotlight. There are famous people who hang out in the right places to attract attention. I think those who don't want to be..."I feel the problem lies with society's obsession with "fame." People are obsessed with the ones they admire. You would think we would idolize scientists who are attempting to cure diseases or philanthropists who fight poverty, but we love people on screen or authors of our favorite books. Society shouldn't care what an author looks like or where he lives.
I think if you put your stories and/or opinions out there, you should expect some sort of "curiosity" into your world. It's is human nature to want to know everything about your favorite author. I feel it is about the writing and the writing should be enough, but I understand the readers curiosity. Authors should know what they are getting into and welcome the attention. It means they did a great job. But, for the record, I'd hate the attention. We all deserve privacy.
Andrew J. Frischerz
Author of PACIFIC BEACH
andrewjfrischerz.com
I agree with Sallinger with wanting his readers to know him through his writing rather than his private life. I don't understand why society as a rule must know the details of a celebrities' private life. At the same time, I think that an author has more privacy than a movie actress/actor for example.
Nonsensical wrote: "I agree with Sallinger with wanting his readers to know him through his writing rather than his private life. I don't understand why society as a rule must know the details of a celebrities' privat..."An author definitely has more privacy because they are not seen on screen and in magazines. I think everyone deserves privacy but there will always be an interest in public figures, whether they are actors, authors, or even politicians. With that interest comes an invasion of privacy. Even myself, who despises this obsession with the famous, will research and watch documentaries of those I am interested in. It's just human nature.
But I agree, I don't get it.
I understand that society has moved into a direction where a writer must sell him or herself to the public. It was not a move in the right direction. I can name thousands of books that are so poorly written that have stayed on best seller list simply because of the promotion of the author. We have moved away from what is fine literature to what personal actions of an author attracts attention. Our society is to be pitied.
Elisabet wrote: "I understand that society has moved into a direction where a writer must sell him or herself to the public. It was not a move in the right direction. I can name thousands of books that are so poorl..."Agreed! SO... let's change this concept, definitely!
I am only reading books that are GOOD, not books that are sensational, with an author having a tabloid sensational life :)
I would like to believe an author, either a really famous one or someone with a minor celebrity status, would be allowed to have privacy if they requested it. I really hope society can become less obsessed with the lives of celebrities. I tire of seeing people with no real contribution to society being featured on the pages of magazines.
And like some people on here, I also just don't get it.
In the past few years my mother's words have resounded in my mind. She said, "the masses are as******." The words are unfortunately true. Reality TV is an example, the obsession with celebrities is another, add to those, the decline in standards in what is literature, the decline in standards in schools. We can all add to the list. I thought of this as I wrote my book and decided to be true to me. People said that Oprah would love my book and when asked if given the chance to go on her show would I. No, I would not. It would be the lost of my privacy, which us valuable to me. So I see the problem as this, does the writer want to be in the limelight with money as a goal or do you want to gradually find your audience using tools that allow you to have privacy. For me, I take option 2. I write because I love to write, was first published at 7 years old, then 14, and recently released a book. I do not write to gain riches and I believe Salinger felt the same way.
Salinger wanted his writing to be famous/world known or whatever. He himself did not necessarily want to become famous, you know?
so if an important critic wanted to discuss the merits and demerits of your book, we wouldn't put in a public appearance to debate that?
Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes. He wanted to live his life without anyone bothering him."and yet he put his work out there into the public domain
Marc wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes. He wanted to live his life without anyone bothering him."and yet he put his work out there into the public domain"
You put your opinion out in the public domain Marc. Does that mean I'm entitled to know everything you? That you are obligated to expose ever bit of yourself to me and all others merely because you put yourself out in the public domain?
Craig wrote: "Marc wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes. He wanted to live his life without anyone bothering him."and yet he put his work out there into the public domain"
You put your opinion out in the public dom..."
No, but Salinger was the opposite extreme, he took great measures to cut himself off from everybody.
I would always stand up and respond to anyone who wanted to take issue with my work which can be on controversial themes. That could easily slide over into them drawing inferences from my personal life. So be it.
Marc wrote: "Craig wrote: "Marc wrote: "Jamie Lynn wrote: "Yes. He wanted to live his life without anyone bothering him."and yet he put his work out there into the public domain"
You put your opinion out in ..."
But that's your choice. Not everyone is obligated to make the same choice. And if you were ever famous, somehow, I think after an extended period of constantly having people invade your privacy, you'd probably change your mind.
well it's unlikely ever to be put to the test! :-)I think, like it or not, in this day and age when writers are charged with doing their own promotion, we can't have it both ways. I respect Elizabet who I think is saying she'd rather not have mass sales if it meant an invasion of her privacy. But for us to expect to have people read our books, we have to offer up a little bit of ourselves, especially if it is that same self who is pushing those books out there trying to land readers.
Salinger and I disagree. Ibid.
Elisabet wrote: "In the past few years my mother's words have resounded in my mind. She said, "the masses are as******." The words are unfortunately true. Reality TV is an example, the obsession with celebrities is..."Very well put Elisabet. You are writing for the right reason and I commend you.
I think (especially today), it is virtually impossible to avoid the press/media if you became famous. But I think authors should be given the privacy that they ask for. If you're a movie star, obviously you're signing up to have ure face on billboards, etc. But if you're a writer...you're a WRITER. If Salinger wanted privacy, I think he should have gotten it. But I do think it's pretty unrealistic nowadays, unavoidable with the kinda media we have today.
Jennifer wrote: "I think (especially today), it is virtually impossible to avoid the press/media if you became famous. But I think authors should be given the privacy that they ask for. If you're a movie star, obvi..."I think if you decide to put yourself ou there, you should expect the invasion of your privacy. But I agree, if you're a writer...you're a writer. Read the words and let the rest be.
Andrew wrote: I think if you decide to put yourself ou there, you should expect the invasion of your privacy. If I put myself out there to publicize my books, I should not expect to relinquish my privacy. I am selling a book, not me. It is with mixed thoughts I have agreed to do 2 interviews on television, 2 readings in book stores, and a blog interview. I am controlling what will be asked, nonetheless, I do not fear walking out (actually that might make me a target) should the interviewers cross my line. Must give that thought. At any rate, while I want people to read my book because it is a journey through self-revelation and discovery. I cannot think of another author that has addressed my topics and the story has already proven to be life changing, however, my aim is to help others, not ruin my life.
Elisabet wrote: "Andrew wrote: I think if you decide to put yourself ou there, you should expect the invasion of your privacy. If I put myself out there to publicize my books, I should not expect to relinquish m..."
Fair enough! I like what you're talking about. All that I was saying was that, if your book became very successful, you should expect people to be interested in your life and therefore your privacy would somehow be invaded. I understand that it is sad that this is the case and of course you could do things like you mention to save your privacy the best you can. All I am saying, is that it should be expected.
Your book sound interesting, I will check it out!
Andrew J. Frischerz
Author of PACIFIC BEACH
andrewjfrischerz.com
Thank you, Andrew. I understand what you say, however, I just cannot, I refuse to, accept that this is something I should expect or have to live with because society has sunk so low. Hopefully after these interviews I will not have to swap my apartment for a hermitage :-)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
He said he wanted readers to get to know him through his writing and not talking about himself. Is this enough?
Shouldn't we respect his privacy, or do famous people automatically give it up as some say?