When a body catch a body
My post yesterday mentioned my love for my Google Reader, but I didn’t mention that I have been avoiding a particular folder in my Reader for the last two weeks or so. I haven’t been ready to read through all my Books feeds just because I know there will be a bucketload of postings in response to the passing of J.D. Salinger. I’ll admit: I was one of those kids who loved Catcher in the Rye. It was my favorite book for a long time after I first read it, in seventh grade. I used to read it at least once a year, although it has been at least five since I last picked it up. (More recently, I also love Frank Portman’s book King Dork, which laments Catcher’s role in the development of angsty, pretentious teenagers.)
I still have a lot of feelings and thoughts to sort out about Salinger, and I think I’ll probably pick up Catcher again sometime soon. However, his passing has raised some interest in certain archival issues. This brief article from the New York Times article has the provocative teaser “J.D. Salinger’s death could be archivist’s trove” but it at least raises some important questions. Salinger was famously private and effectively squelched attempts at biography, including a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. (This hinged on the “fair use” of Salinger’s unpublished letters by biographer Ian Hamilton. Quick note being: the copyright of correspondence belongs to the writer, even if the ownership of the physical object belongs to the receiver.) The NYT piece speaks with “veteran archivist” Stephen Ennis from Emory University about the possibility that Salinger’s personal papers will appear.
I groaned a few times while reading this article, because it certainly reinforces some misconceptions:
a) Archivists are vultures, waiting to swoop in and take records wherever we can. This always creeps me out, although perhaps it is sort of true in the cutthroat world of literary papers. All your fonds are belong to us!
b) Archivists = librarians. To quote the article, Archivists don’t usually enjoy public acclaim, but they are indispensable to anyone who delves into the lives of the great, the near-great and the not-so-great. Librarians “know how to keep the goods,” said Nancy Milford, the discussion’s moderator. Sigh. Another lost opportunity for distinguishing between two intertwined but separate professions.
c) Digital is forever.While it is true that many writers have purposefully destroyed their paper documents, it is completely misleading to imply that email is a more permanent medium. You don’t have to burn email to get rid of it. I would love to see more media representation of the contradictions of digital preservation, the complexity of how fragile digital objects are, even while they are easily replicated and distributed. Is that so much to ask?
Nonetheless, it’s always good to see archives mentioned in a major publication, especially associated with a famous person. It would be delightful if a collection of Salinger’s records appeared. Let’s hope they end up in a public institution, though, rather than getting snatched up by a private collector.
As a related note, I’ve been meaning to pick up Laura Millar’s new book, The Story Behind the Book: Preserving Author’s and Publisher’s Archives. Has anyone checked it out yet?
