Who owns Holden Caulfield?
J.D. Salinger, who perfectly captured the theme of teenage, preppy, male angst in The Catcher in the Rye, is suing to halt the publication of a "sequel" by another author.
The new book, 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye by J.D. California, picks up Holden Caulfield's story decades later. It is already available in the UK and is due to be published in the US in the autumn, according to The Times of London. But Salinger's lawsuit in federal court in New York, says that he has exclusive rights to a sequel and the Caulfield character (who in the new book is called only Mr. C). It calls the sequel "a ripoff, pure and simple," according to AP.
So who owns Caulfield -- or Elizabeth Bennet or Ishmael? That's an interesting question, particularly in light of the recent hit Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which has triggered a rush of like-minded supernatural sequels to literary masterpieces. Whenever a book, movie or TV show becomes a hit, our entertainment culture tries to stretch that success with sequels and spinoffs -- until it snaps. (Rocky XX, anyone?)
At last week's Book Expo America, Perseus allowed anyone to submit first sentences to imagined sequels, and published them as a collection. (One example: "How 'bout them apples?" the Tree cried triumphantly, throwing the Boy off her stump. — From The Giving Tree Benefits from a Self-Esteem Workshop, a sequel to Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree. That was a good-natured stunt to show the power and immediacy of crowd-sourcing. But it also highlights the potential dangers of a world where information can be shared and spread at light-speed. I doubt the courts are fast enough to provide a real remedy.
The U.S. courts will provide a legal answer to the Catcher sequel issue. But I think there should be a separate, socially based response from readers: Ignore the new book.
The Times article noted that Salinger, a 90-year-old recluse, has resorted to the courts before to protect his literary rights. In 1982 he sued a man who allegedly tried to sell a fictitious interview with the author to a national magazine; the supposed interviewer agreed to desist and Salinger dropped the suit. Five years later, another legal action resulted in an important decision by the US Supreme Court, when it refused to allow publication of an unauthorised biography that quoted from Salinger's unpublished letters. Salinger had copyrighted the letters when he learned about Ian Hamilton’s book, which came out in a revised edition the following year.








Comments
I totally agree that readers should boycott this new book. It is a disgusting affront to a revered writer who seeks privacy. But you know what? I think the book should also be boycotted by all media outlets. If this author gets no radio/TV interviews, newspaper reviews and profiles, write-ups on blogs, etc., maybe he'll just go away. Too bad he didn't leave yesterday or the day before.
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | June 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Not to mention that people have been misunderstanding "The Catcher in the Rye" for nearly 60 years. See here:
Posted by: Mike | June 24, 2009 3:16 PM