The Censored Man Becomes the Censor: How J.D. Salinger is Silencing Creativity

Date: July 07, 2009; Discussion: 0 Comments

Salinger and Colting Book Covers Just a couple of weeks after I happily posted about Through the Clock’s Workings, there is rather unfortunate news for remix culture. Swedish author Fredrik Colting, who used the pen name John David California for his book 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, has had his book, which was set to be published in the U.S. this September (it is published in Britain), indefinitely banned, thanks to The Catcher in the Rye author J.D. Salinger‘s copyright infringement lawsuit against him. Today, Manhattan judge Deborah A. Batts ruled in favor of Salinger. Book-banning is bad enough, but I think the concept of Colting’s book as an infringement needs to be seriously debated.

Colting’s book is a continuation of Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye character, Holden Caulfield. The book follows Caulfield, now a 76-year-old man, as he leaves his nursing home and goes about the streets of New York City. According to My Media Musings, while the book does clearly inherit ideas and the Caulfield character from the original, “there is nothing in the new work that is a direct quote or paraphrase from the original.”

With no direct quoting or paraphrasing from the original, I think one would be hard-pressed to rule this as a case of theft, so did Colting attempt to suggest that The Catcher in the Rye was his book? With a title like 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye and a different author name, I think it’s clear that this would be seen by most all readers as a separate publication.

What I don’t suspect 90-year-old Salinger understands at all is that an off-shoot book, regardless of its quality, could very well renew interest in his original book, thus increasing sales. Remixes always have a way of leading back to “originals.” For now, though, neither Americans nor Salinger will know what would happen in such a case, because very ironically a man whose book was censored so many times in the past has now essentially censored another man’s work.

In the New York Times article concerning this case, I found quite a few unnerving comments from users that I thought should be shared.

“I am very proud of this desicion. JD Salinger has lived a life of dignity and class, And a droopy eyed punk tried to come along and make a mockery of everything Mr. Salinger has stood for…” —Charles C

“I’m so pleased, that novel sounds awful. How could you take Holden and just re-imagine him….” —Nada

“I’m happy with the Judge’s decision. I read the book recently for the first time. I’m afraid that reading a version where Holden has aged would ruin the story in my mind.” —EMME

“Good Job. This is exactly why copyright laws were written. Modern society needs to realize that everything is not free just because they want it to be…” —Brian

“While I love it when someone like Tom Stoppard takes from Shakespeare and makes of it a play like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Shakespeare didn’t copyright his work (as far as I know). Salinger’s intentions here are clear. He’s fiercely protective of his work.”—Hillary F.

“And what, might I ask, is wrong with eternal copyright…does a work become less the author’s with the passage of time? Why should it become available to any hamhock of a writer because it’s been around for a specific number of years? ...As a writer, I send bravas to this Judge and am grateful to read the words of such a literate arbiter of the copyright law. Anyone who has ever had his or her work ‘lifted’ - and I have - embraces copyright law to the max. Go write your own stories, find your own material, get some gumption, for God’s sake.” —Doc

“Right on, Mr. Salinger! Congratulations. As an artist, no, it isn’t always a matter of artists agreeably drawing inspiration from each other, and everyone all gooey having a movement. Generally most creative and original artists keep their studio doors closed. You the general public, along with other artists, are seeing the work for the first time when it is being exhibited for the first time. Generally speaking, exhibitions, publishing, etc., are the only real protection artists have, from other lesser artists with wanton ethics.

“Mr. Colting, like so many younger artists, and “artists” who don’t have their own ideas, lift key elements and then make a name and a living for themselves, off of someone else’s creative back, rarely if ever giving credit where credit is due, such is the neurotic need for attention and adulation. This form of plagiarism is rampant in todays arts.

“Mr. Colting seems to be simply riding the coat tails of Mr. Salinger, however ‘creatively’. And those of you who don’t agree, aren’t likely artists either.

I’m with Salinger!” —Reid

“The fact that this garbage of a case can be appealed is the real travesty.” —Peter

It is a truly sinister thing at work when illogical, emotive reasons like those above make people believe that censorship is all right. I suppose some of these thoughts are to be expected, considering we live in a society where copyright lasts 100+ years. It’s worth noting that Salinger’s book was published in 1951, 58 years ago. Had he published it 28 years earlier, we’d have declared it part of the public domain, due to ever-arbitrary U.S. copyright laws. I personally think we need to ask whether creators should be able to stifle the off-shoot creations from their work, for all their days. What might this be doing to creativity?

Though I am not a fan of The Catcher in the Rye, and am actually not interested in reading this sequel text, I am very thankful on principle that Colting will be appealing. And, unlike the commenter Peter, I’m glad he has the right to do so.

This blog entry is under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial No Derivatives license. For more information about the terms of reusing this entry, see here.