Leave the Money on the Table

The only way Meghan Daum could miss the point more is if she was Shaquille O'Neal at the free throw line.

I don't often start out these things with personal attacks, but sometimes I read something to inane and so wrong, I feel compelled, by volume and depth of my vitriol to respond. Today's case is Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum, writing about J.D. Salinger's attempts to block the U.S. publishing of an unauthorized sequel to Catcher in the Rye by a European resident called J.D. California via a lawsuit.

She sees this as "delusional", "over-protective" and "paranoid". I view it as "protecting one's intellectual property" and "not wanting shitty fan-fiction from the author of The Macho Man's (Bad) Joke Book and The 100 Best and Absolute Greatest Heavy Metal Bands in the World pubished".

She also calls J.D. Salinger "mercurial" and she might be right, but this isn't evidence of it. He's refused derivations (of all forms) of his books, including when the BBC wanted to do a stage adaptation, when Hollywood and everyone else came calling, so as the owner of the intellectual property that is Holden Caufield, it's not mercurial in the least for him to say no to someone else, who does not appear to be a serious author, using his character and the world that character inhaibts to tell a story.

Ms. Daum is correct in pointing out that Mr. California's book isn't going to do a lot of damage, but the point is that Mr. California never had and never will have the permission to write anything in the Catcher in the Rye universe or using the Catcher in the Rye characters and my guess is Mr. Salinger wants to assert that right while he's still alive. The point is not that "people wouldn't have heard of J.D. California's book before Salinger's lawsuit" but that J.D. California doesn't have the right to use the characters and make money off of them. The point is that, yes, it is easier to acquiese, but Salinger doesn't have to and he's within his bounds legally and morally to say no to an adaptation or an offer to flesh out the universe he has keys to.

Most striking, however, is that Ms. Daum returns to talking about Salinger's refusal to play along in terms of public relations, that it's bad, vaguely, for his image and she's right, but what she doesn't recognize is that Salinger doesn't care. He doesn't want the fame. He doesn't want the money. He doesn't want the attention. My guess is that it's baffling to a person who works in Los Angeles, a place where the economy and culture are based on fame, money and attention that someone would refuse the offer for more.

It seems like Daum doesn't understand that just because it's easier doesn't mean one ought to go along with it. Yes, Salinger is standing on principle here, but more than that, Salinger wants to choose how to define his universe, which is incredibly restricting, but the point, I believe, Salinger is making is that his works aren't for anyone else's to play with and it's not up for sale or discussion.

Salinger doesn't want reporters at his house. He doesn't want interviews. He doesn't want to play the game, so he dropped out of it when he wanted to, on his terms. It's odd, certainly and it's not what a lot of other authors do, but that doesn't make him paranoid, delusional or mercurial.

It makes him different. No wonder Meghan Daum doesn't get it.