Trotz großem Faible für J.D. Salinger war ich nie ein großer Fan vom Fänger im Roggen. Vermutlich, weil es wahrscheinlich nichtmal ein echter Salinger ist. Vielmehr ist es der Roman einer seiner Figuren. So gibt es in der Geschichte “Seymour wird vorgestellt” einen Hinweis darauf, dass eigentlich Buddy Glass den Fänger geschrieben hat. Und genau wegen solcher Details und der Glass Familie liebe ich Salinger. Auch drei seiner “Neun Erzählungen” stammen eigentlich von Buddy.
Hier also ein Brief in dem Salinger erklärt warum er nicht möchte, dass sein Buch zu einem Theaterstück oder Film würde. Der Stream-Of-Consciousness lässt sich für ihn nur mit Aufwand übertragen und würde “pseudo-simulated” wirken. Auch ist er der Meinung, dass es keinen passenden jungen Darsteller für Holden Caulfield gäbe. Was zu der interessanten Frage fühlt, ob Ihr einen wüsstet? Ich glaube Paul Dano hätte das packen können. Der wäre meine erste Wahl. Eine Verfilmung brauche ich dennoch nicht.
“Dear Mr. Herbert,
I’ll try to tell you what my attitude is to the stage and screen rights of The Catcher in the Rye. I’ve sung this tune quite a few times, so if my heart doesn’t seem to be in it, try to be tolerant….Firstly, it is possible that one day the rights will be sold. Since there’s an ever-looming possibility that I won’t die rich, I toy very seriously with the idea of leaving the unsold rights to my wife and daughter as a kind of insurance policy. It pleasures me no end, though, I might quickly add, to know that I won’t have to see the results of the transaction. I keep saying this and nobody seems to agree, but The Catcher in the Rye is a very novelistic novel. There are readymade “scenes” – only a fool would deny that – but, for me, the weight of the book is in the narrator’s voice, the non-stop peculiarities of it, his personal, extremely discriminating attitude to his reader-listener, his asides about gasoline rainbows in street puddles, his philosophy or way of looking at cowhide suitcases and empty toothpaste cartons – in a word, his thoughts. He can’t legitimately be separated from his own first-person technique. True, if the separation is forcibly made, there is enough material left over for something called an Exciting (or maybe just Interesting) Evening in the Theater. But I fint that idea if not odious, at least odious enough to keep me from selling the rights. There are many of his thoughts, of course, that could be labored into dialogue – or into some sort of stream-of-consciousness loud-speaker device – but labored is exactly the right word. What he thinks and does so naturally in his solitude in the novel, on the stage could be at best only be pseudo-simulated, if there is such a word (and I hope not). Not to mention, God help us all, the immeasurably risky business of using actors. Have you ever seen a child actress sitting crosslegged on a bed and looking right? I’m sure not. And Holden Caulfield himself, in my undoubtedly super-biassed opinion, is essentialy unactable. A Sensitive, Intelligent, Talented Young Actor in a Reversible Coat wouldn’t be nearly enough. It would take someone with X to bring it off, and no very young man even if he has X quite knows what to do with it. And, I might add, I don’t think any director can tell him.
I’ll stop there. I’m afraid I can only tell you, to end with, that I feel very firm about all this, if you haven’t already guessed.
Thank you, though, for your friendly and highly readable letter. My mail from producers has mostly been hell.
J. D. Salinger”