Apart from the choice of font for the text being terrible, it's not a bad biography.

Paul sets out to give a basic outline of the man so many are obsessed with. He does it well.

I'd watched the 2013 documentary before starting this. Reading it was more or less just watching that documentary again. I think if I hadn't gone of to read Shields and Salerno's 2013 effort, I would have liked this more.

I feel guilty having read this book. Salinger was a fierce recluse and a window into his life feels wrong. The author states things Salinger hated, then did the opposite. Salinger didn't want his picture on covers- this book has two! Salinger lived purposely in a secluded home, the author gives directions to that home. Salinger sued a man for trying to publish a biography- this guy does it. I'm interested jn Salinger like everyone else, but he wanted to remain a mystery. We should let him.

Far be it for me to presume to be a worthy critic of biographies, but I really liked this one. I get that it may not have been very "academic," but it was interesting and entertaining. Alexander seems to imply that Salinger's reclusive nature is all just a well-crafted publicity stunt, but I tend to disagree. After learning what he went through in WWII, he kind of makes more sense to me now. Although the fascination with younger women is well documented, and pretty creepy.

Anyway, the book definitely got me interested in reading Salinger's other books, which are really just short story collections. I'm even considering re-reading CATCHER to see if I can have a better opinion of it the second time around.

really bad book. bad writer, i don't know how anybody can make salinger uninteresting, but this guy did.

i share the feelings that many reviewers here have. If you're looking for a summary on Salingers life, read this. If you're looking for answers, keep looking.

Много удивительного поняла про Сэлинджера, хотя с трактовками рассказов все равно не согласна. Открытые финалы на то и открытые, что нельзя к ним написать методичку о том, что имел в виду автор, или "на самом деле было так". А линия маленьких девочек в жизни и в текстах это конечно миту до эпохи миту.

To write a biography about a famous recluse would be a challenge, and this book, published in 1999, was released about a decade before the eccentric author's death. Many of the people who had been involved with Salinger during his writing career were deceased by the time Alexander penned his biography, and thanks to a court case related to a previously written unpublished Salinger biography, Alexander was unable to recreate any of the archived Salinger-penned letters and correspondence to any degree. Nor were any of Salinger's vast collection of short fiction produced, no doubt to avoid the wrath of the (then) still-living Salinger. So that could make the biography go one of two ways: you've either read Salinger's work and the biography adds to the mystery or you know nothing about him and this book does nothing for you.

Because Alexander was limited to access to Salinger, he was limited to guess at Salinger's psychology or motivations. Salinger was an enigma: he was most likely traumatized by experiences in the Second World War, making him worthy of our sympathy. But then again, Salinger was most likely a ephebophile, stealing the innocence of countless young girls.

Yet this book is an ultimately interesting read on a literary giant who will most likely remain the enigma in death that he was in life.

As an afterthought, it's too bad this book wasn't better copy edited. If a publishing house releases a biography on a well-known author, they have an obligation to make sure the book follows good grammar and punctuation. Just saying.

واقعیت اینه که پنج دادن به یه زندگینامه‌ی معمولی عجیبه یکم.ولی خب این یه زندگینامه‌ی معمولی نیست.زندگینامه‌ی جناب سلینجره و برای من همین کافیه که بهش پنج بدم(اگه زندگینامه‌ی هر کس دیگه‌ای بود ۳ یا حتا ۲ میدادم،مهمه اصلا؟)

Wat een droefenis dat de biograaf van zo'n briljant stilist als Salinger zelf zo middelmatig schrijft! Het boek leest stroef en hangt aan elkaar van platitudes en banaliteiten. Kleine illustratie: “Perhaps because he was trying to make a new life for himself, Salinger did things he had never done before” (p. 114). Dat is al vrij onvergeeflijk, maar als de inhoud ook nog eens niet meer is dan een veredelde Wikipedia-pagina, blijft er weinig over. Iets over de oorlog, iets over zijn obsessie met jonge meisjes, iets over zijn tanende vertrouwen in uitgevers. Pluspunt is dat Alexander Salingers zelfgekozen kluizenaarsbestaan respecteert en niet tot het uiterste gaat om privégeheimen voor het voetlicht te brengen. Maar je kunt je afvragen of het wel zin heeft om een biografie over iemand te schrijven zonder dichter tot je onderwerp te willen komen, want op deze manier blijft het bij een verzameling makkelijk na te trekken feitjes en een flinke dosis huis-tuin-en-keukenpsychologie. Alexander wekt Salinger niet tot leven, maar slaagt er juist in hem af te schilderen als een van de saaiste figuren uit de recente literaire geschiedenis.

The author spends a whole page in the second chapter explaining to the reader that sometimes, a writer's actual life creeps into his work. Ummm... yeah. Pretty sure we all know that. And it doesn't get better from there. While there were some interesting facts, I wish I had gone online to find them instead of having to put up with this writing style.

Man Salinger was a turd lol

Well researched but poorly written, this biography had the unfortunate effect of putting me off Salinger, one of my early literary heroes, for good. If Paul Alexander feels any sympathy or admiration for his subject, it does not come across in this pedestrian effort.