Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover.
|Published (Last):||19 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||19.72 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Hapworth 16, by J.
Hapworth 16, by J. This novella in letter form was first published in The New Yorker in An almost superhumanly precocious Seymour Glass, age 7, writes home from camp, describing his life and already showing signs of being the sensitive outsider trapped in a world that can have no comprehension of who he is.
Get A Copy. Published first published June 19th More Details Original Title. Other Editions 5. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Hapworth 16, , please sign up. So can I read this book via goodreads website, and if so, how?
See 1 question about Hapworth 16, …. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Hapworth 16, Aug 26, Katie rated it really liked it Shelves: read-in , new-in This novella is undeniably odd and probably only really worth reading for the real Salingerites? The sense of unreality that hangs over it is more pervasive than in the other Glass family works; the others you might doubt, but probably won't disbelieve.
All the same, it was fun for me, in the middle of a necessary Salinger-fest, and it does give great insight into the person of Seymour; he shapes so much of the family's later actions but the reader knows him personally almost not a This novella is undeniably odd and probably only really worth reading for the real Salingerites? All the same, it was fun for me, in the middle of a necessary Salinger-fest, and it does give great insight into the person of Seymour; he shapes so much of the family's later actions but the reader knows him personally almost not at all.
After reading this, it makes sense that the loss of him sets adrift the remainder of his siblings and that they sort of go down like dominoes. So, if you're a great lover of the Glass family cycle and haven't read it yet, by all means.
Sep 09, Diana Gangan rated it it was amazing Shelves: fiction. I feel deeply moved by reading this book and even though the main concern of everyone in here is either can or cannot the young prodigious Seymour Glass be the author of this touching, intimate, spiritual letter, I don't consider this matter to be relevant at all.
If Salinger considered the matter of credibility important, he would easily attributed this letter to an older alter-ego of Seymour but regardless of everything, he didn't. This too, has a meaning.
It testifies our ability to transcend I feel deeply moved by reading this book and even though the main concern of everyone in here is either can or cannot the young prodigious Seymour Glass be the author of this touching, intimate, spiritual letter, I don't consider this matter to be relevant at all.
It testifies our ability to transcend the innate inclination to judge things based solely on the dictates of so called teluric reason.
Secondly, the situation itself may drop a glimpse of light on the future suicide attempted by the author of this intricate letter, showing that the impossible sense of 'fulness' that he achieved can be unbearable or! Thirdly, it's hardly even a bit important to think about Seymour as a 7 years old boy, this being accentuated by him repetitively making reference to his age as something that must impose some restrictions on him but it, evidently and ironically, doesn't.
Therefore, don't perceive the author of this letter as being embodied. Seymour is merely a person, he is a ghost. This letter seems to give a lot of speculations towards the way he is still haunting the Glass family after his death as he did when being alive. I may approve the fact that this review doesn't make a lot of sense.
But this wasn't the purpose of it, anyway. Jul 09, Michael Palkowski rated it did not like it. Salinger at his most aimless and Sisyphean. The extraneous detail adds little to the glass family's literary identity other than stressing their precocious dexterity to unbelievable lengths. The idea that a seven year old kid would write this letter home to his family from camp ruins the narrative before it can even begin to develop out of its embryonic state.
Furthermore, the writing is dilapidated and stale; just steeped with unbelievable haughtiness. Salinger has no focus here, other than pus Salinger at his most aimless and Sisyphean. Salinger has no focus here, other than pushing forward with a strange age related symbiosis, where a child can have the same wisdom and erudition of a middle aged man. It's ironically a really unlearned and stupid interpretation of how children think and how they structure and link thoughts together.
So, what could be at work here? Could it be a case of Buddy Glass lying and not reproducing an exact copy of the letter he introduces? Could it therefore be a case of unreliable narrator, given its tampered with content? These interpretations make little sense given that Semour is part of a family which is endlessly praised for its wit and precocious knowledge in every other glass story. Buddy doesn't seem to have a reason to alter or rewrite a letter in this fashion.
Could Buddy be writing a fictional text, whereby he merely uses his brother's voice in his later years and sutures it to a younger self? If so, what again is the purpose? It does seem odd that Seymour "predicts" that Buddy will write in the future and his observations indicating that Buddy was writing long and detailed short stories at the age of five and memorizing entire books.
Could this be the mind of an egomaniac, rewriting a family log to make himself and his brother better? If so, why did he reproduce the tale of his brother oddly committing suicide in a perfect day for bananafish? Is his connection with a child in that story reflected here symbolically in taking maybe a suicide note and reworking it into a child's voice?
I don't think so. Salinger is totally aimless here and it makes no sense whatsoever. Salinger was full of endless praise for this story, saying that it represented a high point in his oeuvre, which doesn't bode well for his posthumous works at all if they actually unlock his magical volt which contains all of these supposed works This story got its fair share of criticism and it's supposedly this that turned Salinger in on himself.
Despite being a fan of his work generally, this is really pathetic and the outrageous conduct he displayed when working with Orchises Press should be the subject of scorn for all readers. Nov 30, Samantha rated it it was amazing. I first read this in an anthology of Salinger's work while doing research for a term paper on the Glass family. In , a small publishing house in Virginia announced that it would reprint "Hapworth" but shortly before the books were to be shipped, Salinger changed his mi I first read this in an anthology of Salinger's work while doing research for a term paper on the Glass family.
In , a small publishing house in Virginia announced that it would reprint "Hapworth" but shortly before the books were to be shipped, Salinger changed his mind, and the work was withdrawn. It is scheduled to be published, finally, on January 1, , which will be J.
I recommend to anyone who likes post-modern lit. This was published in The New Yorker in Incredibly, I still had my copy from then okay, I am something of a packrat and came across it when going through boxes I have failed to unpack in nine years of living in Longmont, so I had to reread it. It is another of the stories J. Hopefully, now that Salinger has died, it will be in print and easily accessible, together with the other things Salinger has written since and never released.
Can we really believe that an 8 year old could write such a thing in a letter to his family from summer camp, Camp Hapworth, which explains the name of the novella? Maybe someone as smart as Seymour? No, not really. But it is worth reading if you know and admire the other books and the short story about the Glass children, as I do.
I hope others are released while I am around to read them. I am glad to have reread this after all this time.
View 1 comment. Jan 15, Mike Mavilia Rochester rated it really liked it. Hapworth is like an unpolished gem. Most people will stumble over it countless times, never giving it a second glance. But eventually someone sees its potential, picks it up, takes it home, and with the utmost care, begins the painstaking process of cleaning, polishing and sculpting it until its beauty shines brightly.
At face value, there isn't much to see in Hapworth. Its reward lies in understanding its function.
Readers Guide – “Hapworth 16, 1924”
Salinger published in his lifetime. It appeared in the June 19, , edition of The New Yorker , infamously taking up almost the entire magazine. It is the "youngest" of Salinger's Glass family stories, in the sense that the narrated events happen chronologically before those in the rest of the series. Both contemporary and later literary critics harshly panned "Hapworth 16, "; writing in The New York Times , Michiko Kakutani called it "a sour, implausible and, sad to say, completely charmless story
Hapworth 16, 1924
SOME comment in advance, as plain and bare as I can make it: My name, first, is Buddy Glass, and for a good many years of my life— very possibly, all forty-six—I have felt myself installed, elaborately wired, and, occasionally, plugged in, for the purpose of shedding some light on the short, reticulate life and times of my late, eldest brother, Seymour Glass, who died, committed suicide, opted to discontinue living, back in , when he was thirty-one. My mother, Bessie Glass, sent it up by registered mail. This is Friday. Last Wednesday night, over the phone, I happened to tell Bessie that I had been working for several months on a long short story about a particular party, a very consequential party, that she and Seymour and my father and I all went to one night in This last fact has some small but, I think, rather marvellous relevance to the letter at hand. No further comment, except to repeat that I mean to type up an exact copy of the letter, word for word, comma for comma. Beginning here.
Hapworth Revisited: On J.D. Salinger’s Most Inscrutable Short Story
So, at long last, we have news that the famously reclusive J. Salinger is bringing out another book, not a new story, but one called ''Hapworth 16, ,'' which appeared in The New Yorker in the 's. Read in retrospect, that story continues -- perhaps even completes -- the saga of the Glass family, that band of precocious, high-strung whiz kids who have captivated Salinger fans for four decades. It also stands as a logical, if disappointing, culmination of Mr.
From Salinger, A New Dash Of Mystery
Buddy Glass, age 46 transcribes a letter written by his older brother Seymour at the age of seven, when both boys were attending summer camp at Camp Simon Hapworth. Seymour provides an emotional account of their time at Camp Hapworth interspersed with condescending advice to his family and rants on religion and literature in nearly 30, words. When J. It seemed to confirm the growing critical consensus that Salinger was going to hell in a hand basket. After six years of painful, reclusive silence, Author J. Salinger, 46, has produced another story. Published in The New Yorker, the note is introduced briefly by Family Historian Buddy Glass, who for years has been garrulously obsessed by the memory of his suicide brother.