Thus Spake Judge Batts
I haven’t had a chance to read the whole 37-page ruling on the Salinger lawsuit yet (will link to it once it’s available online), but here are a couple of nuggets from Judge Deborah Batts, via City Room:
On the “parody” defense:
“To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody.“
On the “criticism” defense:
“In fact, it can be argued that the contrast between Holden’s authentic but critical and rebellious nature and his tendency toward depressive alienation is one of the key themes of Catcher. That many readers and critics have apparently idolized Caulfield for the former, despite — or perhaps because of — the latter, does not change the fact that those elements were already apparent in Catcher.
It is hardly parodic to repeat that same exercise in contrast, just because society and the characters have aged.”
So where does it go from here?
Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said.
However:
While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years.
By then, even fewer people will give a shit about reading it than is even the case now. Your fifteen minutes have expired, Mr. California. Enjoy the sweet kiss of obscurity.
AuthorScoop
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
w00t!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
couldn’t have said it better, trish.