Read Hapworth 16, 1924 by J.D. Salinger Online

hapworth-16-1924

This novella in letter form was first published in The New Yorker in 1965. 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....

Title : Hapworth 16, 1924
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 915081
Format Type : ebook
Number of Pages : 51 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Hapworth 16, 1924 Reviews

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-03-25 17:43

    Hapworth 16, 1924, J.D. Salingerتاریخ نخستین خوانش: سی و یکم ماه اکتبر سال 2016 میلادیعنوان: شانزدهم هپ‌ ورث، 1924 ؛ نویسنده: جی.دی. (جروم دیوید) سالینجر؛ مترجم: رحیم قاسمیان؛ تهران، نیلا، 1385؛ در 111 ص؛ شابک: 9648573549؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان امریکایی - قرن 20 معنوان: شانزدهم هپ‌ ورث، 1924 ؛ نویسنده: جی.دی. (جروم دیوید) سالینجر؛ مترجم: علی شیعه علی؛ تهران، سبزان، 1388؛ در 104 ص؛ شابک: 9786005033366؛ چاپ دوم 1388؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان امریکایی - قرن 20 مدر داستان «شانزدهم هپ ورث 1924» سالینجر یکی دیگر از داستان‌های «خانواده گلس»؛ که از شخصیت‌های ثابت کتاب‌های ایشان هستند را روایت می‌کند. خانواده گلس هفت بچه نابغه دارند. در این خانواده خیالی، برادر بزرگتر به نام سیمور مرشد دیگران است؛ داستان در فرم نامه‌ ای از کمپ، که توسط سیمور گلس هفت‌ ساله نوشته‌ شده‌ بوده، روایت میشود. موضوع داستان درباره ی هویت‌ بخشی به داستان پیشین سالینجر به نام «اقیانوسی پر از توپ بولینگ» که دو دهه زودتر نوشته‌ شده‌ بود، است. در این داستان، سیمور موفقیت برادر خود را به عنوان نویسنده، همانند مرگ خود پیش‌بینی می‌کند. رمان «شانزدهم هپ ورث، سال 1924» لذتی را که خوانش رمان «ناتور دشت» به خوانشگر میدهد را با خود بهمراه ندارد. ناتور دشت در سال 1951 میلادی به چاپ رسید، و این رمان در سال 1965 میلادی، گویا این اثر از آثار نخستین سلینجر بوده باشد، برای همین پختگی ناتور دشت را ندارد. سلینجر در ناتور دشت دغدغه هایش را با دغدغه ‌های یک نوجوان دبیرستانی گره زده، و در این کتاب دغدغه ها از زبان و قلم مردی ست که از شدت آگاهی، خودکشی کرده. خدا، اعتقاد داشتن، طبیعت، نویسنده ها و آثارشان، کتاب ها و ... همگی از جمله مفاهیم ثابت نامه ای هستند، که شخصیت سیمور، پیش از خودکشی خویش بنوشته، و به تناوب در طول متن، پررنگ و کمرنگ میشوند. از متن: «او همیشه و بی استثنا در موارد بسیار نادری، که از روی حماقت و بی ملاحظگی، موضوع بی طرفدار تولد و زندگی دوباره، بر کره ی خاکی را، به صراحت مطرح میکنم، به شدت ناراحت میشود، و این ناراحتی را آشکارا ابراز میکند. یک دلیل دیگر هم برای طرح نکردن این قبیل جزئیات با او وجود دارد، و آن این که چنین حرفهایی، متاسفانه سوژه ی چرند و مزخرفی، برای بحث‌های غیررسمی و خاله زنکی به دستش میدهد.»؛ پایان نقل. ا. شربیانی

  • Bruno
    2019-03-29 20:01

    Posso ufficialmente chiamare questo mese di aprile come ‘il mese di Salinger’. Giusto qualche giorno fa ho – finalmente! – letto Franny e Zooey e ieri, grazie ad un caro amico che mi ha gentilmente prestato la sua copia, ho letto anche I giovani, i tre racconti nuovi di zecca di J.D.Salinger; nuovi almeno per i lettori italiani. La bibliografia di Salinger si è adesso leggermente allargata per il pubblico del nostro paese. Fin qui tutto normale, finché non sono arrivato alla postfazione di Giorgio Vasta. Qui lo scrittore siciliano dice di aver recentemente recuperato tra le sue letture quella di Hapworth 16, 1924. A questo punto ho strabuzzato un po’ gli occhi. Sapevo che il caro Jerome aveva pubblicato altri racconti al di là dell’Atlantico, ma questo non l’avevo mai sentito nominare. Mi son chiesto dov’è che Vasta fosse andato a pescarlo allora. Ho fatto una breve ricerca su Google e mi sono imbattuto in questa recensione che mi ha fornito tutte le risposte. (Volevo inserire il collegamento ipertestuale ma non ho idea di come si faccia, per cui in barba ad ogni gusto estetico ecco il link:https://2000battute.wordpress.com/201...) Per chi non avesse voglia di leggere il pezzo, sintetizzerò la surreale vicenda che ruota attorno al racconto. Hapworth 16, 1924 sembra essere l’ultimo racconto pubblicato da Salinger nel giugno del ’65 sul New Yorker, prima di scomparire agli occhi del mondo. Tra il 1988 e il 1997, una casa editrice americana tentò di raggiungere un accordo con Salinger per l’acquisto dei diritti per la pubblicazione del libro. La notizia finì sui giornali e perfino Amazon pubblicizzò l’uscita del volume. Immagino che l’intero mondo andò in brodo di giuggiole per una pubblicazione così succosa. Non si sa bene perché, ma quel birbante di J.D. cambiò idea all’ultimo momento e questo ormai famoso libretto non vide mai la luce. *inserire qui lacrimuccia* Tuttavia, in Italia siamo noti per non farci mancare nulla. Proprio nel ’97, infatti, quando la casa editrice americana stava probabilmente organizzando riti propiziatori e sacrificando vittime a molteplici divinità per ottenere quei benedetti diritti, una giovane studentessa di Siena si laureava in lingue con una tesi su Salinger, in particolare con una traduzione di Hapworth 16, 1924. Mi chiedo dove avesse recuperato una copia del New Yorker di trentadue anni prima! La tesi dev’essere piaciuta così tanto al prof. che, avendo una sua casa editrice, non ci pensò due volte a stampare e distribuire il libro, se così si può definire, non avendo alcun codice di identificazione! L’Einaudi, che deteneva i diritti su Salinger, lo venne a sapere, il prof negò tutto, le copie non vennero più ristampate, ma si dice che ben 2000 abbiano fatto il giro dell’Italia. Per fortuna (o sfortuna?) non siamo più nel 1997 e non è stato difficile recuperare la versione originale del racconto. God Bless America and the Internet! In cosa consiste, dunque, questo Hapworth 16, 1924? Si tratta di una luuunga lettera che Seymour Glass invia alla sua famiglia mentre si trova in un campo estivo col fratello minore, Buddy. La lettera che leggiamo è stata trascritta proprio da quest’ultimo circa quarant’anni dopo. Devo ammettere che mi aspettavo qualcosa di totalmente diverso, ma non so cosa esattamente. Forse qualcosa di meno allucinato. Sì, perché l’intera epistola è quanto di più inverosimile abbiate mai letto. Per quanto sappiamo bene che i Glass kids sono stati dei bambini prodigio, fuori dal comune, sembra difficile credere che queste siano frasi scaturite dalle penna di un bambino di sette anni (7!!!). La psicologia che la mia mente, a quell’età, era in grado di penetrare si limitava forse ai personaggi di Heidi o dell’Ape Maya. Sicuramente non avrei mai fatto la mia comparsata a Ecco un bambino eccezionale. Nella premessa alla missiva Buddy giura che trascriverà parola per parola la lettera di Seymour, ma non è detto che la vena di scrittore di W. G. Glass non l'abbia spinto ad aggiungere modifiche e ad abbellire l'eloquio del fratellino. Ma tutto ciò non è importante e mi sento un po’ stupido a tentare di trovare una logica in Salinger. Quello che conta è che questo racconto è una porta che si apre su un mondo completamente nuovo. E' un biglietto per un viaggio nel tempo, nell'infanzia di Seymour, personaggio cardine della famiglia Glass nonostante rimanga sempre una presenza misteriosa, che aleggia nell’aria e nei dialoghi dei ‘sopravvissuti’. Se si riesce a superare lo shock iniziale del dover accettare che i pensieri contenuti nella lettera siano stati partoriti da una mente di un bambino di sette anni, si possono godere di momenti estremamente esilaranti, come la parte in cui Seymour, dopo aver descritto le qualità di Mrs. Happy (a touching heritage of quite perfect legs, ankles, saucy bosoms, very fresh, cute, hind quarters, and remarkable little feet with quite handsome, small toes), descrizione di per sé già abbastanza inquietante, arriva addirittura a dire alla madre "then I must admit, in all joviality, to moments when this cute, ravishing girl, Mrs. Happy, unwittingly rouses all my unlimited sensuality.". Se pensate che questo sia scioccante, aspettate di leggere la parte in cui il primogenito dei Glass chiede al padre di illustrarlo su quali fantasie sensuali stuzzicavano la sua mente alla sua età!“it would be quite a little windfall if you, dear Les, as my dear father and hearty friend, would be a complete, shameless, open book with regard to your own pressing sensuality when you were our ages. I have had the opportunity of reading one or two books dealing with sensuality, but they are either inflaming or inhumanly written, yielding little fruit for thought. I am not asking to know what sensual acts you performed when you were our ages; I am asking something worse; I am asking to know what imaginary sensual acts gave lively, unmentionable entertainment to your mind."Il narratore, con un eloquio degno dei migliori college inglesi, descrive i compagni di campeggio, i consulenti e le attività svolte nel corso dell’estate. Fornisce consigli di recitazione e di canto ai genitori, supplicando la madre di non abbandonare il palcoscenico così giovane, ma di attendere il momento giusto. Si rivolge anche ai fratelli minori, spiegando per esempio alla sorella Boo Boo come pregare e come comportarsi in pubblico e in privato. Nell’ultima parte della lettera, invece, stila un lunghissimo elenco di letture che lui e Buddy vorrebbero fare approfittando della vacanza al campeggio, pregando i genitori di contattare la biblioteca e di provvedere all’invio dei libri. Si tratta di classici della letteratura, di libri di filosofia, religione e medicina! Le tipiche letture estive di due bambini di sette e cinque anni, insomma. Ho tentato di trovare in questa lettera una risposta alla domanda che sicuramente tutti i lettori di Salinger si sono posti almeno una volta: perché Seymour si suicidò in quella camera d’albergo della Florida? Non sono certo uno psicologo in grado di riconoscere in una mente così giovane, come quella del bambino di Hapworth, i segni premonitori di un gesto così radicale. Da quello che ho letto però, mi son risposto che Seymour aveva sempre saputo che non avrebbe vissuto a lungo. In questo racconto sottolinea più volte il fatto che quella attuale non è altro che un’apparizione temporanea della sua persona e che il suo genio proviene dalla sua ultima incarnazione. Seymour sembra prevedere che non raggiungerà mai la vecchiaia:“I personally will live at least as long as a well-preserved telephone pole, a generous matter of thirty (30) years or more, which is surely nothing to snicker at.”Inoltre, sottolinea come sia presente in lui una vena di instabilità:“but one must painfully remember that a vein of instability runs through me quite like some turbulent river; this cannot be overlooked.”Per quanto non sia stata una lettura convenzionale, sono più che felice di aver aggiunto un altro tassello al mosaico dell’indimenticabile famiglia Glass. Adesso non mi resta che recuperare Alzate l'architrave, carpentieri e Seymour. Introduzione, ma piango già al solo pensiero che con quello, il mosaico sarà davvero completo.

  • Katie
    2019-04-17 23:54

    This novella is undeniably odd and probably only really worth reading for the real Salingerites (?) out there. 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 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.

  • ليلي
    2019-04-21 00:57

    :| اصلا سلینجر نبود:| نثر ش ینی... و خب اگه نثر، نثر سلینجر نباشه، چی میمونه دیگه واقعا که بخواد جذاب باشه برا آدم؟:/ و خب از اییییییین حد تخیلی بودن ش هم اصلا خوشم نیومد و نتونستم باهاش ارتباط برقرار کنم و بفهمم که چرا مثن میخواسته بگه سیمور گلس تو هفت سالگی کتابای فلسفی و در جست و جوی زمان از دست رفته و آثار کامل تولستوی و اینا میخونده، و حتی خیلیاشو قبلا خونده بوده... که چی واقعا خب؟:/کلا میشه گفت نفهمیدمش:))

  • Rana Heshmati
    2019-04-01 18:53

    کل این کتاب یک نامه‌ی بلند بود.می‌دانم که کتابهایی که نامه اند زیاد خوانده اید احتمالا. اما این متفاوت بود. چون فقط "یک" نامه بود و در یک روز نوشته شده بود.و من نمی‌توانم حال و احساس خودم رو نسبت به سلینجر عزیزم بیان کنم.و حتی نمی‌فهمم که مریم چطوری همچین چیز باب علاقه‌ای به من کادو داده!داستان باز هم داستان خانواده‌ی گلس عزیز است...لحنش با اینکه از زبان سیمور بود که قبلا هم چیزی ازش خوانده بودم، خیلی فاخر بود. و جالبی قضیه این جا بود که توی این کتاب فقط هفت سالش است. و وقتی آدم همه‌ی این داستان هایی که سلینجر درمورد این خانواده نوشته را کنار هم می‌گذارد و بزرگ شدنشان را نگاه می‌کند، فقط در عجبی پایان ناپذیر فرو می‌رود.نمی‌دانم که آدم باید برای ستاره دادن باید بگذارد زمانی بگذرد و احساساتش ته نشین بشوند و یا اینکه همان احساس اولیه را در نظر بگیرد... اما به هر حال به نظر من فوق العاده بود. به دلایلی که قابل بیان نیستند خیلی، و شاید بهتر باشد که کتاب را بخوانید....خیلی آرام آرام خواندمش. در وقت هایی که حالم به نحو قابل قبولی خوب بود، و کنار پنجره‌ی اتاقم می‌نشستم و می‌خواندم و یاد دخترهای قدیمی انگلیسی می‌افتادم و ابرهای قلنبه قلنبه‌ی آسمان را نگاه می‌کردم و بعد باز به خواندن ادامه می‌دام..در نهایت، مراتب تقدیر و ارادتم رو به این نویسنده ابراز می‌دارم. و ازش ممنونم.

  • Behdad Ahmadi
    2019-03-26 20:56

    شانزدهم هپ‌ورث، داستانی درباره‌ی خانواده‌ی درخشان گلس است؛یک نامه‌ی نود صفحه‌ای از سیمور گلس هفت ساله به پدر و مادرش. متاسفانه لذتی نبردم. نود صفحه‌ی بی‌هدف و بی‌داستان، که البته چون بنده سعادت خوندن فرنی و زویی رو داشته‌م، باز برام یه اندک معنا و کششی داشت. وگرنه فکر نمی‌کنم کسی بتونه با چنین نوشته‌ای ارتباط برقرار کنه.سلینجر بسیار بی‌ظرافت، تمام کتاب‌هایی که خودش خونده رو از زبون یه پسربچه‌ی هفت ساله نقد می‌کنه و تمام امیال و اعتقاداتش رو ذره به ذره از زبون این پسر بیان می‌کنه. تعجب نکردم وقتی دیدم سیمور گلس همون جروم دیوید سلینجره. تصور خودبزرگ‌بینی و غرور سلینجر چنین حدسی رو برام ممکن کرده بود.اما کاش پنهان شدنش پشت سیمور، انقدر بی‌ظرافت نبود.

  • Michael Palkowski
    2019-04-01 21:47

    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 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? (where he comes across as a bizarre introvert, who cannot connect in basic ways with anyone other than a child.) 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.

  • Reza Mardani
    2019-04-15 21:52

    با این که سخت بود خوندنش ولی بسیار لذت بردم، درسته که کتاب٬ نامه سیمور گلس به خونوادشه ولی بیشتر حرفای دل خود سلینجره به نظر من٬ قسمتی که راجع به نویسنده ها و کتاب هاشون صحبت میکنه واقعا عالیه :)

  • Diana Gangan
    2019-04-03 01:49

    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 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! liberating. 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.

  • Samantha
    2019-03-28 00:50

    I first read this in an anthology of Salinger's work while doing research for a term paper on the Glass family. It is a letter from camp written by seven year old Seymour Glass, main character of "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." After its appearance in The New Yorker in 1966, Salinger quietly disappeared and stopped publishing altogether.In 1996, 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, 2009, which will be J.D. Salinger’s ninetieth birthday. I recommend to anyone who likes post-modern lit.

  • Mike Mavilia
    2019-03-22 00:59

    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. This is neither a gripping tale, nor a self-contained piece. It's merely an exaggerated vignette about a character whom the writer hopes you already know. It's pure characterization - literary psychology. There's no plot, no purpose other than saying "now do you understand why he's so weird [and suicidal] later in life?" What seven-year-old is even conscious of his death, let alone know the means by which it will happen? A tragically flawed one, of course.While Holden may be the most famous of Salinger's characters, Seymour is certainly his most covered character. It would do any author good to write a long short story taking place during the childhood of said character, if only for the author's own purposes of getting to know why the character is the way he/she is. And although Hapworth 16, 1924 is neither essential to understanding Seymour, nor particularly engaging as a piece, it plays an indispensable role in creating a well-rounded depiction of such a tragic and mysterious young man. At times, in this and the other Glass family stories in which he describes Seymour, we get the sense that Salinger is trying to let us in on an inside joke, but ends up saying "you had to be there" over and over. It's true, Seymour is a one-of-a-kind guy, and thus warrants and requires a lot of characterization. And while Salinger gets his point across in staying true to what Seymour would do (write a 50-page letter home from camp), he asks much of his reader to follow along. This is not Salinger 101, or even 251. But for those readers who are enamored with Seymour, Buddy and the rest of the Glass family, Hapworth answers your wishes to learn more about what makes the characters tick. Similar to a young person asking his elderly grandfather what life was like when he was growing up, the story might bore you to tears, but in the end you got what you wanted and the information shed new light on a person to whom you couldn't even begin to relate. It was not enough for Salinger that we know that Seymour is a genius - he must be a child prodigy whose abilities and wisdom in childhood surpass most learned adults. It is because of Seymour's greater-than-reality life that Buddy feels his brother is worthy of such focus, adoration and in-depth description. Seymour is the Einstein who never got famous. Salinger harnesses the innate idolatry a boy has for his older brother, but then takes it a step further by making that older brother *in actuality* as amazing as a child's eyes sees him. Hapworth is important because it is a primary source - seven-year-old Seymour's own letter home - where Buddy can finally say "See? It's not all in my head. He really was this incredible." No wonder Buddy is so haunted by the loss of Seymour. On this subject, Seymour mentions in his letter that his father had pointed out that Buddy is indifferent to anybody but Seymour. And while Seymour fervently refutes this claim, we think that there is some grain of truth behind Les' statement. Perhaps Seymour doth protest too much? We know that Buddy's attachment to Seymour is more like that of father/son - and with parents like theirs, it's not surprising - so the sudden loss of his pseudo-parent would thus be downright traumatizing.

  • Trin
    2019-03-26 22:02

    Salinger’s famously un(re)published Glass family novella. (An excellent account of this great publishing disaster, recounted by the publisher, can be found here.) It has a tendency to suddenly reappear on, then disappear from, the internet; I myself got a copy in the most delightful black-market fashion. Having struck up a conversation with a customer about Salinger, who had recently died and who I was rather publicly mourning with a (pleasantly profitable) front counter display, we rolled around to the subject of this story, and the customer’s voice dropped, his manner turning clandestine. He admitted that he had a copy, typed out for him by some kind soul from the original New Yorker publication; would I like to read it? Would I! It was, less than a week later, slipped to me under plain manilla covers, and I took it home feeling like some of the original readers of Lady Chatterley’s Lover or of, you know. Porn.Anyway, that was all quite fun. But what of the story itself?Seriously. I need help with this. I love the Glass family stories so much (as this bit of gushing illustrates), but making this tale fit with the rest of the canon makes my head hurt. My anonymous benefactor felt similarly, when we met up again (beneath a picturesque bridge, or in a shadowy parking garage, perhaps) to discuss the work. The story takes the form of a letter home from camp by a seven-year-old Seymour Glass; the letter however comes to us introduced by Seymour’s brother Buddy, and like much of what we know of Seymour, one must wonder how much of it is authentic and how much shaped by Buddy’s hand. In this particular case, one is inclined to believe that the whole thing is fabricated, as the letter seems impossibly—and even creepily—precocious for someone of Seymour’s purported age. But if that is the case, what is Buddy trying to convey, what ghost is he trying to exorcise by portraying his brother and his family in this way? Without a doubt, Hapworth 16, 1924 is by far the most mysterious and bizarre of the often mysterious and bizarre Glass family tales, and it casts an odd light on the rest of the canon.“Data! Data! Data!” she cried. “I can’t make bricks without clay.” Which I suppose is my way of saying: it’s been almost a year already! Where’s this vast store of Salinger’s unpublished work that was supposed to appear following his death? Stop tormenting me from beyond the grave, J.D. It’s just petty.

  • Rachel
    2019-04-12 23:56

    I am a big fan of Salinger's work and was delighted to read this long-lost addition to the Glass family saga that I think actually predates the published volumes. This story was original published in the New Yorker, taking up the entire issue (it's more of a novella than a short story). But it was never published anywhere else, lapsed into obscurity, and in the days before the internet, unless you happened to find a copy of the New Yorker or get it on microfilm, you were out of luck. Apparently a university held the only copy of this story, which could be read only in the building under strict supervision, apparently to prevent copying. Somehow it leaked out, a pirated version ended up on eBay, and from there, this story and many other unpublished Salinger works were in circulation.Unfortunately this was a huge disappointment. It takes the form of a letter purportedly written from summer camp by seven-year-old Seymour Glass to his parents. The letter reads like it was written by a PhD candidate in literature at an Ivy League school. It really stretches credibility that even a seven-year-old genius could have written this, and the request for scholarly books is quite ludicrous, not to mention the huge SAT words liberally sprinkled around. It really is a pretentious style of writing, not very much like the published Glass works. Parts of it are a bit creepy - seven-year-old Seymour describing his mother's (whom he calls by her first name) "saucy bosoms" and "fresh hindquarters", lusting after a pregnant camp counselor, and begging his father to share his masturbatory fantasies - it's cringe-worthy, and all a bit much, even for a child genius. To be honest I couldn't get through the whole thing, as much as I tried. It has none of the wit and humour of the published Glass stories. I suppose Salinger refrained from publishing further partly so people like me wouldn't rip apart his work. Nevertheless, he did continue to write for the rest of his life, and there's a whole set of unpublished short stories out there, so maybe this one is just an exception.

  • A m i r
    2019-04-13 23:54

    نامه‌ی طولانی سیمور هفت ساله به لس و بسی و دوقلوها. چه‌طور سیمور این‌قدر حرف‌های گنده می‌زنه و پیش‌گوییهای عجیب می‌کنه اما تو ذوق نمی‌زنه؟ شاید واسه اینه که من عاشقشم.

  • پگاه
    2019-03-31 01:48

    نمی‌تونم بهش ستاره بدم. سیمورگلس برای من یه آدم ِدر عین خفن بودن، واقعی بود. ولی تو این کتاب غیرواقعی و افسانه‌ای شده بود و این اذیت‌م می‌کرد.

  • Sourena Kazemi
    2019-03-28 19:51

    نمی دونم بخاطر ترجمش بود یا نوع نوشتش . . . تا آخرش اصلا جذب نشدم و فقط بخاطر سلینجر بودنش خوندمش . . .

  • Malvika
    2019-04-06 00:55

    Seymour Glass, when you will never not amaze me with your dubious genius?

  • Niuosha
    2019-03-27 19:04

    پسر 7 ساله ی معرکه

  • Sina
    2019-03-22 00:10

    چی بگه آدم؟ سلینجر کسی ئه که میتونه نصف کتابی رو به بازگویی علایق شخصی کاراکتراش اختصاص بده و توی خواننده جرئت هیچ اعتراضی به خودت نمی‌دی که هیچ، حظ هم میکنی.

  • Pulcemcnamara
    2019-04-13 02:03

    Piccolo capolavoro di uno dei miei scrittori preferiti. La filosofia in bocca a un ragazzino che scrive una lunga lettera ai genitori da un campeggio dove si trova in vacanza col suo fratellino. Filosofia di ogni cosa, del linguaggio innanzi tutto, e anche nella traduzione in Italiano si gusta questo avvincente amore per la lingua, per il pensiero, per il dubbio su tutte le cose dell'esistenza, per la vita e il suo contrario, un inno alla gioia illustrato da un bambino che presto si immergerà nell'inevitabile istinto di morte. La saga di questa famiglia Glass che ritroviamo in ogni romanzo e racconto di Salinger: un manipolo di fratelli/ragazzini più saggi degli adulti, che hanno già chiaro il mistero dell'esistenza e tentano in ogni modo di scriverlo tramite lettere spedite (o finte forme diaristiche) o dialogo a viva voce pieno di pause e pensieri interrotti, perché sono personaggi che pensano davvero, non recitano mai a memoria la loro sagace saggezza (e ringraziamo Hemingway per aver insegnato ai personaggi il dialogare autentico) agli altri preziosi componenti della famiglia. I piccoli ragazzi di Salinger parlano come fossero sciamani, rimaniamo rapiti dai loro costrutti frizzanti, mai scontati, perché i ragazzini di Salinger possono permettersi di trattare qualsiasi argomento, anche il più banale, ed essere immancabilmente geniali. ...

  • Ioana
    2019-04-16 20:07

    An easy reading, which I devoured on my phone. It brings me back memories from when I'd read Franny and Zooey or The Catcher in the Rye. I like J.D. Salinger a lot actually and I wish he wrote more books.

  • vhreccia
    2019-04-07 19:53

    Niente, non ce la faccio proprio ad entrare in sintonia con questo gigante della letteratura. Non riesco ad empatizzare, almeno non ancora, non avendo letto abbastanza, con Seymour Glass, il piu importante personaggio uscito dalla penna di Salinger, forse ancor piu importante di Holden Caulfield, a quanto si legge in giro, altro personaggio con cui non ho avuto un gran rapporto. In questo libro epistolare, una lunga lettera scritta alla famiglia dal bambino prodigio Seymour, non capisco dove si voglia andare a parare. Il giovane "super uomo" Seymour scrive dal campeggio estivo di Hapworth: il tono è quello giusto, proprio di una lettera, a volte lento e riflessivo, a volte esagitato come se la penna non riuscisse a tenere dietro alle parole; e questo mi è risultato più che apprezzabile. Le descrizioni della gesta del protagonista e ancor più del super talentuoso fratello Buddy, l'analisi dei sentimenti dei due ragazzi nei confronti dei coetanei e dei familiari risuonano di un ampollosità un po' stucchevole: siamo in presenza di due personalità straordinarie, e come tali fuori dal tempo a dispetto della loro tenera età (rispettivamente 7 anni Seymour e 5 Buddy), ma mi è risultato quasi impossibile empatizzare con le loro emozioni, espresse col tono di un adulto che fa i conti alla fine propria vita: benché Seymour fosse già cosciente del suo destino, e ce lo dice a più riprese, il racconto risulta non tanto inverosimile quanto estraniante, ma nel modo che non piace a me. Sicuramente è un mio limite: ho un problema con la "super umanità". O forse non ci ho capito niente io, e non ho ancora delle basi solide per giudicare la saga di questa "straordinaria" famiglia, non avendo letto altro che questo libro che è l'ultimo in ordine cronologico ma tratta di avvenimenti che saranno prodromi della saga in questione. Oppure, ancor più probabile, J.D. il recluso ci sta prendendo per il culo: obbiettivo centrato, almeno con me. Mah, non so, comunque prima di chiudere definitivamente con Salinger leggerò almeno un altro paio di scritti, poi vedremo, al limite ci lasceremo così, senza rancore.Con questo libro partecipo comunque alla #RcR2017 (https://parladellarussia.wordpress.co...) come #librocult, più per le vicissitudini editoriali di questo libro che evidentemente per quello che la sua lettura mi ha lasciato: è un vero e proprio libro "pirata", non ha numero isbn ed è stato ritirato in fretta dagli scaffali in quanto la Eldonejo (denunciata dalla Einaudi che deteneva i diritti di Salinger in Italia) l'ha tradotto, ad opera di Simona Magherini, senza alcuna autorizzazione. Non esiste questo libro, era apparso come racconto sul New Yorker, ma mai nessun editore al mondo aveva ricevuto fino in fondo il benestare dell'eremita J.D. Salinger alla pubblicazione, nonostante qualche incongruente e timido approccio. La mia copia l'ho scovata su ebay, per caso, per pochi euro, cercando, come spesso accade, altri libri usati e introvabili: approfondii la ricerca, trovai queste bizzarre notizie, e mi dissi che un bibliofilo libridinoso come me non poteva lasciarsela scappare. Lo ripongo sulla scaffale, più contento di possedere una sorta di Gronchi Rosa che di averlo letto.

  • Kitchener
    2019-04-11 00:50

    In the intellectual spirit of striving to find a common thread between this novella, the last of Salinger's published stories, and his previous works, namely, The Catcher in the Rye, it could be asserted that Holden Caulfield and Seymour Glass (in addition to, perhaps, the entire Glass clan) are working their way through a similar sphere of personal issues. And no, they are not necessarily and exclusively linked to adolescence, or childhood, in the case of the precocious Glass siblings. These stories are basically about ego, and the way in which its outsizedness can stymie any chance at real "happiness" or peace. Holden, a lover of truth and earnestness, also had self-severing and extremely critical side, as hilarious as it may have been, in which he projected his own insecurities onto various phonies and blowhards. He ended up in the sanatorium. Seymour, the seven (7) year old of impeccable taste and boundless wisdom who refers to his own mother as "dear" or "sweetheart", uses words like "pauciloquent" and "nemophilous", and (spoiler alertz) ends up killing himself in 1948, has essentially the same ego problems, only he recognizes them. And he's "working on" them:"...among many, onerous things, it is all too easy for a boy of my dubious age and experience to fall easy prey to fustian, poor taste, and unwanted spurts of showing off. As God is my judge, I am working on it....""This opinion is too harsh. My opinions are all too frequently too damn harsh for words. I am working on it, but I have given way to harshness too often this summer to stomach.""...it is very hard for me, I regret to say, to be less than contemptuous and scathing around Mr. Happy personally. I am working on it, but that man brings to the fore supplies of hidden malice I thought I had worked out of my system years ago."One could make the case that Hapworth, as well as Seymour: An Introduction for that matter, are echoing the Hemingway sentiment that, "happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." If Holden was ever able to step back and recognize the folly of his thinking, there's a good chance he could've ended up finding peace. Meanwhile, the superhuman intellect of Seymour, along with his egoic attachments to his own image of himself as a man, yes, man, of unassailable etiquette, exquisite taste, English charm, and all that other fancy crap, could very well have doomed him to the fate of dark thinking, deep distress, and untimely death, no matter how many religious texts he read, or wisdom he may have attained.That's my reading. Three (3) stars. I just like Holden's voice better. Old Holden, old sport.

  • G.
    2019-03-24 20:51

    Subsequent readings will surely increase my appreciation of this story. It's somewhat like a McSweeny's experience when taken from the original New Yorker of June 19, 1965. The advertisements alone are worth the trip. Some that stood out for me were "Nothing Improves the Taste of Water like Teacher's Scotch" and "The first thing that people think about when you mention Scandinavia is beautiful blonde women. So here's a picture of one". I think this copy adds to my appreciation of young Seymour, especially playing against his increasingly man-like affection for Mrs. Happy.I was skeptical of the "Seymour at Seven" convention. Even though they are "Wise Child", is it conceivable to be this wise at seven? As the story unfolds it seems to me that Seymour is poised at the threshold of understanding and accountability that attends turning eight. And returning to the beginning of the story we are reminded that the letter was written, "quite in the lap of the gods!".This story proves to be an answer to the inquiry Seymour faced in "Bananafish" when the young girl turned her doll head around to face him on the plane. "Hapworth 16, 1924" seems to answer that blank stare with a full account of the giddy spirit at a time before the War, marriage, death of a sibling, etc. One gets the sense that there is excitement in adulthood. As we know, however, there are also a lot of phonies and people staring at your naked feet. Seymour and Buddy at Hapworth are fortunately tan and young and unspoiled.I can honesty say that this story somehow reconciles me to the fact that we don't have more Salinger to read. There's a lot in here to ponder. As it stands on this reading it doesn't complete the whole but it rounded Seymour's rough edges and helped me love him as Franny did, and as I've always wanted to.

  • Martin Kline
    2019-04-08 18:56

    A mysterious post modern novella that succeeds mainly in providing curious readers with further context concerning the Glass Family, who are portrayed in many notable stories by J.D. Salinger, including "Franny", "Zooey" and "A Perfect Day for Bananafish".Here we have the preposterously precocious rambling letter of Seymour Glass - eldest child of the family - present briefly by his brother Buddy Glass. This letter serves as an objective proof that Seymour was a child genius the likes of which the world has never seen. Its content is at times touching and at times troubling; though it often left me stumbling to make sense of convoluted sentences and eclectic diction, I remained attentive to Seymour's curious ramblings throughout the entirety of the letter. Although perhaps unavoidable, this novella lacks the clarity of writing and delicate presentation of big ideas that the other Glass family stories I've read contain.The surreal nature of this story, and the strangeness of the Glass family bears a certain resemblance to the complexity of David Foster Wallace's Incandenza family in Infinite Jest - I would be surprised if Wallace was not influenced by these stories, and by "Hapworth 16, 1924" in particular.

  • Chiara
    2019-04-05 20:50

    Seymour e Buddy, i due figli maggiori della famiglia Glass, sono in un campeggio. Seymour approfitta di un infortunio che lo costringe a letto per scrivere una lunga, interminabile lettera ai genitori e ai fratelli rimasti a casa. Dalle prime pagine pensavo si trattasse di un giovane ventenne con un carattere incredibilmente deciso e che aveva già capito come girava il mondo. Sono rimasta sconvolta quando ho scoperto che il mittente della lettera aveva appena otto anni. Ok, per quanto geniale possa essere il primogenito dei Glass, davvero, com'è anche solo letterariamente possibile che abbia una conoscenza tale da renderlo intelligente e brillante quanto un plurilaureato? Da consigli ai genitori non solo per quanto riguarda la loro professione, ammonendoli e rimproverandoli su alcuni aspetti, ma si permette anche di intervenire nell'educazione dei fratelli minori. Bambino eccezionale quanto volete, ma qui il mio amato Salinger ha esagerato davvero, persino per me.

  • Jimmie
    2019-03-30 19:09

    Oh Seymour Glass, you were such a precocious child. This is essentially a 51 page, hand-written letter that 7-year-old Seymour Glass (who plays a part in the majority of Salinger's books and short stories no matter how big or small) wrote to his family while he and his little brother were away at camp. It's really tough to keep in mind that this was all supposed to have been written by a 7-year-ol. (Genius or not this kid uses more SAT words than an SAT-specific dictionary.) He goes off on all these fabulous tangents and completely glosses over the finer details of an injury as if it were wholly unimportant. It's incredibly stream of conscious and utterly hilarious if you actually let yourself get into it. More so if you've read other Salinger works that involve his character and therefore have background and insight into him and his presumptuous nature.

  • dcrowe2
    2019-04-05 19:03

    phew...even after signing off, the young Seymour Glass couldn't resist adding a post-script to his ridiculously long and precocious letter. Was hoping that Buddy would have concluded his transcription of Seymour's letter with a more detailed reference to the party, or more precisely, to why he felt it to be a small but significant point in interpreting the letter. Despite Buddy's assurance that he transcribed Seymour's letter exactly word for word, coma for coma, Seymour's prophecy of Buddy's future success as an author and his (Seymour's) own demise at the age of 30, one must wonder whether Buddy enhanced Seymour's letter with Buddy's own account of Glass family history. Glad to see that Salinger hasn't abandoned the efficacious comma as have so many modern authors. A must- read for all Glass family fans.

  • Violet
    2019-04-20 18:08

    Hapworth was Salinger's last public work, chiefly due to the terrible reception it received from literary critics who had formerly praised him. It is undoubtedly the worst thing he ever succeeded in publishing. Rampant use of the word 'humorous' and a lack of any kind of verisimilitude whatsoever eclipse the presence of his typical quirky charm. It is proof that even geniuses need an editor, and that even geniuses can churn out something sub-par when they become too invested in their own opinions of themselves. That being said, there is still a sort of charm that draws the reader in eventually. It is still Salinger, even if it is not Salinger at his best. Through the middle you are praying for the end; when the end comes, you are sort of sad.

  • Salvatore
    2019-04-03 23:07

    Available only on the New Yorker archive site. Between chores (laundry) and breadmaking (white) I read this epically long story. The word 'precocious' was invented for the Glass family, particularly Seymour, who writes this letter-turned-story. Some great observations, though a tad unbelievable that a seven-year-old would write in such a way (especially the listing of the desired books he wants sent up to camp). But hey, Salinger got me to read it and like it.'[T]here is always a slight, magnificent, utterly worthy risk that I will be a crashing failure from the word go, disappointing all my friends and loved ones, a very sober, rotten possibility that brings the usual fluid to my eyes as I bring the matter into the open.'