In English class, my teacher informed us that J.D. Salinger, quirky guy that he is, refused to allow his book The Catcher in the Rye to be published with any book cover that wasn’t the white one (the kind you see everywhere, that one). This was to make sure no one would have any preconcieved notions about the book prior to reading it (i.e., don’t judge a book by its cover).
However on amazon.com, I was browsing and noticed a copy that looked quite different. It was pretty colorful, and featured a large red horse. This is what it looks like:
White cover? The paperback edition I have (33rd printing, 1972) has a red cover. The picture at Amazon.com is a replica of the cover of the first hardcover edition.
There was a set of Salinger’s books with white covers; they probably came out in the late 70s. Before that, though, the covers were different.
“Nine Stories,” for instance, was green and white in an earlier incarnation.
The 1961 Edition of “Catcher” had a picture of someone (probably Holden) on the cover.
I think your professor was making things up. At the very least, he was too young to be making such pronouncements.
::cackles:: Not a professor, but a high school teacher. Anyway she said they were either the old red copy or the white. I guess you guys are right then.
The story I’ve heard is that Salinger hated the cover on the first paperback edition so much that he ordered that no future edition could be illustrated. Furthermore, he ordered that no movie could ever be made of the book.
Yeah, the movie thing makes sense. I’ve wondered why there was no movie, since there are movies of so many classics- A Tale of Two Cities, Dracula, All Quiet on the Western Front. I figured if he was so hung up on the book cover, then he’d be the same way about a film.
Perhaps, but it’s highly unlikely he’d have the right to dictate covers. He obviously couldn’t for the first paperback edition, and the contract he signed for that would still be valid (book contracts remain valid for as long as the book remains in print). The publisher may have agreed to his wishes since he made them a lot of money, but they don’t have to if they don’t want.
The movie rights are a different matter. Salinger still owns them as the copyright holder, and he can refuse any offers.
I’ve read a biography on Jack Nicholson and it said that in the 60’s, Nicholson really wanted to make a movie out of Catcher of the Rye. That would have been interesting.
> Perhaps, but it’s highly unlikely he’d have the right to
> dictate covers. He obviously couldn’t for the first
> paperback edition, and the contract he signed for that
> would still be valid (book contracts remain valid for as
> long as the book remains in print). The publisher may
> have agreed to his wishes since he made them a lot of
> money, but they don’t have to if they don’t want.
Um, excuse me, but that makes no sense. Salinger did change paperback publishers. It’s mentioned in that article that samclem quotes, which comes from the following website:
Clearly then when Salinger changed from Signet to Bantam as his paperback publisher, he put into the contract that no paperback edition could have cover art, and he just refused to sign with any publisher who wouldn’t accept those terms. (The Catcher in the Rye was so popular at that point he could probably get a publisher to accept pretty much any condition he could come up with.) I don’t know how he ended his contract with Signet (the article makes it sound like it was a limited-period contract), but obviously he did have some way of getting out of the contract.
Since someone brought up movies, let’s pretend Salinger dies tomorrow and the next day someone writes a screenplay version of “Catcher.”
Who should play Holden?
Who else should fill out the cast (I’m thinking the girl from the Pepsi commercials could play Holden’s sister, but she might be too old at this point)?