• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 1591 0

reception of Nine Stories ranged from approving to enthusiastic. Most of the criticism was directed not at Salinger’s craftsmanship, which was undeniable, but at his perceived inability to sustain the level of quality established by The Catcher in the Rye. Although unfair, the comparison was inevitable. On April 9, Charles Poore of The New York Times reported that Nine Stories was “somehow disappointing, coming from the man who wrote the outstanding first novel of 1951.” Poore went on to explain the dilemma that now plagued Salinger. “That’s the penalty Salinger has to pay for being such a good author,” he observed. “The result is that when he comes along with a book that would make the reputation of any one of a dozen gifted young fogies we complain because it’s not better than ‘The Catcher in the Rye.’ ”7 After grieving that “the business of playing tunes on the nerves of [Salinger’s] characters can become fairly monotonous,” Poore went on to condemn both “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” and “Teddy” for what he called their “bang! bang!” endings and to praise “For Esmé—with Love and Squalor” as the greatest story to result from the Second World War. Poore’s critique was typical of many reviews of Nine Stories, affirming Salinger’s talent while conveying disappointment at his not producing exactly what was expected of him.

Poore’s review was less forgiving than that of the novelist Eudora Welty, which appeared in The New York Times Book Review on April 5. Welty showered Salinger with praise, calling him an artist whose writings are “original, first rate, serious and beautiful.” A personal friend of Salinger, Welty understood him extraordinarily well, and although their friendship derailed her neutrality, her review of Nine Stories was indisputably inspired. “Mr. Salinger’s stories,” she observed, “honor what is unique and precious in each person on earth. Their author has the courage—it is more like the earned right and privilege—to experiment at the risk of not being understood.”8

The reading public snatched up Nine Stories faster than it could be placed on shelves. The book soon rose to ninth place on the New York Times best-seller list and remained in the top twenty for the next three months. This was a rare accomplishment. For a collection of short stories, which normally sold far fewer copies than a novel, the achievement was extraordinary. Successful despite the fact that it was under-publicized and contained no distracting personal information, Nine Stories appeared to validate Salinger’s contempt for publicity and affirmed his resolve for greater control over his product.

Salinger himself determined to ignore the book’s reception. He tried his best to stay away from newspapers and magazines for weeks after the collection’s release and asked Dorothy Olding and Gus Lobrano to see that no one sent him any reviews or clippings. He said he feared being unbalanced by the attention and explained that scrutiny distracted him from his work.9

In the meantime, agreement was reached with Hamish Hamilton on the collection’s release in Great Britain. Evidently to preserve their relationship, Salinger uncharacteristically acquiesced to Hamilton’s choice on the book’s title. In June, Hamilton released Nine Stories as For Esmé—with Love and Squalor and Other Stories. As with the British reception of The Catcher in the Rye, sales were lukewarm. This was the second time Hamilton had taken a hit for Salinger. He believed fully in the author’s talents, but his friendship was beginning to clash with his business sense, which by all accounts was the driving force of his life. As the weeks wore on and sales stubbornly dwindled, he began to consider how he could turn a profit from his risky investment.

• • •

Today, Nine Stories is understood on two levels: as being a collection of loosely connected but self-contained works and also as a chronicle of the steps along the path of J. D. Salinger’s spiritual exploration. Gilbert Highet, who reviewed the book for Harper’s, the magazine in which “Down at the Dinghy” had been published, came