April 20, 2024

Film on Salinger Claims More Books Are Coming

Mr. Salinger, who died in 2010 at the age of 91, has been known for a distinguished but scant literary oeuvre that was capped by the enormous success of his 1951 novel, “The Catcher in the Rye.”

But a forthcoming documentary and related book, both titled “Salinger,” include detailed assertions that Mr. Salinger instructed his estate to publish at least five additional books — some of them entirely new, some extending past work — in a sequence that he intended to begin as early as 2015.

The new books and stories were largely written before Mr. Salinger assigned his output to a trust in 2008, and would greatly expand the Salinger legacy.

One collection, to be called “The Family Glass,” would add five new stories to an assembly of previously published stories about the fictional Glass family, which figured in Mr. Salinger’s “Franny and Zooey” and elsewhere, according to the claims, which surfaced in interviews and previews of the documentary and book last week.

Another would include a retooled version of a publicly known but unpublished tale, “The Last and Best of the Peter Pans,” which is to be collected with new stories and existing work about the fictional Caulfields, including “Catcher in the Rye.” The new works are said to include a story-filled “manual” of the Vedanta religious philosophy, with which Mr. Salinger was deeply involved; a novel set during World War II and based on his first marriage; and a novella modeled on his own war experiences.

For decades, those in touch with Mr. Salinger have said that he had continued to write assiduously, though he stopped publishing after a long story, “Hapworth 16, 1924,” appeared in The New Yorker. But no one had made so detailed a public claim that Mr. Salinger had left extensive posthumous publishing plans.

Matthew Salinger, who is Mr. Salinger’s son, and shares responsibility for the Salinger estate with Colleen O’Neill, the author’s widow, declined to discuss plans or the book and film. He said Ms. O’Neill, who did not respond directly to a separate query, would also decline to comment.

In an interview earlier this year, Matthew Salinger said he was skeptical that the planned book and documentary would deepen public understanding of his father, who, he said, for decades had confined his intimate dealings to a small circle of seven or eight people.

The documentary is directed by Shane Salerno, a filmmaker who spent nine years researching and filming the movie that is set for release by the Weinstein Company on Sept. 6, and will air later on PBS in the American Masters series. The companion book, co-written by David Shields, is to be published by Simon Schuster on Sept. 3.

Speaking in his Los Angeles office on Saturday, Mr. Salerno pointed to tables and shelves filled with previously unpublished photographs, hundreds of letters and even a handwritten World War II diary that belonged to one of Mr. Salinger’s lifelong friends, a now-deceased fellow soldier named Paul Fitzgerald.

“If that’s not the inner circle, I don’t know what is the inner circle,” Mr. Salerno said.

His understanding of the publishing plans, Mr. Salerno said, took shape “fairly late” in his research.

The book and film attribute the detailed account of the plans to two anonymous sources, both of whom are described in the book as being “independent and separate.” Mr. Salerno declined to elaborate, other than to describe them as people who had not spoken to each other, but knew of the plans.

“The credibility of the last chapter,” Mr. Salerno said of a final summary of publishing prospects, entitled “Secrets,” “is in the 571 pages that preceded it.” Mr. Salerno noted that he initially had some cooperation from members of the Salinger family, but they later withdrew support.

The book and film have been marketed with the promise of revelations about Mr. Salinger, whose penchant for privacy became a hallmark. Last week, Weinstein and Simon Schuster began a promotional campaign that includes a poster image of Mr. Salinger with a finger to his lips, beneath an admonition: “Uncover the Mystery but Don’t Spoil the Secrets!” The book, a 698-page companion to the film, is written in an oral history style with snippets of text from dozens of people who were interviewed for the project.

Jonathan Karp, the publisher of Simon Schuster, said in an interview on Saturday that the book was “a major journalistic feat.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/business/media/film-on-j-d-salinger-claims-more-books-coming.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

High & Low Finance: Making Rating Shops Look Good

When the housing market crumbled, the agencies — Moody’s, Standard Poor’s and Fitch — came across as incompetent, conflict-ridden and craven. They had handed out Triple-A ratings as if they were party favors, based on mathematical models that turned out to be absurdly overoptimistic. They did not do the work to notice that many securities were stuffed with mortgages of far lesser quality than advertised. They were paid for the ratings by those who created the bad securities.

Now the agencies are under attack again, but this time they look noble. If European politicians have their way, the new image could be one of persecuted truth-tellers.

Moody’s has recently led the way in cutting the ratings of European countries to junk status. It followed S. P. in cutting Greece’s rating, but has led in recent days in cutting first Portugal’s and then Ireland’s. It pointed to the fact that Greece might be allowed to default as a reason to worry about other countries.

A reasonable political reaction would be to say that the negative opinions would be proved wrong, and then to take the actions needed to avoid defaults. Unfortunately, Europe has no real idea how to accomplish that.

Instead, Europe has chosen the strategy laid out 90 years ago in a novel by Ring Lardner, in which a father had a ready answer for an unwanted question:

“ ‘Shut up,’ he explained.”

“We should ask ourselves,” said Michel Barnier, the European commissioner whose bailiwick includes financial markets, in a speech this week, “whether it is appropriate to allow sovereign ratings on countries which are subject to an internationally agreed program.”

Coming from the man with primary responsibility for policy decisions on rating agencies in Europe, that sounds very much like a threat.

He was echoing a suggestion voiced in March by Christine Lagarde, then the French finance minister, after Moody’s downgraded Greek government bonds, already rated below investment grade, to a lower class of junk.

“I am personally convinced,” she told an interviewer, “that credit ratings agencies should not intervene and should not grade countries which are working with the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the E.C.B.,” the European Central Bank. Ms. Lagarde now runs the I.M.F.

The Moody’s report that so alarmed Ms. Lagarde said, “There is some possibility that private creditors would be expected to bear some losses” in Greek bonds. Now it turns out that the I.M.F. thinks Moody’s was right, according to a staff report issued Wednesday.

Over all, the rating agencies have done a decent job on sovereign debt. “All sovereigns that defaulted since 1975 had noninvestment-grade ratings one year ahead of their default,” the I.M.F. reported last year.

The power of the rating agencies grew in recent decades because government regulators often found it easier to incorporate the ratings in other rules. Worried about the credit quality of securities owned by money market funds? Require those securities to have high ratings. Trying to decide how much capital banks need to offset the risk of differing loans? Tie credit rules to ratings.

Now there is general agreement that regulators should stop requiring the use of ratings, and thereby remove any official imprimatur from the agencies. But that is running into resistance from bank regulators and banks, particularly smaller ones, in both Europe and the United States. They don’t want to have to do their own credit research, and say that in some cases it would be too complicated.

In the past, it has not just been perceptions of expertise that caused the agencies’ opinions to seem important. The agencies sometimes were allowed access to confidential corporate information, a practice that should be banned. If they can know something, so should anyone else interested in the security.

There is a certain chicken-and-egg question that politicians might consider. Are Europe’s finances a mess because the rating agencies spoke up, or did they speak up because the finances are in disarray? That answer is obvious.

Greece’s prime minister, George Papandreou, rightly said this week that European leaders were guilty of “taking decisions that in the end prove too little, too late, to convince markets.” Of course, Greece’s own inability to collect taxes and control its budget deficit has more than a little to do with the failure to convince markets.

What seems to anger Mr. Barnier the most is that the agencies are messing in areas where international judgment has already been applied. “These states are under international programs,” he told me this week. “These efforts may be jeopardized by ratings coming out of nowhere.” He added, “The problem is one of democracy.” Europe already requires that countries get 12 hours advance notice of any reports, to give them time to argue that facts are incorrect. (Is it conceivable that some finance ministry has used the time to tip off favored traders about what is coming? Yes.) The European Union is considering lengthening that period to three days. It also has discussed finding ways to punish agencies for “incorrect ratings.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2befb33a9dab6043dfc8a84919d9d642