John Keats/John Keats/John/ Please put your scarf on.


Subject: John Keats/John Keats/John/ Please put your scarf on.
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliaann@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 16:41:14 EDT


>Mattis Fishman <mattis@argoscomp.com> wrote:

>But Hapworth really isn't about Buddy, and when I ask myself
>what insight do I get from considering that maybe Buddy himself
>decided to boost our impression of his big brother by disguising
>his forty year old insights in awkward and outrageous language of the
>proto-poet, I get mired in wheels within wheels and do not come up
>with anything satisfactory.

Well, all that I have on this subject are sort of half-formed thoughts
scrambled together in a Denver-omelet-sort-of-fashion. But for you, Mattis,
I'll give it a shot.

One of the most interesting theories that I've ever heard posited on the
Glass family works is that the stories are not really about Seymour.
Rather, that they're about Buddy and his difficulty in understanding the
death of his brother. (Oh, I know, I will immediately have about five
thousand detractors clamoring to disagree with me on this one, but I think
that it makes sense.)

So okay, this is where we get into difficulties. Because the first thing
that anyone will argue is that Buddy isn't even introduced into the stories
until RAISE HIGH THE ROOF BEAM, CARPENTERS and that to insert him into the
Glass family works before his name is ever spoken is ludicrous.

Right. But this is a 'what if...' scenario, and if we work with this, we
need to work with an understanding of his presence throughout, whether
acknowledged or not. (I swear, I'm getting to Hapworth in a minute.)

So let's put the Glass family stories in order according to publication:
- A Perfect Day for Bananafish
- Franny
- Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters
- Zooey
- Seymour: An Introduction
- Hapworth 16, 1924

(One could conceivably add "Down at the Dinghy" and "Uncle Wiggly in
Connecticut" to the pot, but we'll leave those out, as what bearing they
might have on this is negligible.)

Okay, so where was I going with this? Oh, yes. Hapworth is the final
denouement in the humanization of Seymour Glass. Seymour the saint becomes
Seymour the sometimes supercilious, Seymour the sometimes sexual, Seymour
the sometimes sarcastic saint.

He's not the sainted suicidee that he started out to be in Bananafish. If
you take a look at each of the stories, as time goes by, Seymour grows more
human. More real, almost. His siblings feel more free to see his faults and
get angry with them.

Many people don't like Hapworth because it shows a less than perfect
Seymour, but I think that's just fine. Because just as you said that
Seymour: an Introduction was important because "while it claims to be about
Seymour, it is not so much the actual facts that Buddy presents that are
important, as much as Buddy's perceptions and interpretations of these
facts", I keep thinking that Hapworth is just as self-involved as Seymour:
an Introduction. Buddy is coming even closer to a true view of his brother.
  He's just using a different, less self-reflexive method.

So if you look at Hapworth as not a letter from Seymour to his parents, but
as the final chapter in Buddy's posthumous relationship with Seymour, it
opens up a whole new facet to the story. Because we're finally seeing what
seems to be the real Seymour Glass. Flawed, but finally whole.

You could play the devil's advocate and tell me that Seymour is so different
in this story because we're not looking at him through Buddy's rose-colored
glasses anymore. We're seeing him sans filters. And sure, I admit that
could be the case as well. I just like this way of looking at it. I change
my opinion on this biannually, I think.

Regards,
Cecilia.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon May 01 2000 - 06:20:13 EDT