Re: bananafish-digest V1 #277


Subject: Re: bananafish-digest V1 #277
From: LeeG (LeeG@taft.pvt.k12.ct.us)
Date: Tue Apr 22 1997 - 10:21:59 GMT


bananafish@cassatt.Mass-USR.COM,Internet writes:
>One surprisingly harsh reply and a few amens and seconds:
>
><I don't want to come down hard on a fellow bananafish, but..... Mr.
>Caine, you have expressed a few opinions that ole Jerry wouldn't have
>been too fond of. This is not a malicious attempt to correct, but
>rather just a reminder of what you must already realize.>
>
>And no doubt "ole Jerry" has expressed some opinions of which *I'm*
>not too fond. So what? Must subscribers to this list try to emulate
>JDS to the last detail, or perhaps *be* JDS himself?
>
><The reason that all Salinger novels have that same non-descript
>cover is because the author hated, I repeat hated, paperbacks such as
>the one you mentioned. It was an unneccessary and obtrusive
>representation.>
>
>Again, so what? I happen to have fond memories of it, regardless of
>what the author may have thought. Does that deprive my observations
>of all value?
>
>< For J.D., the reader-author relationship is a sacred one, not to
>be tainted by some artist commisioned by a publishing company to
>illustrate Holden Caulfield's scowl. And that tag line? "you may
>love this book or you may hate it. It may make you laugh or it may
>make you cry. But you will never forget." Can you see Holden liking
>that quote? Can you see Salinger liking that quote? That's as phony
>as anything in CITR.>
>
>So are you, my friend.
>
><As for your desire for deep analysis of Holden's sexual fears and
>for further intricately worded commentary, may I recommend you read
>the dedication of RHTRBC.>
>
>I do not necessarily mean psychoanalysis, if that's what you mean to
>imply. I had in mind something like literary commentary or
>interpretation. Is that permitted on the "bananafish" list, or must
>we all be content with the dedication you mention? Somehow I had the
>idea that this was a forum for those interested in JDS and his works.
>
><True, we stumble into the pitfall of over-analysis simply by
>subscribing to the bananafish list.>
>
>What pitfall? Exactly when or where does analysis become "over-
>analysis" of a piece of writing? Is Salinger's fiction so
>immediately communicative of its essence that it requires no analysis
>at all to discover meaning?
>
>< But I justify myself by reasoning that this list is people who
>want to share their love for Salinger>
>
>Please allow me to do just that, without having to put up with the
>little-known, but retarded cousins, of the Glass family, who are too
>sensitive to bear a word of what I had to say.
>
>Here's another, one of the amens:
>
><I nearly threw a fit when my English teacher, having heard I loved
>JDS, suggested I read the bio because "of the author's amazing
>persistence at getting at Salinger" and that we should have a talk
>someday and analyze (i.e. tear to pieces) all of Salinger's works. I
>considered sending him a copy of the RHTRB dedication, but as that
>would surely be considered treasonous against the entire English
>department (here, at least), I decided not to.>
>
>You probably don't have the brains to talk about Salinger
>intelligently. It's easier to think that people who do are somehow
>suspect, corrupt, or (let's face it) phony. No one's forcing anyone
>else to participate around here, right?
>
>--Da

Two words: calm down. We're just stating opinions here and there's no need to
start hurling insults based on someone's opinions when you don't know shit
about the people who are writing them. Okay, so maybe the first reply came on
a little strong, but that really doesn't justify you calling him/her (sorry, I
don't remember who it was) phony and retarded. Unless of course you think i'm
justified (yeah, I'm the brainless one) in listing numerous unflattering
adjectives that would be appropriate in response to the above e-mail. But
okay, let's be organized here: I'll go piece by piece. First of all, no one
here (at least I hope not) is trying to BE Salinger. However, there is a
certain respect of his opinions -- not about politics or the plight of
endangered animals -- of his work, and in this case, he did not like the cover.
 Great. But you liked it. That's great too. Then the other person basically
implies you're phony. Not very warranted there. But then you have to respond
by telling him that he is too. Um yeah, "Bananafish" is here so we can share
opinions, not get into virtual fistfights. It's just a matter of opinion. I
have fairly liberal views, but I don't go around personally hating every single
Republican I meet. As for over-analysis, yes, it is possible, like people
trying to say that because Salinger mentions a balloon he had a messed up
childhood. There isn't a fine line that I can define, but a fuzzy border is
present. Finally, as to my "amen," as you called it, I regret that I wasn't
very clear. That is, I didn't provide a detailed biography of my English
teacher, but I can assure you, he is an over-analyzer and has spawned many a
school of over-analyzers just like him. But just because I don't think you
should over analyze something (oh look, she's lying on a sofa, not a couch,
that must mean something!) doesn't mean I
>don't have the brains to talk about
>Salinger intelligently. I think it's great to discuss Salinger; why the hell
else do you think I would be on this list? I just don't think it's right to
tear (in every sense of the word) literature apart. So if you think
differently, it would seem we have a difference of opinion. I don't think
you're suspect, corrupt, or phony. But I do think you're wrong in accusing
people with different opinions than yours of being suspect, corrupt, or phony.
Can't we all just get along? =)

-Genee

PS: If this drives anyone to levels of insane hatred towards me, insults are
welcome, but I warn you, I'll love y'all just the same.

-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 15:00:37 GMT