Subject: bananafish-digest V1 #277
From: MR DANIEL C CAINE (ZKYX09A@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon Apr 21 1997 - 19:47:23 GMT
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
-
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