Re: Brachilogic epistemology
WILL HOCHMAN (hochman@uscolo.edu)
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:56:00 -0600 (MDT)
Aplogies in advance for this 3-way light bulb of a post, but it may be
easiest to respond to both Annalisa and Jon and all this way...
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Jon Tveite wrote:
> Annalisa asked:
>
> > 1. What do you think of Holden's brachilogic syntax?
>
> Um, sorry, but I don't have a linguistics textbook handy. Could you
> define your term, please? Mucho appreciado.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines brachylogy as 1) "brevity of
speech; consiseness. 2) A shortened expression." The OED also defines
"brahylogy" similarly but doesn't have "brachilogic" so I understood the
phrase, "brachilogic syntax" to mean concise syntax and to be honest,
that's not how I would describe holden's syntax.
> > > 2. Why does he make so large use of the word "old": old Phoebe, old
> > Maurice, old cap and the like?
>
> Well, I think Salinger was trying to capture the authentic sound of a
> disaffected American teen in the 1940s, so I would assume that was a
> typical figure of speech. It seems Holden uses it in different ways at
> different times: sometimes it's positive, as in "comfortingly familiar,"
> and sometimes it's negative, probably meaning something like "tired" or
> "outdated."
I think jon's on a good track--Donald Costello goes into more explanation
of "old" and holden's speech patterns in his wonderful essay "The
Language of TCITR_."
>
> It's interesting that for all of Holden's misgivings about modernity, he
> doesn't display particular affection for tradition of any kind. What do
> we make of this? Is it a gloomy existentialist statement on Salinger's
> part?
>
I may be very wrong here, but I think holden does display subtle affection
for literary tradition...not only does he cite books he loves and a desire
to talk to authors, but he is in the process of writing "David Copperfield
crap."
> > 3. What is his epistemic position in general?
>
> Well, I've never tried to determine anyone's epistemic position before,
> so I'm not sure what kind of an answer you're looking for. If you mean,
> "How much does Holden know?" I take him as a fairly reliable narrator.
> I don't think he has a very broad perspective on things, but isn't that
> the potentially tragic situation of most adolescents, which the book is
> meant to dramatize?
>
Wayne C. Booth in his book, _The Rehtoric of Fiction, uses holden to
illustrate his concept of unreliable narration.
> Philosophically, I'd say that although Holden doesn't realize it, he
> places himself squarely in Plato's camp with his overriding concern
> about "phoniness." Plato's thought is grounded in his concept of
> "Truth," which he sees as transcendent, universal, and singular. Every
> time Holden identifies something as "phony," he implies that a choice is
> being made: a choice to deny or obscure an identifiable Truth of some
> kind. At the same time, Holden himself can be very untruthful, so maybe
> we could identify something he values more than Truth. Or maybe we
> could say he comes to understand that phoniness is the price of living
> in the adult world, and that's why he doesn't want to.
>
I'm with you Jon but might add that I think holden realizes eventually
that phoniness is human and that since he can't escape it by avoiding
adultness, he adjusts...but my thinking rests on believing that holden's
narration is also about his writing through what has happened to discover
what he can understand...
> Another major epistemological issue for Holden
is knowledge
v. > innocence. He comes down on the side of innocence every time -- at
> least for children younger than himself. Though he realizes it's not
> possible, he wishes he could erase every "Fuck You" on every school
> wall. He wishes his little sister could stay little. Apparently
> knowledge is a dangerous thing, to Holden.
>
> It might be interesting to trace the shift in epistemological
> implications of Salinger's fictions through time. I wonder, for
> example, if the Vedantic beliefs behind Teddy's and Buddy's critiques of
> Western pedagogy (i.e. educational theory) are also at play in Holden's
> preference for innocence over knowledge. Or perhaps Holden embodies the
> intellectual crisis which led Salinger to Eastern thought in the first
> place. Has anyone seen a good timeline that shows when the various
> stories were written in relation to his religious evolution?
Yes, by way of that "other sonny" I have my hands on _A REligious REsponse
to the Existential Dilemma in the fiction of JDS_ by Elizabeth N. Kurian
(isbn 81-7076-035: 3). Kurian's approach though is to show a synthesis or
"eclectic religious perspective" of "_Zen_ wisdom, _Christian_ piety,
_Hindu_ philosophy and _Jewish_ farternalism" which she explains and molds
into her concept of Salinger' s religious vision and which she also
contextualizes in both the texts and their time....
>
> Jon
>
I know this is too long and don't expect many to be still reading, but
Jon, if you are still here, know I very much appreciated your post despite
my taking different turns on your ideas...and annalisa, wow, welcome and
keep the good q's going though I have to admit I do think mr. slainger is
our most important writer--I don't think quanitity of books written is a
measure of literary greatness even if Balzac is my favorite 19th century
writer (and I assure you he is...) and I do believe that mr. salinger's
work reaches levels of greatness that surpass those typcially understood
as great writers. Since you mention pynchon (or I could toss out saul
bellow, phillip roth, tim o'brien, flannery o'connor, and others) as
superior, I would simply counter your assertion by asking what is great
writing? Salinger may reach more readers in the 20th centrury than most
great writers--and I'm not just talking popularity here, but reaching into
people and affecting their lives...I believe his themes and thinking may
not be as broad as other great writers, but for my reading life, no writer
has really done as much to make me try and be better...BTW, I do have a
pretty full reading life and can claim to have read most of the important
authors of the 19th and 20th centuries, but I also know that authors reach
inside of us in different ways and do understand why many would not agree
with my preference to make mr. salinger numero uno on a greatest writers
list...will