Re: suicide....?
blah b b blah (jrovira@juno.com)
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Good Lawd, A Salinger-related question that asks or considers something
new. Worth attention :)
I'd say that whatever your answer is, you have to take into account that
within the world of Saligner's fiction, at least, Seymour's entire family
spent the rest of their lives trying to work out the effects of Seymour's
suicide. Buddy especially. Trying to make sense of it themselves, when
Seymour was such a loved and respected person (at least within the
family). I don't so much see nonchalance from the family, but what I do
see is Buddy being the only one to even write about it, and to begin to
do so quite a long time **after** the event.
By this time there's enough emotional distance to allow a degree of
objectivity in the matter, so long as he keeps himself aware of the fact
that he's maintaining a specific emotional distance. I'd say that's what
you may be interpreting as "nonchalance." I think Seymour's suicide was
an event that deeply affected all members of the Glass family, and
confused them, and that, if anything, it's Salinger's intention to keep
us guessing "why" simply to place us in the Glass family's shoes.
So on the one hand, on a human level, suicide is Not a good thing.
Painful, inexplicable, leaving a tremendous sense of loss for those left
behind.
On the other hand, yeah, you have "Teddy" to deal with. He didn't
"officially" commit suicide, really, he was pushed into an empty pool by
his little sister. But he knew it was going to happen ahead of time and
did nothing to prevent it. Within the context of the metaphyics of
"Teddy," anyway, you have the belief that the material world (and, by
extension, our physical bodies and all the passions and emotions that
come along with them) is essentially illusory.
Therefore, what happens to our bodies is a matter of little consequence.
A spiritual master such as Teddy could accept death as just, well,
checking in to a new hotel along with way, before you reach your final
destination (oneness with the road). Thus, the Glass family's feelings
over Seymour's suicide merely demonstrates their failure to attain
"detachment," and their continued spiritual immaturity on this point.
That's not a slam on the Glass family so much as a recognition of Teddy's
advancement.
So Salinger seems to be saying contradictory things. I think he's
holding up both an ideal (which I disagree with; I prefer grieving, but
not without hope. Death is a loss **to us,** if not to the one who has
passed away) and presenting a reality (which seems pretty believable to
me).
I, for one, identify more with the Glass family on this point than Teddy.
Jim
>look, when ive had more time to think about it ill suggest this
>properly, and when ive read teddy and reread bananafish BUT what do
>you
>think salinger's attitude toward suicide is? im not interested in the
>whys but its just that it struck me that whenever seymour's death gets
>a
>mention (i.e. all the time) it gets it with the same nonchalance each
>time. its not quite that, but lack of cogent explanation to the none-
>too- intelligent reader (i.e. me) - and, surely, suicide is all about
>justification or comprehension- gives the impression that salinger
>condones it.
> the reason it struck me (you can see im going to have to come back
>to this and explain it better) is that, wondering what salinger's
>views
>on self- slaughter were, i remembered that it was 'Buddy' who
>''wrote''
>Bananafish. Is this some kind of thinly veiled palming off of an
>opinion, or is it a passing off of an explanation which, i might add,
>ensures generations of readers will continue to debate the 'whys', and
>will probably take up buddhism or something in order to understand.
> Comments please, if you understand what that waffle was about
>cheers,
>your long winded, uncertain and vague friend
>
>--------------CA606C8C8706EFB31F50C815
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
><HTML>
>look, when ive had more time to think about it ill <I>suggest</I> this
>properly, and when ive read teddy and reread bananafish BUT what do
>you
>think salinger's attitude toward suicide is? im not interested in the
>whys
>but its just that it struck me that whenever seymour's death gets a
>mention
>(i.e. all the time) it gets it with the same nonchalance each time.
>its
>not quite that, but lack of cogent explanation to the none- too-
>intelligent
>reader (i.e. me) - and, surely, suicide is all about justification or
>comprehension-
>gives the impression that salinger condones it.
><BR> the reason it struck me (you can see im going
>to
>have to come back to this and explain it better) is that, wondering
>what
>salinger's views on self- slaughter were, i remembered that it was
>'<I>Buddy'</I>
>who ''wrote'' Bananafish. Is this some kind of thinly veiled palming
>off
>of an opinion, or is it a passing off of an explanation which, i might
>add, ensures generations of readers will continue to debate the
>'whys',
>and will probably take up buddhism or something in order to
>understand.
><BR> Comments please, if you understand what that
>waffle
>was about
><BR>cheers,
><BR>your long winded, uncertain and vague friend</HTML>
>
>--------------CA606C8C8706EFB31F50C815--
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]