RE: Suicide?

Baader, Cecilia (cbaader@casecorp.com)
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:51:59 -0500 

I'm usually a reader, not a poster, but I thought that I'd take the
opportunity to use this thread to add my .25 cents.  But first, I guess I
should introduce myself, because though I know all of you from reading your
posts for the last couple of months, you do not know me.  My name is Cecilia
Baader and I'm an English-major-turned-computer-professional from the South
Side of Chicago  (Salinger is a Cub fan, I'm sure of it.)

I've thought about the question of Salinger's true attitude to suicide or
just plain death quite a bit, even more after I trekked out to the library
and found _Hapworth_.  I found Seymour's letter to his parents very
Teddy-like.  Like Teddy, he calmly predicts and accept his early death,
worried only about the reaction of his family to it.

It left me a little annoyed, frankly.  

But moreso than that, it left me with the question of the supposed
enlightened people of this world and how truly enlightened they are.  It
seems to me like Salinger is promoting this ideal of death being meaningless
in Seymour and in Teddy yet at the same time showing the paradox of that
selfsame meaninglessness by the reactions of those left behind.  (Which is
no different than what Jim said, so forgive me for reiterating it.)  I guess
that the more that I think about it, the more I wonder about how Salinger's
life relates to this kind of paradox.  Was he searching for a way to deal
with the horrors that he witnessed in the war and found this
eastern-buddhist-hindu-whatever-else-you-want-to-throw-into-it-ideal and
though he liked the ideal, couldn't quite reconcile himself to it? 

Cecilia.
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
> From: blah b b blah <jrovira@juno.com>
> To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
> Subject: Re: suicide....?
> Message-ID: <19990413.205330.8767.2.JRovira@juno.com>
> 
> 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
> 
>