just because i like fart and poop jokes. dan, you were right, they caught
wind of me!
i think salinger always knew what he wanted to write about. so what if he
hadn't read any vedanta before teddy.
does rigorous have linguistic ties to "rigid." ?
i's jes wundren. facts are facts, of course. but, who really knows the
facts. salinger's biographers? the people who wrote the bible? or salinger.
and god.
(dangit, dale!)
>>> jrovira@drew.edu 08/27/03 07:29AM >>>
I think it should be noted that two competing methods for reading
Salinger are at work here.
Kim reads Salinger's stories as they were published and limits their
meaning within a specific chronology (e.g., Salinger couldn't have been
making reference to vedanta in "Bananafish" because he hadn't read it
yet").
Michael seems to be reading the "Salinger Canon" as a unified whole,
allowing later stories to influence his reading of earlier ones.
There's a lot to be said for both methods. Kim's is more rigorous.
Jim
Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:
>Interesting thanks, when I first read Bananafish after catcher I was
>imagining some one unable to adjust back to post war life, of course the
>rest of the saga changed that impression.
>Daniel
>
>
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Aug 27 10:56:13 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 00:28:17 EDT