Re: teddy, at ten, is seymour at thirty.

I suspect this is partially true, but I also suspect the characters get
revised a bit as they go along. This reminds me of the Franny vs. Zooey
discussion Kim prompted some time back with a link to an Updike article,
which I can't find now. blah.

I think Salinger conceived his characters with varying degrees of
completion and success, but do agree he could have initially conceived
them beyond the first story in which they appear. I think the Caulfield
family was a proto-Glass family that Salinger had to abandon because he
couldn't do anything else with them.

Jim

ANELLO Michael J wrote:

>well, doesn't he write a character's entire history then intertwine two or
>more with a short story idea? it's brain breaking, to say the least.
>especially looking at the chronology of the caulfield stories and when the
>glasses started coming into play. my far out thought was that he started
>leaning toward the east once the very first glass was happened upon. he SAW
>MORE. or something like that. i mean, "ocean full of bowling balls" looks
>less like a story than a historical set for CITR. "peter pans" looks less
>like a story than a fleshing out of the mary moriarty and vincent caulfield
>characters. "mayonnaise sandwich" looks like a throw together story published
>for some spare change towards catcher, and "i'm crazy" and "slight rebellion"
>look like shameless advertisements for his big book.
>
>
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Aug 27 12:37:44 2003