Lagusta P. Yearwood wrote: > a friend of mine just read _frannie and zooey_ and had some questions > about the religious aspects of it. i thought it might be interesting > to > post what i wrote to her to everyone here. > > probably this isn't the right time to talk about f&z since laura and > sonny > have brought up so many interesting "teddy" points...but oh well. > :) > > here are some thoughts i have on f&z. ive also used the book _jd > salinger_ by james lundquist a bit, in case you want to read it. its > really interesting to go back and read this criticism about him, > because > it makes me realize so many new ideas and i get all excited about > salinger > all over again. > > (and to will, re: your comments on literary critism about salinger > from > weeks ago: yes, > you were right, reading a little more of his critism in order to write > > this did give me lots of new insights and i realized that there are > fresh, > deep ideas and it's a mistake to write them off. sometimes it just > gets > tiring when you get the feeling that they're overinterpreting and > therefore stripping the writing of it's intrinsic, basic beauty.) > > anyway, rough thoughts: > > it helps if you consider this novel in very zen terms. if you > don't know much about zen, i think i can explain as i explain. > > major themes for the glass family (i got these from the jds book > by lundquist): "obscenity of life, redeeming value of love, zen > emphasis > on transcending ego." > > i guess i'll say a little about what i think each means. > > "basic obscenity of life" > > is just how horrifying the world can be. think of lane, frannie's > boyfriend. he's so caught up in things that don't matter, like > the fact that one of his teachers thinks he should publish some silly > paper. he's stripped his major (english) of all the beauty it > possesses by reducing it to terms of papers, and having enough of a > knowledge of a subject to show off but not a deep enough understanding > to > realize and appreciate the beauty and power of words. he (and everyone > he > represents, obviously) does this with all of life, but i'm using > english > as an example because it's something dear to my heart. this (what he > and > those like him do) is obscene. > > "redeeming value of love" > > there are several interpretations of this, and i'm fairly foggy on > them. > one is, i think, just realizing that love can solve more > problems than hate because it is...well, you know. yada yada yada..i > don't > really feel like talking about love, its too broad. i guess it's just > that > if you are fairly loving, not a hateful person, if you let the > terrific > things in life nourish you and keep you sane, you can deal with this > overwhelming obscenity and hopefully not contribute to it too much. > > "zen emphasis on transcending the ego" > > zen says that the only way to enlightenment is by realizing that > fundamentally the world and all it's creations are empty and false. a > zen > master would say that you are enlightened when you destroy the ego > (because you realize that it is empty as well), and it no longer rules > > your life. > > salinger was a zen freak, and i believe that he was trying to > show that frannie has become sick because of her interaction with > this > obscene world, the same phony-filled world that holden caufield in > CITR > became so tired of. she's trying to figure out a way to reconcile > herself > to living in this horrible world without succumbing to it, without > becoming a phony and without depriving herself of the incredible joy > that > the world can give. > > maybe this conflict is a zen koan. a koan is an extremely difficult > puzzle > designed to make a zen neophyte think in a certain way. koans are > unsolvable by logic, which is what zen wants to get rid of because it > says it is ego-driven. one can only solve a koan by approaching it > from many > angles and finally getting so tired with it that logic breaks down, > the > ego malfunctions and then finally real understanding can come about. > when > frannie has broken down from trying to figure it out. when she lets go > of > logic and concerns, when she is not so tied to the jesus-prayer or > anything like that to save her, only then will she be able to live in > the > world and be happy again. > > frannie is trying to use the jesus prayer to get out of the > physical world and transcend her ego, but it will not work because she > is > still so tied to that world. well... that seems to make sense, and i > know > i've said it twice, but i can't quite figure out how. time for a hint > from the lundquist book. it says (and this seems to make sense) she's > too > critical. she misses the "essential unity of all things" because > she is too harsh on the world. because of this perspective, she > withdraws > from the world of the phonies, but cannot achieve enlightenment > because > she is still too critical of it, and therefore tied to it. > > now in the end, has she become enlightened? i definitely think so, > because 1) "she lay just lay quiet, smiling at the ceiling." notice > the > word just. very zen-ish. she was just there, just being. 2) "a break > in > the dial tone, of course, followed the formal break in the connection. > she > appeared to find it extraordinarily beautiful to listen to..." she's > made > her peace with the world, she's not upset with the phonies and their > creations. 3) the frequent references to "knowing exactly what to do." > she > no longer has to be indecisive and halting, because now she has the > answers. there is no hesitation, only the fluidity of a simple life. > > so, bananafishies, what do you think? did i screw up any major points? > > lagusta I love it! You did beautifully Lagusta. Laura laboyce@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu lboyce@geoplan.ufl.edu