Re: frannie and zooey

Laura Boyce (laboyce@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu)
Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:00:47 -0400

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