Re: Teddy

JDECOU01@zaphod.riv.csu.edu.au
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 19:58:53 +0000

Firstly, Sorry for taking so long to respond to this post!

Becky- Your post on Teddy inspired me to finish reading this story. It's 
the only one in the book that I hadn't fully read. I must say that I'm 
glad that I did read it. It gave me the kind of goose bumps (at the end) 
that I had not experienced since reading A Perfect Day For Bananafish.

>Some thoughts on Teddy:

>It's almost two stories, isn't it?  In one, Teddy stands on a suitcase, 
>watches orange peels, talks to Booper and Myron, and writes in his 
>diary.  In the second, he has a long conversation with Nicholson.  
>Then there is a brief third part, consisting mostly of a scream.

>I like the first part best.  It's what Salinger does best: develop 
>amazing characters, such as Teddy's truly ugly parents, describing 
>their actions so you understand them instantly--and then you wonder 
>if you understand them at all.

Through describing the actions of his characters, Salinger puts us right 
smack bang in the middle of the scene. I could almost smell the orange 
peel and the salt air- I disliked Teddy's parents right away, especially 
when the father made the comment about kicking the mother's head open. 
This scene also makes it obvious that although Teddy is remarkable, he 
is still just a little child, full of enthusiasm; soaking up the world 
around him like a sponge.

>The second part, in which Teddy explains his views and philosophy, 
>strikes me as too didactic.  It violates the "show, don't tell" rule of 
>fiction writing. 

I found this part slightly painful also. However, I like the way that 
Salinger shows Teddy to be wise beyond his years without making him out 
to be a little smart ass. Salinger certainly has a talent for creating 
believable children in his stories.

>(Salinger, of course, is in a position to violate all >the rules of 
>fiction writing he wants to, and usually does, with great 
>success--"Seymour : an introduction" would probably not get an A 
>in a Creative Writing 101 class.)  But Teddy's conversation with 
>Nicholson is more like a dialogue to illustrate a point (like the 
>Dialogues of Plato) than a work of fiction.

>What mostly fascinates me about Teddy is that Buddy Glass claims 
>to have written it.  That he was trying to get at Seymour's eyes when 
>he described Teddy's.  That Teddy can be interpreted as a reworking 
>of A Perfect Day for Bananafish: instead of bananafish, you have 
>apple-eaters; instead of a death by gunfire, you have a death (maybe) 
>by a fall into an empty swimming pool; instead of Muriel's fingernails, 
>you have Teddy's father's Gladstone suitcase; instead of Sybil 
>mistreating small dogs, you have Booper mistreating Myron.
That's an interesting way of looking at it... Please remind me- where 
does Buddy claim to have written it?

>Is Teddy Seymour reincarnated?  (No, the dates don't work out:
>Seymour died in 1948, Teddy is 10 in 1952. But Teddy's description 
>of his previous life, in which he met a lady and stopped meditating...
>interesting.)

I certainly think that this is a nice possibility. It also means that 
the first and last stories in the book are about Seymour (well at least 
in my version of  "For Esme With Love and Squalor" they are-I've never 
seen a copy of Nine Stories). It would definately help to explain why 
Buddy wrote the story too. 

>(Yes, I know, I did this chronological calculating stuff to prove that 
>Holden couldn't have been killed in WWII, and some of you bananafish 
>didn't like it: you pointed out that fiction and history are two 
>different things.  True, but if Salinger puts dates in all his 
>stories, it's not an accident.)

Might I point out that the main reason for dates appearing on all of his 
stories was that most were published in magazines. I must admit- I 
personally hate the idea of Holden being killed in the war...

>I took a cruise a few years ago, and watched the whole time for some
>orange peels to get thrown out the window, but it didn't happen.

>Becky

Thanks Becky for raising some interesting issues for us to think about!


Joel