Re: Seymour,Sybil,Muriel

Brendan McKennedy (the.tourist@mailexcite.com)
Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:23:11 -0700 

>
>I am struck by the image of Seymour on 
the beach with Sybil (again, I
>just typed Muriel) the abrupt end of 
that scene, and immediate return to
>Muriel. What did Seymour see, what did 
he take back?

For a long time, I've thought about bananafish,
 the fish that swims in a hole and eats so 
many bananas that he's too fat to escape, 
and dies.
In light of the recent discussion of Franny,
 I have to believe that Seymour's bananas are
 Franny's treasure.

On the other hand, I don't believe that Seymour
 killed himself because he was depressed.  I 
believe he killed himself because he was too
 happy.  I think Seymour was too big for this
 world.
He swam in and ate too many bananas, and 
couldn't get back out--so the only thing left 
is to die.  The hole he swam into may be his
 marriage, or it may simply (SIMPLY?) be life.


>
>I would like to suggest that instead of 
seeing lovely Sybil's faults as
>corruptions of her innocence, they are merely imperfections. These
>attitudes and behaviors, instead as beeing
 seen as something acquired and
>false, are also part of her youthful innocence. 


I think Salinger portrays children in as 
realistic a fashion as possible--and if you
 listen to children, they are not nice little
 people.  They are cute, undeniably, but if
 you look at childhood in lieu of Buddhist reincarnationism, there is the karma issue,

 the issue that children carry evils 
of their past lives into their current
 ones--which Salinger explores in "Teddy".
I think Salinger gives us a realistic portrayal
 of children, faults and all, to show us that
 Seymour's and Holden's obsession with innocence
 is as faulted as it is admirable. 
I don't think Salinger loved children as much
 as his characters did.


>When we meet Muriel,
>we see her engaging in self-indulgence,
 superficiality and almost cannot
>help being drawn to self-righteous censure. 
Yet in Sybil, we see similar
>faults and fall in love. Her flaws only 
enhace the work of art, like the
>grain in the woodwork - how much more poignant
 her anxiety at getting
>soaked, this terrifier of small dogs. Her
 desire to have Sharon Lipshutz
>pushed off the piano seat, comes from the
 same innocent soul that can
>see bananafish. 

As I wrote in a post awhile ago, Muriel is 
one of my favorite characters, partly because
 of her superficiality and self-interest. 
 I see Muriel as the connection to the world 
that people like me--a materialist, white, 
suburban, middle-class young adult--live in. 
 Because Muriel has concerns that have nothing
 to do with Eastern Enlightenment or metaphysical
 moral dilemma, Salinger's themes are much more palatable.  
It may be a consideration of his urban, white, middle-class, materialist audience,
which he
 arguably lost in S:AI--but I happen to think
 it's that he's not quite as steeped in 
Buddhism as his characters.

(Just typing this by the way, did anyone 
ever notice how close the name "Buddy" is
 to "Buddhist"?  Never mind Salinger, maybe
 Clinton's dog's name is an esoteric tribute
 to his campaign contributors...Sorry.)

Anyway, I've never thought to link Muriel 
with Sybil--mostly because I'm a lot more
 enamoured of the former--but thank you 
Mattis; it's a brilliant observation. 


>I would like to think that Seymour came to this realization, and carried
>it to the next step - that Muriel is 
essentially innocent, that she will
>paint her nails, ignore the telephone and
 worry about clothes because she
>is flawed and lovable, and has merely outgrown
 dolls and kittens. How can
>he not love her, she is genuine, however 
imperfect.



Absolutely--Muriel is genuine.  There is no
 doubt.  And she is certainly flawed, which
 of course makes her more genuine--and I
 think that Seymour loves these flaws more than anything.
Just read his journals in "Carpenters".  
Yes, Seymour loves Muriel, not in spite of
 her flaws, but because of them.  
It could be that his affection for Sybil can be attributed to similar observations.


>I could say that Seymour, having
>this insight into non-judgmental love went
 upstairs to make love to Muriel,
>not to kill himself. It was only after he
 realized that he could never
>actually live up to his own ideal, that he
 reacted to his own reaction
>to the foot-starer, when he took out the gun.
 I think, though, that this
>is too much of a reach.

As a personal interpretation, it's not near 
too much of a reach, but I have to disagree
 with it.
I don't think Seymour or anyone in his life
 came short of his ideals.  I think that Seymour realized he had eaten too many bananas.
 He
 loved his life too much to feel the desire
 to get to Nirvana.  The only way to get away 
from this happiness was, of course, to die. 
 To go to another life, where maybe he can 
concentrate on Enlightenment.
Again, Salinger tackles this spiritual dilemma
 in "Teddy"--whether to enjoy life or strive for Nirvana.

I guess I'm not much of a Seymour Glass, 
or a Teddy, because I would much rather 
spend a thousand lives with Muriel in all
 her fault than live forever in perfect
 peaceful Heaven.
I don't mean to sound crass, but speaking 
of Nirvana, could we maybe relate this to
 Mr. Cobain?  His faulted wife that he 
apparently loved so much, his sudden ability 
to express the art that he loved, and then a
 bullet to his brain.
Was he too big for this world too?
River Pheonix was, I know that.  You can't 
convince me otherwise.

Anyway, sorry for this epic post, but I love
 Anything About Muriel, and I could talk 
forever about her if you want me to.
(You don't believe me.)
Brendan 



Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com