Re: Seymour,Sybil,Muriel

Mattis Fishman (mattis@argos.argoscomp.com)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:02:40 -0500 (EST) 

Hello,

Eric quoted:

  << 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
   a  ctually 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. >>

and then added:

  Nothing is too much of a stretch if its just discussion and not given as
  factual, and I think this hypothesis is quite possible.  Thanks for
  enlightening me, as I'd never thought of Bananafish in this way....

As I tried to imply, by calling my post reader reponse therapy (perhaps
the only clinical countermeasure for banana fever), I didn't really feel
that I could explain the whole story, merely mix some of my own
experience into the framework provided by the episode of Seymour and Sybil.
I do not really see how this could lead to suicide; for this I usually
vacilate between the "Two Seymour Theory", the "Too Many Banana Theory", and
the "Somebody Shoot Me Now, I'm Happy Theory". The topic comes around often.
Just to add a little credence to my (mis)reading, that Seymour had an
enlightening experience on the beach, I came up with a "Can't Live Up
To His Own Ideals Theory", since he could not even put up with the
socially accepted hypocrisy of the woman in the elevator - but I do not
believe this for a second. In truth, my own self-centered value system
cannot come up with any good reason for his suicide, so I am constantly
just shaking my fist at Seymour's grave.


Brendan also noted, in a thoughtfully short-lined (thanks) epic:

 << 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 the light 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.>>

This, as I am sure it was your intention to convey, is the exact opposite
of what I wanted to say, that children with their faults are "nice".
While I can agree that an obsession with innocence can be faulted, I would
not have to say it was because the (what you would call the "so-called")
innocence is at fault. In my opinion, Sybil, Ramona, Lionel (remember him?),
Charles, Phoebe are all holy, holy people. They may be holy terrors perhaps,
but still holy - sheep in wolves' clothing.

Brendan also mentioned:

  <<As I wrote in a post awhile ago, Muriel is 
  one of my favorite characters, partly because
  of her superficiality and self-interest.>>

This is a little hard for me to fathom (even if you do admit to
not being too much of a Seymour). I could love Muriel, nail polish and
all, but only because she kept all her kings in the back row, bought me
a suit, stepped on my foot under the table, knew who to cry for...

Today, as I write this, I think that you may have a good point, that the
obsession with innocence is flawed, that one may see innocence where
we are desperate to find it, that keeping your kings in the back row
won't keep you out of the back seat (boy, I'm clever today), that Muriel
is really a superficial, selfish, unloving

<opens suitcase, takes out an Ortgies 7.65 calibre automatic...>