Re: what, exactly...?

Mattis Fishman (mattis@argos.argoscomp.com)
Fri, 04 Dec 1998 12:17:06 -0500 (EST) 

Scottie Bowman writes:

>   I don't doubt various arguments can be brought forward to support
>   or demolish the idea of Holden addressing a therapist.  But does
>   no one share my feeling of futility that the question should be even
>   considered ?  That seductive, confiding, 'come here & listen to this...'
>   tone of voice seems to me to render finicky & over-literal the attempt
>   to place Holden in any precise setting.  I doesn't greatly engage me
>   whether he's talking to an analyst, a friend in the bar, or even his own
>   reflection in the mirror.  The magic is all in that droll, embittered,
>   idealistic voice.  And it can be all too quickly steamrollered by
>   Jesuitical dissection.

>   While accepting that serious writing deserves serious reading, it's this
>   very finickiness - this clever citing of evidence first one way then the
>   other - that I personally find so irritating in the whole attitude of the
>   professional scholar.

    Scottie,

    As one who very closely agrees with you on the importance of authorial
    intent, I am puzzled while you feel it is futile to consider to whom
    Holden is talking.  After all, while reading Holden's droll, embittered,
    idealistic voice, don't we want to know if Mr. Salinger wanted us to
    take it as a prompted confession or a personal confidence? Would that
    not affect the respect and trust Salinger wanted us to have for Holden?

    While perhaps the textual basis for coming to such a decision may lend
    itself to the finicky sophistry which you dislike, Salinger certainly
    put those lines there for some purpose, and the implications might
    shape our overall impression of the entire book.

    If you meant to say that Salinger's vagueness in setting the background
    and the locale indicate that he does not want us to concern ourselves
    with them, well, then that becomes your own interpretation of the
    sentences under discussion, giving us now three choices as to how
    to understand them. But it seems to me that you have answered simply
    "who cares?", which seems contrary to the attitude I imagine a serious
    writer hopes for from his serious readers, namely "what did he possibly
    mean by that?".

    all the best,
    Mattis