Re: Eric's homosexuality


Subject: Re: Eric's homosexuality
gauthier@SLU.EDU
Date: Wed Feb 26 1997 - 12:01:57 GMT


Third time's a charm?

Before I have another go at this topic, I'll say a few things about myself.
My best friend from high school is a lesbian. The chair of my Ph.D.
exams is a lesbian. I live in the Central West End area of St. Louis.
There is a high concentration of gays and lesbians in this community
because it is fairly liberal. I don't have a homophobic bone in my
body. I might be themost liberal person on this list. I certainly
support gay rights and gay marriages. That I even have to mention such
information on this list is outrageous.

Now, I'll reply to the most reasonable, intelligent reply, and try to
further explain my position.

On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, tiffany anne hanulec wrote:

>
> >
> >J.D. Salinger is also a modernist novelist. One of the primary tenets of
> >modernism is that the author "shows" rather than "tells." And let's be
> >honest, there would be NO reason for Eric to discuss his sexuality with
> >Ginnie in their short conversation.
> I agree. However, you can not tell me that JDS would totally be classified
> as a "modernist" author. (Hemingway, he _surely_ is not.) He expounds on
> things far too much and far too often to be considered as such. Not
> neccesarily in this story perhaps, but in general.
>
The early Salinger I would classify as modernist. It might help to think
of modernisms, however, rather than a monolithic modernism. You aren't
contending that he is post-modern are you? If so, how?

> >Eric's qualities do conform to stereotypes of homosexuality. That is
> >clear. What is unclear to me, is why you assume they were considered
> >"stereotypes" in 1950. Clearly, a great deal of progress has been made
> >in educating the public on homosexuality in the last decade. Were there
> >GLAD celebrations on university campuses back then? I think not.
> No, but the stereotpyes that were presented in the story were stereotypes
> that existed in the 1950's. The "sissy" stereotype of gay men (high voice,
> leg crossing etc) has existed since the 1920's.
> And I have no idea what GLAD celebrations have to do with any of what you
> are saying.

I agree that the stereotypes have long existed. My point about GLAD
celebrations was intened to imply that there was no P.C. movement to stop
using stereotypes in literature as there is today. There is truly a
difference in culture, and I would be willing to take Salinger to task if
he wrote the story today. It's part of the culture, thought, just as
Jake Barnes' homophobia and anti-semitism is part of post WWI culture.

> >Moreover, one of the "stereotypes" that I mentioned--seeing "Beauty and
> >the Beast" eight times--is linked to one of the most famous scenes of
> >homosexuality in literature. In _The Great Gatsby_ Nick Carraway (and
> >please don't try to tell me he does NOT have a gay encounter) stands in a
> >bedroom with a man in his underwear, while the man reads through a list
> >of ballets. One of them was "Beauty and the Beast." That Salinger would
> >make use of such a borrowing should not surprise anyone who appreciates
> >his artistry.
> Yeah, but Beauty and the Beast is mentioned in about 3000 other places to in
> non-gay encounters. I see no other evidence that it is linked to Gatsby,
> nor do I think Nick Carraway is gay either. There are many other ways to
> read the B&B thing. AND he is talking about the movie, not the opera.
> Maybe he is referring to himself?

I realy can't agree with you about the Carraway scene. We can discuss
this off-list, if you wish, but this is clearly a case where a cigar is
more than a cigar.

As for the "Beauty and the Beast" analogy, I think what suggests that
Salinger is borrowing from Fitzgerald is the gayness combined with the
reference--though, of course, it does shift from a ballet to a movie
based upon the ballet. If you don't buy Eric is gay, then you won't buy
the rest of the suggestion, and that's fine.
>
> >Plus, it is the only reason that explains why Eric did not serve during
> >WWII. I won't quote the text (not even looking at it, but you can) but
> >Eric tells Ginnie that the reason he didn't serve in WWII was NOT because
> >of his health. (Keep in mind that WWII is no Vietnam. Men wanted to
> >serve.) Why didn't he serve? Please tell me.
> Why would being gay have anything to do with him not serving? There was no
> ban on gays in the military then. Are you implying that because he was gay
> he wouldn't want to serve? We are talking about upper class people here.
> It was not uncommon for them to get out of serving. This is not a
> stereotype, but a fact. They would call in favors quirte often, or work
> somewhere or go to school to get out of going.

Here I think you are conflating WWII with Vietnam. We were bombed by the
Japanese and Hitler was killing all of the Jews (something that certainly
bothered Salinger). Men wanted to serve in this war. And Eric certainly
held no objection to the war as he worked in the factory with Franklin.
Plus, I see no evidence that Eric receives help from his mother. He
lives in a cramped apartment and has to take a job in a factory.
> > >Also,
the story would fail aesthetically if Eric is not gay.
> Why? What exactly is the POINT of this story in your opinion? Why was
> Franklin who is obviously NOT gay be hanging out with Eric? How does that
> relate to the point?

Franklin, like Eric, is a victim of society. Certainly this theme runs
throughout the work. Eric is an outsider to society, and one of his few
options for companionship is Eric.

> > >2) It ruins the comparison between
Ginnie and people in Selena's
> >household. Ginnie return home to her mother and a prepared lunch (a
> >loving gesture). The three in Selena's household find no love: Selena
> >receives no lunch (and her mother is never seen), Franklin is rejected by
> >Ginnie's older sister, and Eric is rejected by his gay lover. There is a
> >clear and artistic parallelism here.
> But what is this saying about anything? Ginnie finds something there,
> doesn't she? She has a crush on Franklin (or so is intimated) so she finds
> something. She also keeps teh sandwich he gives her as a token of something
> that she cares about, contrasted with the chick at the end.
> In general, I think this is the story with the least amount of merit in Nine
> Stories. I don't see the point, and never have found anyone who has. So,
> if you know whart is going on with here, what he is trying to say, please share.

First off, let me point at that it is never stated directly that Ginnie
has a crush on Franklin. I don't have a problem with you thinking that,
but I'm curious what text you would point to to back up your claim. The
point of the story for me is that Ginnie changes. At the beginning of
the story she thinks of Selena as a drip, uses her for fresh tennis
balls, and wants her money. At the end, she changes and learns
compassion--another common theme in Nine Stories. In your reading, she
remains selfish (using Selena to be near Franlin) and the story is
pointless.>
> >In addition, I'm uncertain why you should doubt that Eric is gay. It
> >seems that much of _Nine Stories_ deals with the experience that
> >different sorts of people had in WWII: Seymour (suicide), Sergeant X (war
> >trauma), Walt (death), Franklin (heart problems--can't serve), Romona
> >(father dies--yes, I think Walt is her father), etc. The list could go
> >on . . . and it does. Eric is gay.
> As I said above, that has nothing to do with his war experience....
> Besides, do you think he is out if he is gay? If so, would his upper class,
> probably snotty mother still be talking to him as she is, if he was?
>
Presumably, she talks to him because she needs a dog sitter.

> >"love" that she has not been offered by her mother. And if you really
> >think her generosity is due to her crush on Franklin (he's 24, she's 13)
> >then why is she going to do something with Selena tonight, when Franklin
> >will (presumably) still be out with Eric?
> Not presumably. They are going to a movie that is obviously starting soon.
> It is only lunch time. Surely he will be home for dinner with his family?

Point granted. That's the problem with trying not to quote the text. I
try to avoid looking at the text to much. You are clearly right here.

>
> >Society (not Salinger) would consider Eric to be less of a man because he
> >was gay. Franklin is described as being half-man/half-boy plus, as he
> >did not serve during WWII, he will in some ways be lumped with Eric.
> >This also explains why he is so bitter towards war (the stories title);
> >because of WWII, he is a driftless outsider to society. He's not really
> >a man.
> Okay, I was not offended until I read to the end of this post. There is
> some serious war anxiety running through this novel. That is how most
> critics read teh ENTIRE story. Franklin is bitter towards teh war, not
> because he was not in it, but because he is afraid and anxious about it.
> How can you think after reading all of Salinger's other War stories, that he
> would create a character that felt that way? And if Salinger did not think
> that homosexuals were "less of a man", why would he write him and Franklin
> that way? You are contradictiing yourself. There were a significantly
> larger number of men of fighting age that did not serve in WWII as opposed
> to WWI and it really was not as negative as you are making it.

Tiffany, I think you misunderstand me here. And this is essential to the
story. Society in 1950 would consider a gay man to be less of a man. On
that, I think we can agree. Now, with my reading of the text, Eric--like
Selena and Franklin are VICTIMS of society. They are things like the
dead chick that society has crushed. They are things that Ginnie pities
and shows compassion for. This is what I believe Salinger would want us
to do as well.

> > Tiffany

And it wasn't in your post, but openly gay men were not allowed to serve
during WWII. I've asked an expert on the period for confirmation.

Paul Gauthier
gauthier@slu.edu

-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:01 GMT