Subject: Eric's homosexuality
gauthier@SLU.EDU
Date: Wed Feb 26 1997 - 00:20:27 GMT
attached mail follows:
First off, I apologize for posting my original post three times. The
computer kept bouncing them back to me saying they were undeliverable.
Now that I know that my messages will make the digest, let me clarify my
point.
James Joyce once said, "I can explain every word in my fiction." The
implication is that many authors cannot. I do not feel that J.D.
Salinger falls in with the other word-wasting authors. Every word in his
writing means something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, the story would fail aesthetically if Eric is not gay.
1) Salinger would have been wasting words.
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.
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.
Now, am I concerned that Salinger would use "stereotypes." Not really.
Consider the time in which he was writing more carefully. Plus (and much
more importantly) how does he "use" Eric and homosexuality?
The final passage of the story talks about Ginnie having trouble throwing
out a dead Easter chicken she once found. It is clearly compared with
the chicken sandwich that she receives from Franklin. And Franklin, as I
believe I have shown, is associated with other characters--i.e., Eric and
Selena--who do not receive love. They are characters that Ginnie
pities. That is why Ginnie releases Selena from debt; she offers the
"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?
One final aesthetic note:
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.
I'll be interested in your replies,
Paul Gauthier
gauthier@slu.edu
--Boundary (ID ScgvNEPcwKg95xD6JO2S8A)
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.970225221931.602142425E@SLU.EDU>
Return-path: GAUTHIER@SLU.EDU
Received: from SLU.EDU by SLU.EDU (PMDF V5.0-7 #5070)
id <01IFUJN5CXEU9YHEAC@SLU.EDU> for bananafish@mass-usr; Tue,
25 Feb 1997 21:52:30 CST
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:52:30 CST
From: gauthier@SLU.EDU
Subject: Eric's homosexuality
In-reply-to: <9702252015.AA18422@cassatt>
Message-id: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.970225211841.602114196B-100000@SLU.EDU>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
First off, I apologize for posting my original post three times. The
computer kept bouncing them back to me saying they were undeliverable.
Now that I know that my messages will make the digest, let me clarify my
point.
James Joyce once said, "I can explain every word in my fiction." The
implication is that many authors cannot. I do not feel that J.D.
Salinger falls in with the other word-wasting authors. Every word in his
writing means something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, the story would fail aesthetically if Eric is not gay.
1) Salinger would have been wasting words.
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.
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.
Now, am I concerned that Salinger would use "stereotypes." Not really.
Consider the time in which he was writing more carefully. Plus (and much
more importantly) how does he "use" Eric and homosexuality?
The final passage of the story talks about Ginnie having trouble throwing
out a dead Easter chicken she once found. It is clearly compared with
the chicken sandwich that she receives from Franklin. And Franklin, as I
believe I have shown, is associated with other characters--i.e., Eric and
Selena--who do not receive love. They are characters that Ginnie
pities. That is why Ginnie releases Selena from debt; she offers the
"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?
One final aesthetic note:
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.
I'll be interested in your replies,
Paul Gauthier
gauthier@slu.edu
--Boundary (ID ScgvNEPcwKg95xD6JO2S8A)--
--Boundary (ID ScgvNEPcwKg95xD6JO2S8A)--
-
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