Subject: RE: Salinger's silence
From: Jon Tveite (jontv@ksu.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 19 1997 - 18:43:38 GMT
Jude <katsu@pipeline.com> offered, provocatively:
> One of the central dilemmas of understanding Salinger's silence
> (and his implied rejection of all of us) is that it contrasts so sharply
> with the generosity, love and charity of thought demonstrated by Seymour,
> and to a lesser extent, Buddy.
Well, I'm not sure that Seymour or Buddy would behave any differently than
Salinger, in the same circumstance. They are somewhat accustomed to the
spotlight, due to the "Wise Child" show, but I've never gotten the feeling
they are very public people. Buddy seems to be in a kind of self-imposed
exile, teaching at that small, rural school for girls. And Seymour doesn't
seem to get along very well with adults he doesn't know. He even skipped
his own wedding to avoid the prying eyes of strangers (or so I imagine).
It is possible to be charitable and still want to preserve a little
privacy. The problem is that Salinger, as popular as he is, can't have
just a little privacy; he feels he has to cut himself off from the world
or be trampled by obsessive fans. I can't really blame him.
> How can the same man, who created Seymour, be so stingy with himself,
> and so standoffish? If the characters were all curmudgeons who hated
> people, somehow the author's rejection of his public would be easier to
> understand. Do others have thoughts about this contrast?
I don't think Salinger hates people. And to call him "stingy" implies
that he owes something to the world. I don't believe he does. He gave us
these incredible books -- isn't that enough?
Jon
-
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