Subject: Re: bananafish-digest V1 #469
From: Suzanne Morine (suzannem@dimensional.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 00:45:16 GMT
Fair warning: I'm about to unsubscribe. I've been thinking of leaving for
months.. I let drop my reasons, here, too. Frame it, folks!
At 09:42 AM 1/14/2002 -0500, Cecilia wrote:
>- --- Suzanne Morine <suzannem@dimensional.com> wrote:
> > I mean, there really are people out there to watch out for. Love
> > everyone: ptooey. Sometimes that really just encourages self-centered
> > people's selfishness. That is worse than saying nothing.
>
>Oh, I don't know, Suzanne. [response that utterly ignores the point of
>selfishness encouraged, but I must say that was decent to not cut it from
>the quote.. but still..]
Oh, I don't know, Cecilia, living by principles alone is a very bad idea,
in my not so humble opinion.
Certainly OBJECTIVELY everyone is the fat lady. That is not a new
observation. It wasn't anything new even when Salinger wrote it. We've got
ourselves to look after and that obligation gets in the way of the ideal of
selflessness and love and service and endlessly generous patience with
everyone on the planet (don't hide from anyone!). And that limitation
logistically takes precedence.
I'm really not a big enough fan of Salinger to win any competitions based
on how much one loves and touts his philosophies. You win. I don't love
Salinger's philosophies (or at any rate none that I can think of in firing
off this brilliant and historic meta-reply). I think we both like his
values, though.
What I love about Salinger is how Holden *wants* to understand his world
yet has to settle for some observations and a sense of humor because he
*doesn't* have much of a philosophy, though he tries, as I said, to
understand the world, which is smart of him, in my opinion. This character
is so true to the experience of life, and so much of a wiser approach than
living by principles alone, in my not so humble opinion. Holden is like a
*companion* to the reader. To me, the neatest thing in "Franny" is when her
brother looks out the window and sees the little girl with the dog. I guess
that's kind of companionable, now that I think about it. The fat lady was
just something to end the story with, to me.
I must talk more about how selfless loving of all and sundry has a very bad
side effect, how it *rewards* *selfishness* in others. Yes, I must. I
maintain that one is better off to be careful and you even said you
practice this and not what you preach. So maybe you already know that
endless selfless love sets one up for being the plaything of jackasses. One
labors on and on, trying to reach them, thinking, "no good deed is wasted,"
only to find later that one's beneficiaries were taking each reiteration as
their due of yet another wickedly amusing entertainment from their living
toy. Good deeds wasted. Yes. Wasted. The assholes (a.k.a. unconvicted
criminals) don't care if others' entire lives are sacrificed for these
putridly stagnant, reiterative, harmful, insulting playtimes. (And, with a
few extreme exceptions, which wouldn't be helped much by amateur help
*anyway*, I don't *care* what harmful people's childhoods were like: people
are responsible for their own behavior. No one can fault *others* when
harmful people are *not* protected from the results of their very own
behavior. It's not wrong or weird when people give up on them and
harmlessly walk away.)
Instead, if one walks away, not hurting anyone, the toying assholes, might
decide to get a life (eventually, or maybe they just find another living
playtoy). And the energy spent on being their ass is spent on something
better. Or not spending energy at all -- even a basking in the sun would
have been better for all concerned. (The only case that I can imagine where
the energy might be better spent being their playtoy is if they were going
to switch to using a child if you quit. Even then, I think it's better to
look for other remedies than such endless self-sacrifice. For instance,
calling 1-800-4-a-child.) Even if that doesn't convince you (for example,
perhaps you prefer to die trying), please concede that living by objective
principle alone is not for everyone. Antolini's quote comes to mind, but I
won't belabor my point any further.
<on why I'm leaving this list>
It seems to me that this mailing list is much like the dance I describe in
the paragraph before that last one. And, in turn, my leaving the list is
like that last paragraph. I now think that the wise subscribers are the
ones who subscribe, see what this group is about, and soon unsubscribe. It
has taken me a long time to catch on. Yuppers, it has.
Cecilia, I do think you're one of the nice ones, don't get me wrong, but,
still, what goes on here *all* starts looking like.. idiocy. I include some
of my past posts in that, because I have indeed danced that dance above.
(Though if anyone thinks I read the recent post with my name in the subject
line, they haven't properly digested the above observations.)
I've contributed stuff to this list and I don't see why I shouldn't speak
up as I am, except that my observations aren't likely to make a dent in the
way things are run here. I've already read the arguments here before. Oh,
we don't want *anyone* to feel unwelcome, not even if it's an asshole who
simply views this list as a place to bait harmless, unthreatening people,
even really wonderful, valuable people. The result is that he (anyone
reading this knows who I'm talking about -- it's ridiculously obvious)
should do what any honest list baiter would do and proclaim, "veni, vedi,
vici," already. It is HIS list. I'd say that typically 50-plus percent of
the posts in this list revolve around him. So, okay, its *half* his list.
But give him a couple more years, it'll be all about him, truly. He would
*roundly* lose a contest on loving and touting Salinger's philosophies and
values. In my not very humble opinion, he regularly gets close to honesty,
though. I suppose it adds to the thrill of his personal playpen to
practically *say* what he thinks of Salinger's -- and our -- values.
Of course, he is about to be roundly and thoroughly assured that he is
welcome and that I am comparatively good riddance (despite my high
proportion of on-topic contributions). I'm not going to stick around to
watch that dance yet again. I am sure that he is laughing gleefully in
anticipation of the volley of praises that will come his way after this
historic posting. More entertainment! Wheeee! Horay for him!! It's HIS list!
I thought about filtering out all messages that have his name or email in
it, as well as his vocal fans. But to continue in the vein of honesty, I'm
*mainly* interested in CITR related stuff, which makes up maybe 10% of the
traffic on this list (and looking over the last couple of months, most of
that is from myself, depending on how you count). I don't like the Glass
saga, except for "Perfect Day.." It's unfortunate for me that it's best to
leave entirely because the only other Salinger list I'm aware of has only
like 10 members, so it appears that this is the only game in the english
speaking online world. But 10% isn't enough to keep me here, once I'm done
with my final soapbox. ;-)
Maybe the list "can't" be changed. The argument would go that the only
*sure* remedy -- given how easy it would be to get a new email address and
how many people with no lives are out there -- would be for the list to be
moderated. I hear that the best lists are the moderated ones, but then
moderating imposes a big burden on the moderator, who must read it all in a
timely manner and has to be utterly fair in selecting articles, and must
produce clear list guidelines to start with. On the other hand, a simpler
remedy could be tried and if it fails, it fails.
I don't want to get into all of my observations, but I'll force myself.
Looking over my other mailing lists, I can see that there does seem to be a
tendency for the most vocal list members to be the ones with big issues
about the topic of the list: too pro or too con. And then there are the
lists that never stay on topic and the lists that one person takes over..
Oh, I see we're back to the starting point of this momentous volley.
</why I'm leaving this list>
Suzanne
>If you go around protecting yourself from
>everybody, sooner or later you so insulate yourself that it's impossible
>to go on living.
P.S. And thanks for generalizing again, which was something I pointed out
before, but was ignored. Ho hum. That's really super cool. If you advocate
being selective about who you give an effort to, it means you're cutting
*everyone* out. Yeah. Right. Please.
>Isn't that what's happened to Holden?
P.P.S. No, I can't agree. Throughout the novel, he tries to find someone
healthy to talk to in a mutually beneficial, conversational way. Holden is
cool. He doesn't end the novel in some self-hating shame going back on his
approach. I find the ending vague. The cabin fantasies are only fantasies.
He voluntarily quit loving them while talking to Phoebe.
Holden is imperfect, yes, but he doesn't go around trying to hurt people
(well, he wasn't nice to old Luce, but then I totally don't blame Luce for
peacefully leaving him, which didn't hurt him). I get the impression you
don't like Holden and I don't understand that in the least. I win that
competition! Weeee! Yay for me.
> > I disagree with this. You're generalizing as much as the "hate all
> > phonies" policy would. I think Holden is rightfully angry
> > at the phonies who are clearly not trying and who confidently disregard
> > the human/frail side of life. Commander Blop was going to crush
> > Holden's hand just to seem cool.
>
>[..] We've got the story from Holden's point of view, remember, and he's a
>great liar.
I think Holden has a solid sense of people and he rarely, if ever, lies to
the reader. He is, in fact, very honest with the reader. (The price of the
prostitute I think was either an honest mistake of his or of Maurice's, or
Maurice screwing him over in the elevator at the start of it all. Also, the
exaggerations are not meant to mislead the reader, it's just the way he
talks. "I nearly broke my crazy neck." I assumed all readers know he
exaggerates.) Lying to other people in situations, that's another story. He
lies to get by in life, as he explains. I don't believe he is lying in
conveying his sense of what's going on, except in his view of himself, but
that's not unique to Holden. And no, to answer your next objection, no, I
am not saying his sense of things is infallible. Everyone gets to rely on
their own good sense. And Holden does have good sense, in my opinion.
>I think that people with discernment can tell in most cases but in all?
>[etc..]
When did I say "all" or "granted anyone infallibility." I thought it was
okay to assume that you'd know I meant according to his own sense of
things. All anyone can do is rely on their own sense. But then I have
always had a policy of relying at least a little bit on my own sense, even
if I cherish a principle an awful lot. I need to be careful here. Maybe
it's helped you a lot to rely more singularly on principle.
>I don't discount your point of view. In fact, in practice, I'm more apt
>to lean toward your side of the fence than mine,
Yes, thanks for that honesty. That was fair. I think your point of view is
fine for you, but I sure ain't buying it for myself, especially with the
honesty in your point that you are saying "do as I say, not as I do."
Again, thanks!
THAT'S ALL, FOLKS!
Remember to be nice to Tim: no styled text.
OKAY, NOW THAT IS ALL!
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 09:27:54 GMT