Re: Zooey rediscovered
Peggy F. Jean-Louis (pfj6868@is.nyu.edu)
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:12:37 -0500 (EST)
I thought Scottie's post was a very interesting one because it's on a
subject that I've been thinking about on and off for the past few days.
I recently read a very scathing article on Salinger called "Salinger's
arrested development" by Bruce Bawer published in September 1986 in 'The
New Criterion.' In it, Bawer argues that Salinger's obsession with the
Glass family is to the detriment of his writing style. In Salinger's quest
for us to admire and want to emulate the spiritual purity and
prayerfulness of the Glasses, he loses the necessary objectivity required
to write fully fleshed out characters. Bawer states, "Salinger is more
interested in having a family of incurable childlike adults to play with
on paper than he is in trying to figure out how people like that *really*
get to be that way or how they they might manage to become (horrors!)
emotionally healthy adults."
I must admit that this article took me aback and forced me to look at my
own feelings about the Glass family and why I like them as much as I do.
I do identify with them very much. Is identification with the
Glasses a sign of emotional immaturity? Scottie seems to say as much and
so does Mr. Bawer. If so, does Salinger's preoccupation with them point to
his own level of immaturity? Has he chosen to become a recluse because he
is emotionally stunted and can't deal with the slings and arrows of life?
Is that why Seymour killed himself? Do we all just need to 'grow up'?
Seymour can't, the last we've heard of the Glass family, no one else has.
And what does 'growing up" mean in this case? How does it help?
As you can see, I have a lot of questions and almost no answers. Any
thoughts?
Peggy