In a message dated 1/19/98 4:41:53 AM EST, bowman@mail.indigo.ie writes: << Responding endlessly in a picky sort of way to other people's responses can become very tiresome but every so often my obsessionality gains the upper hand. Indulge me ? ____________>> Scottie, let's form a club :) <<Jim: When I referred to "New Yorker" dandyism, I had in mind the prose style of the magazine as exemplified in the essays of its editorial page & which I always associate (perhaps wrongly) with E.B. White. It was the tone of the narrator - Buddy - rather than the extravagances of the actor Zooey that I found a bit ornate.>> Yeah, I think I was aware of where you were coming from. I associate this with Cheever for some reason :) We're getting into some interesting territory here. I didn't get the impression from your post that you were criticizing Buddy, but Salinger himself. Is his speaking, ostensibly, thru Buddy a means of commenting on Buddy's character? Is this part of Salinger's art? Part of the point of the narrative? Is Salinger's writing different when he's not writing as if he were Buddy Glass? << When I wrote of the conversation between Bessie & Zooey being `expository' I meant there was a lot of `telling' going on as - for just one example - when the son explains to his mother what is behind her daughter's problem with the Jesus prayer. In the kind of book Salinger wrote, dialogue constitutes most of the action. It's what the character `do' to each other, it illustrates their relationship with each other. Here, it strikes me as a cumbersome way of filling in the context of the story. I suspect he realises he's in danger of losing the audience when he makes even Zooey ask if Bessie is still paying attention. And when, later, Bessie asks: `Is that what Franny's supposed to be doing ? I mean is that what she's doing & all ?' - it sounds like an unconvincing attempt to reassure us that it's all very interesting.>> Eh, I see your point, but given the circumstances, are expository dialogues all that unnatural? Say, if there's a serious problem--or the threat of one--with one member of the family? << My mother died quite a number of years ago but our relationship had, indeed, something of the affectionate combativeness that's presented in the Glass family. But there was never anything `expository' in our conversations. In the intimate, lifelong struggle for power that characterises most mother & son relationships there's little place or need for `explanations'.>> Can you honestly say you've never had a single conversation such as Zooey's with your mother in your entire life? And if not, is it not possible that others have? << We British are certainly arrogant. To typifiy us as `pretentious jackasses' is an expensive mistake made in both the distant & recent past by many simple minded folk.>> What, like the Irish? :) Seriously, I wasn't calling ALL the British pretentious jackasses. You'll notice my post was in the singular. I was only referring to You. :) But, since the British--or middle class British males, that is--can be "certainly arrogant," my comment was intended to imply that perhaps a British male would be more inclined to this fault than others. Now, if you Really wanted to reply to me on this one--say, if our roles were reversed, I'd be thinking along the lines of the pot and the kettle, and taking one to know one, to use trite Americanisms, begging your pardon sire :) << The Glass's `large apartment' is situated not as you suggest, in the Upper West side of New York but in `...an old but, categorically, not unfashionable apartment house in the East Seventies, where possibly two thirds of the more mature women owned fur coats....'>> I was aware that the Glass's apartment was in a more fashionable part of New York. But I think I meant to say that it was, well, "barely fashionable," not highly fashionable--older fashionable--and the Glass family "barely" fit in there. The whole story seemed to point to the idea that they were really just a bit in over their heads, or that they had settled long ago, otherwise they wouldn't belong--it wouldn't be a neighborhood they could move into that day if looking for housing. I didn't get the impression that the Glasses were particularly rich or well off, but I could be mistaken. << This is not what most of us first think of as the equivalent of the modest carpenter's house in Galilee. Poverty is not the sine qua non of the religious experience but there seems to be a consensus among the great teachers that it helps.>> eh, I understand this, but I don't think poverty is seen as helping, just that riches are seen as dangerous. We could throw quotes back and forth, of course, but if you place Jesus' teachings on the subject within the context of the Hebrew Scriptures--particularly the Law and the book of Proverbs--and the applications of those teachings by Paul--you get a slightly different impression. In the Hebrew Scriptures, for example--the teachings of Moses--material wealth is a sign of God's favor and blessing. Yet there is a constant undercurrent of the awareness that too much wealth hardens the individual against God. The balance in the teachings of Moses is a prayer for 'daily bread,' a desire to have our physical needs more than met, but not a desire to be filthy rich. This was exemplified by the children of Israel wandering in the desert, gathering each day what they needed for the day. Extremes of both wealth and poverty are to be avoided, and Jesus, following this tradition, taught us to pray for our "daily bread." The point of my comments was that spiritual enlightenment is not limited or bound by class--that is the point of the emphasis on poverty in the teachings of Christ. His listeners would have tended to think the materially wealthy were especially blessed, following Moses, while Christ chose to emphasize character traits such as humility and dependence on God--something the materially impoverished are more apt to display...as per the book of James. In this discussion I felt we were making the opposite mistake, taking poverty to be a sign of holiness, or a prerequisite of sorts. I don't think that is the case... << And yes, as a somewhat overweight old man, I've not the slightest intention of indulging sentimental fantasies about fat women, young or old. I do something much more useful. I treat them every day of the week. _______________ >> HA! I'd like to hear from some of THEM :) Jim