Re: Seymour shoots Muriel?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Hapworth2: "(no subject)"
• Previous message: Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu: "Re: phonies"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "Seymour shoots Muriel?"

In a message dated 98-01-16 22:09:54 EST, you write:

<< I (as a first time reader) was surprised by Seymour's suicide. I did not
see
 it coming, and it seems clear - especially after rereading the story - that
 that was Salinger's intention. It's possible to retrace my steps and discover
 clues that I see as forshadowing for a psychologically unstable action to
 come, but not suicide. I've always felt that this is what makes the story so
 brilliant: On the page there is no epiphany, but with four words Salinger
 lifts it from the story and leaves it rattling between the reader's ears,
 transcending the form.
 -- 
 Steve Gallagher >>

I completely agree, as a first time reader.  I think that the absense of those
last four words would have reduced the storys meaning emensley.  Without the
knowledge that he definitly killed himself, how can you be sure.  And with
Salinger, if you can't be sure of one thing, you can't be unsure of anything
else.  Get what I'm saying?

-Noah

• Next message: Hapworth2: "(no subject)"
• Previous message: Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu: "Re: phonies"
• Maybe in reply to: Matt Kozusko: "Seymour shoots Muriel?"