Rambling on Seymour(s)

Jon Tveite (jontv@ksu.edu)
Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:10:02 -0500 (CDT)

Simon Schwarz <Verloren@msn.com> wrote:
 
> i think Seymour was very ambivalent towards Muriel,
> or maybe primarily towards the ideas of love and marriage, etc....
> ... i think Seymour loved her for the most idealistic and romantic
> notions possible;  because she was so 'simple', and therefore she viewed
> the world similarly. 

I've said this before, but I think he marries her simply because she wants
him to.  If we are supposed to accept Seymour as some kind of Eastern
mystic, and it seems we are, we shouldn't expect him to form strong
romantic bonds.  So one person is as good as another for Seymour to marry,
and when Muriel becomes attached to him, he relents and marries her (much
like Waker gives away his new bicycle simply because the other boy asked
him for it).  I think another factor is that Muriel is childlike, and most
of Salinger's main characters have an unshakeable loyalty to children -- a
reflexive need to watch out for them and shelter their innocence.  Of
course, this doesn't square very well with the graphic display of
self-destruction he puts her through. 

>From Jaramillojp@kktv.com:

> Maybe just maybe he is trying to
> give a message of how phony she is and how she needs to wake up and 
> how it all just killed him.

I disagree.  I've never had the feeling that Seymour's suicide has
*anything* to do with Muriel in particular.  Far from being a message, I
think it shows how complete his disregard for her has become, by the time
of his death.  I keep coming back to the central metaphor of the
bananafish glutting itself and getting fatally stuck in a hole.  The best
reading I can come up with (taking Eastern philosophy into account) is
that strong affections for innocent things in general -- Sybil, Muriel,
Franny, etc. -- are causing him to get stuck: to stray from his path to
spiritual enlightenment. 

But there really isn't much invoking Eastern philosophy in "A Perfect Day
for Bananafish."  And the Seymour of the story bears almost no resemblance
to the Seymour of S:AI.  The Seymour of the story may be more like Buddy,
especially in his dialogue and rapport with children, but I am not
entirely convinced by Buddy's 11th-hour revelation that "the Walrus was
Paul" (I mean, that "See-More Glass" was really Buddy). 

As someone pointed out recently (das42@hotmail.com -- sorry I can't
remember your name), Salinger probably had no idea that the Seymour of
"Bananafish" would become the central obsession of his writing after CITR. 
I would go so far as to say that maybe "Bananafish" *is* about someone who
sees himself as a threat to children, and therefore commits suicide.  Only
later does he become Seymour Glass: seer, poet, and martyr to the cause of
spiritual purity.  I've always tried to fit "A Perfect Day for Bananafish"
into the context of everything that came after it, but maybe that's not
the way to go -- maybe we should see the two Seymours as different
characters, despite Salinger's efforts to integrate them. 

RE: the "Bananafish" Seymour, Beth, if you're out there, what did you mean
by the following statement? 

	"the girl (who so innocently referred to him as see more - little
	did she know), at least for me represented S's last clinging to
	something still innocent and pure.  when she saw the bananafish,
	that was the end.  he had to go." 

I'm getting a fairly explicit picture I've never had before, reading the
story on my own.  Are you suggesting that "bananafish" is a euphemism for
a particular male body part little girls shouldn't have much to do with? 
I've never heard this theory before -- have others?  I hate to admit it,
but it seems like a defensible reading -- if you keep the two Seymours 
separate.

Jon