Re: Quiet list? there's always
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:10:51 +1000
> I didn't realize that Salinger had psychological problems, but that
> would explain a lot. After all, both Franny Glass and Holden have
> breakdowns. I've also always believed that Salinger was expressing
> himself through Holden.
You've got to be really careful saying things like that. Of course an
author would `express himself' through their character, but as soon as it's
on the page, it's fictional. Every character an author creates is obviously
a small part of that person's personality, but I don't think TCIR was a
direct autobiographical utterance. An author can adapt his own experiences
or emotions to other situations or emotions - that's his/her job. But
unlike, say `The Bell Jar' which is jarringly (forgive the pun)
autobiographical which to me demerits it, TCIR seems a distillation of the
real through the imaginary.
> What confuses me is that both Holden and Franny seem to work out their
> problems by the end of the book,
How on earth do you come to that conclusion ???! TCIR and Franny have two
of the most open ends ever. The characters do reach a sort of epiphany, but
that's not necessarily a conclusion, just an assertion of ascention to a
higher level. I wouldn't call Franny laying on the floor chanting silently
and Holden effectively returning to where he began `working out their
problems'.
> while the real-life Salinger seems to
> have simply retreated from it all. Holden, for example, ranted about
> moving to the mountains with a deaf-mute so he wouldn't have to be
> involved in conversations anymore,
<cut>
> Salinger is in hiding with his wife.
> It doesn't sound like he's accepted the stupidity of humanity all that
> much, for all that his characters seem to.
On the contrary. I think Salinger is enacting Holden's deaf-mute fantasy to
better understand humanity. The one thing a goldfish can't describe is its
own goldfish bowl. I think Salinger *has* accepted the `stupidity of
humanity'. Holden and Franny are both caught in loops - both return to
their beginnings - whereas Salinger seems to have attempted to remove
himself from this loop of human frailty perhaps in order to study it,
perhaps, like Holden, just to gain some sort of clarity and tranquility in
a world where very little of those qualities still exist.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442