Subject: Re: who's Seymour?
From: Joshua Stott (jstott@bigplanet.net)
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 17:10:39 GMT
JJ Flikweert wrote:
<snip>
> Then I thought: isn't it completely obvious that all the Glass family
> members are intended to portray aspects of Salinger's own
> personality? To me this started to seem indeed completely obvious.
Part of Salinger's genius, whether recognized by the reader or not, is
that he does not "project" himself into his characters or as you put it
"members are intended to portray aspects of Salinger's own personality".
Since I don't know Mr. Salinger personally, I'm obviously not offering
this opinion out of some empirical proof. My opinion is based on,
however, the background of his life into which he does give us
glimpses. The biggest clues for me are his writings directly about
Existentialism or philosophers/writers who are considered
Existentialists (though like Mr. Salinger himself tells us, some of
these would definately not call themselves Existentialists today, cf
Kierkegaard)... I've tried to explain why this would matter and have
erased my explanation 10 times over, so I'll simply refer to an example:
Dostoyevski.
Dostoyevski's genius is partly attributable to this very quality that
I'm claiming for Salinger as well. The characters of the Karamazov
family, for example, though they are part of a family and obviously have
similar backgrounds, each character is complicated and unique in a way
that only an individual "self" can be, not an aspect of a single
person.
Most, even honest, attempts to write in such a "subjective" manner fail,
and this is why in this sense writers like Dostoyevski (who would be
considered an Existentialist in the same way that Kierkegaard would be)
are geniuses. Yes, I am more than happy to call Salinger a modern day
Dostoyevski in this sense, or Shakespeare for that matter.
Like I've mentioned earlier, my words are indeed failing me as I try to
explain my reasons for contradicting your hypothesis, and for that I
apologize. No, I am not a literary critic, a literature expert, nor did
I study English at the University, and such being the case, you may want
to disreguard my opinion on the matter. However, I did study and am
still currently both in and out of University studying Philosophy
(emphasis in Existentialism, especially early Existentialists such as
Kierkegaard), and it is this, my backgroud, that leads me to these
conclusions. In other words (and how many more will I make you suffer
through?!?!) from a mostly-strictly philosophical point of view
(supported by readings of literature experts on this subject exactly) I
would say that it was neither Salinger's intention for his characters to
be aspects of himself nor did he fail in his attempt to give each
character their own life and "ego/self" in his writings.
Thus, I declare Salinger a genius for having done as much. I'm sure
many will agree with me in my declaration, though possibly for different
reasons, and they are probably right in their assessment as well (yes,
I'm assuming my assessment is correct, and yes, I am in love with
parenthetical phrases and ideas or even entire paragraphs if I'm lucky
enough to evade my conscience prompting me to stop my babbling before
entirely everyone quits reading/listening -- which I'm afraid might be
the case, so...).
That is it. I'd love to be able to explain it in person, but that
might be a trifle difficult.
Josh
Still a semi-newcomer and now possibly an un-wanted guest after such a
longwinded post (and sig -- ha!)
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 23:22:21 GMT