Subject: Re[2]: Book burning? Excuse me?
From: Christy Bright (christy_bright@smb.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 1997 - 12:21:18 GMT
i waited several days before replying because i don't really have a substantial
response, just wanted to say you nailed it on the book-burning issue.
Also, I am still thinking about your take on Salinger's intentions regarding
Holden and Seymour. How wonderful to have a whole new way of looking at a book
I've read a thousand times.
Anyway, thanks.
-Susan D.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Book burning? Excuse me?
Author: <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu> at sb-entsmtp
Date: 6/13/97 8:01 PM
Um, but takeing your OWN copy of a book and serving it up for dinner
does not place you on the same level as massive group of rascist,
violent, hatefilled, hypocritical shitheads. The nazis tended to
have massive book burnings of books which the political group didn't
agree with for the soul purpose of mind control. At least I think
that was the whole deal. Somebody roasting their own platter of
pages for the basic principles of high drama and personal freedom is
*their* business. As long as they aren't takeing my copy and doing I
say "What the huh? Maybe you should skim a book next time before you
buy it to get the general idea before purchase." It does not make
them a nazi. You can "heart" Paz all you want but it's other guys
right to dislike it and say it and not be labeled a freaking nazi.
Disagree with him and "heart" Paz all over the place, but genocidal
killer that helped wipe out millions of Jews and wishes to continue
that today, umm...no.
Nothing personal in my rebuttal there by the way, I just think that
needed to be said. Disagree or agree as you please.
While I'm at it:
I have this interesting little option in the whole connecting with
Salinger thing which you can all roast me for. Maybe the whole
problem with placeing Seymour or even Holden on this pedestal. Maybe
they are "bad" examples (whoa, they're picking up chairs to throw,
let me explain) I mean maybe Salinger wasn't showing something we
should model. Seymour or Holden. Holden ends up in what seems to be
a mental hospital or something similar. Seymour blows his brains
out. Are those preferable situations? Maybe the point is seeing
ourselves in these characters, then seeing the why out. Or maybe
Salinger was trying to show we're all doomed anyway. (I think that
last chair thrown took out a rib) Maybe (I'm only saying maybe)
Salinger doesn't want people to come out and have a beer with him
because people got it wrong? Maybe, people just run around takeing
their own beliefs and try to apply it to JDS's work, and end up
screwing it up?
I don't know. Flame me as you please, and I'm totally open to
disagreement. There used to be a guy on here when I was one before
(last summer) that knew a ton about Eastern Philosophy (or at least
seemed to) and probably would have said something smart that I
would've agreed since I know jack about Eastern Philosophy.
rod
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 15:02:01 GMT