Re: Salinger and Buddhism as promised
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:39:42 +1000
> > > Indeed, this is often suggested. But can anyone provide an example
of a
> > > "koan" and then offer a Salinger selection in which there is any
trace
> > > of significant structural, thematic, or "stylistic" similarities?
> >
> Camille responded:
> > Well, that's an odd question to ask - I would have thought a koan by
its
> > very nature would be non-structural, non-thematic and more or less
> > non-stylistic; their succinctness and simplicity not exactly an
aesthetic
> > but a functional element.
>
> Succinctness and simplicity are stylistic/structural qualities.
Not necessarily. That's like saying a scream is a style. A scream is
something which is by nature loud, impassioned, and (usually) fairly short.
Likewise, a koan is a thought or observational `question' (which is really
what a thought is) and a thought is always a fairly fleeting thing and thus
is recorded as such.
> > Koans are very different from haikus. By
> > comparing his work to a koan I'm comparing the function - think of
`Just
> > Before the War with the Eskimos' for example - like a koan it is a kind
of
> > mystery story whose meaning we must construct out of its apparent
> > meaninglessness.
>
> I'm sorry to push, but again, I am looking for specific examples.
> "Eskimos" doesn't seem to me to be a mystery story without a meaning.
> Even if some significant number of Salinger readers considers "Eskimos"
> not to have a meaning, or to be a mystery story, its impact on those
> readers (as an intellectual and aesthetic experience) will be
> qualitatively different from the impact that a koan would have on the
> same readers. The mystery and meaninglessness of a koan is a different
> sort of mystery and meaninglessness from that of "Eskimos."
> The important change that Ginnie undergoes in "Eskimos" (probably its
> key moment, I think) has a kind of meaning.
Yes, of course. And this is the very nature of koans; the inducement of of
a kind of realisation of meaning - not exactly satori, but at the very
least the extraction of meaning from the mystery. It doesn't matter what
kind of mystery; no more than does the nature of the crime in a detective
novel. It is the experience; this `koan like experience' which is the
important thing, and Salinger is skillfull enough to render it in a
koan-like way. Perhaps this wasn't the best example to pick - in fact it
might be better to consider `A Perfect Day for Bananafish'
> In what sense do Salinger's writings differ from other writings in their
> quest to be deciphered? What's the gem in there (and where is it?) that
> distinguishes Salinger from, say, Sherwood Anderson?
I can't comment on Anderson because I don't know his work, but the cult of
deciphering seems integral to Salinger's work. Why else are we still
wondering why Seymour killed himself, whether Franny is pregnant, exactly
what Holden Caulfield's journey meant a good thirty years after these
questions were first proposed to us? That's not the sort of conundrums we'd
be discussing on say, a Jane Austen listserve (Joyce evokes a similar
struggle but a linguistic rather than thematic one). For one, Salinger's
stories tend to deviate from the traditional form of story writing -
basically, pose a question and answer it by the end; move from A to B in a
quiet and orderly fashion. More often they *end* with another kind of
question or dilemma - both TCIR and Bananafish are good examples of that.
That in itself seems somewhat Zen-like (as does the fact that Salinger is
so indecipherable himself!). A lot of people I know told me after they read
`Catcher' : `That was rubbish, it didn't go anywhere, it didn't have a
beginning or end, it was all middle!' There's not too many other books that
have succeeded in using such a structure without seeming dull or pointless.
However, this structure perfectly reflects the cult of decipheration (if
there's such a word) - no answers to the question but the ones we come up
with through deciphering the journey.
> What I meant is that the shortness of a short story really has little in
> common with the shortness of a koan.
To a certain extent (although, as I said, both forms are concerned pretty
much with putting as much meaning in as little space as possible, which is
why a writer will choose to put across their theme in a short story rather
than a novel) but we must remember that Salinger is a Western person
essentially working in a Western milieu. This reminds me a lot of a rock
band we have in Australia called Yothu Yindi. They're an Aboriginal band
who use a combination of traditional Aboriginal music and instruments, and
modern instruments and dance beats. Some people criticise them for being a
watered down, Westernised version of Aboriginal music. But the fact is,
they needed a Western subtext to frame their message before it would have
any real currency to the sort of people who wouldn't usually be interested
in Aboriginal music. I've been to one of their concerts (it was at a rock
festival actually) - they play their Western-style songs but intersperse
them with wholly authentic Aboriginal stuff - it's quite incredible to see
people doing tribal dances and didgeridoo solos in a rock festival
environment. What I'm trying to say is that like Salinger, they adapt a
Western style to put across a message that would be insoluble to the
average joe. If the options are to get some of the message across or none
of the message, the former option seems best to me - especially as there
are always some people who will get sufficiently interested that they will
seek out the rest of the message. I for one wouldn't have had half the
interest in Zen that I do if I hadn't been introduced to it through
Salinger's writings.
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442