Subject: Re: like peas in a pod
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliabaader@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2001 - 21:05:16 GMT
--- Jive Monkey <monkey_jive@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'd say that more than likely he did but that he didn't want to open
> that can of worms. Buddy is/was very protective of Seymour (his
little
> rant in Roofbeam being a fine example), as family members typically
> are, and probably ignored the resemblance.
In his GLASS STORIES AS A COMPOSITE NOVEL book, Eberhard Alsen offers an
interesting suggestion about the noted resemblence between Charlotte and
Muriel. In "Hapworth 16, 1924" (suppress your groans please, folks),
Seymour demonstrates an ability to forsee the future, as seen in his
prediction for poor, toothbrush-hiding Griffith Hammersmith: "His
future, I am fairly sick to death to say, looks abominable. I would
bring him home with us after camp is over in a minute, with complete
confidence, joy and abandon, were he an orphan."
If he is able to see Griffith's future, why then would Seymour not be
able to see his own? Alsen suggests that Seymour sees his eventual
downfall at the hands of a woman who looks like a grown-up version of
Charlotte. His explanation, then, for the heaving of the stone at
Charlotte is that Seymour is trying to stop his downfall. He's already
conquered his flaws in other "appearances". In the last appearance, he
"met a woman", no? So it is his job to fix that predisposition towards
sensuality in this appearance. From his slavering over Mrs. Happy in
"Hapworth 16, 1924", his eventual marriage to Muriel, and his eventual
suicide, we see that Seymour was unable to get beyond it.
I don't think I entirely agree with this argument, but I did think it
interesting and worth repeating.
Regards,
Cecilia.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 13:24:05 GMT