Re: The Inverted Forest

Yeah, the story is sad...patheic. But you're right about the wonderful
elements. My favorite paragraph is the one describing Corrine's and
Ford's first kiss. He kisses her almost automatically when he first
comes in the Chinese food restaurant -- like they were married for ages
and it was the end of a work day.

She tells herself the evolution of their kisses is going to go backwards
:). That was too cool. Sentimental even.

I can see Ford as a Seymour prototype, both distrubed artists, so long
as he's a prototype and not identified with him. Bunny? She's more than
a fan. She's a fellow writer. I think they both suffer from the same
pathology, whatever it is -- a certain coldness. Remember she didn't
wind up being the naive young college student she made herself out to
be. She wound up being in her early 30s, married, at least one kid, and
capable of engaging in a sustained deception with people who'd been nice
to her. I don't think Corrine could have begun to imagine someone like
that.

Jim

Kim Johnson wrote:

>--- Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Kim -- I wasn't thinking psychopath. I was thinking
>>sociopath. But we're along
>>the same lines.
>>
>>
>
>
>i've haven't read the story in a while, but i think
>salinger himself uses the word 'psychopath'. and
>that's the shocking thing about it.
>
>overall, i found the story sort of grotesque, and sad.
> the whole bunny croft angle. and the descent into
>booze and back with 'the brain'.
>
>there are some wonderful things in it. the early
>meetings with corriene at the chinese restaurant. and
>the line about a poet doesn't invent his poetry, he
>finds it. and i do like the two lines of poetry aaron
>quoted yesterday. (in seymour's defense, in the
>comparison, the keats poem was written at age eight.)
>i like the story because it exhibits salinger's early
>involvement with poetry. if i'm not mistaken, ray
>ford is the first poet in salinger's work. (could be
>wrong on this.) i know some critics speak of ford as
>a prototype for seymour; i just don't see that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Are you saying Salinger wished it was never
>>published because of the connections
>>people drew between him and Ford, the poet?
>>
>>
>
>
>i'm just guessing that the grotesque portrayal of the
>poet might not be the later salinger's take. and sure
>he might not want to see the working out of
>psychological matters so brazenly exposed. though i'm
>not saying that ford is a self-portrait. but people
>might mistakenly make connections. also, it's that the
>story, at least in my memory of it, is so
>out-of-character with his other earlier works. (but i
>haven't read the underpublisheds in a while and don't
>trust this statement myself.)
>
>
>
>
>>Bunny Croft the biggest poetry groupie ever? Or do
>>you mean Joyce Maynard? :).
>>I can see why Salinger may have regretted publishing
>>this thing.
>>
>>
>>
>
>i find the current-day maynard's behavior not
>enviable. but as to 1972, i think we must remember
>that salinger initiated the relationship, and
>controlled the relationship from start to finish.
>maynard wasn't a groupie in the sense she really
>wasn't aware of salinger's work. she says she hadn't
>even read 'the catcher'. (i don't know if i believe
>that.) anyway, i haven't read her book since it came
>out. but i do think a careful reading of it does
>allow us some insight into salinger's personal world.
>(or at least back in the early 70s.)
>
>kim
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Mar 18 12:40:24 2003