Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Eric 'n' Seymour]
Hotspur8@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 07 1997 - 02:22:36 GMT
beating a dead horse...
<< I mean it's fine for someone to think Salinger is presenting us a
portrait
of a gay man in 195*. How can anyone argue with what another reader fills
in the blanks with? But, I will continue to argue that gay or not, it has
no bearing on the story. >>
i find it fascinating as a writer & reader of short fiction that a
character's sexual orientation "has no bearing on the story". if a character
is or is not gay, to me, defines "role"-- how that character is perceived by
other's, how the character perceives itself, how these relationships
seemingly will interact with the given (or ambiguious) information. i think
to simply discount valid information that the author presents us with is a
mistake... as we've talked and talked and talked about regarding those
elements that JDS presents when describing Eric in relation to the
socio/economic perception/factors that we know existed during the late 40's
and early 50's that it was always my perception that eric was gay and it
spoke volumes to me when i reflected on the various relationships from the
story afterward.
i've always perceived this short story to be an interesting character study;
regarding dialog and action. JD plays with character clarity very
cautiously, i think. that's what i liked about this one-- his play with this
particular character's "role".
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 14:59:59 GMT