Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Eric 'n' Seymour]
From: Steve Gallagher (sgallagher@lasersedge.net)
Date: Wed Mar 05 1997 - 04:50:36 GMT
Matt said:
>You mean if Salinger chose to contstruct a character poorly or in such a
>manner as to preclude his readers' getting any sense of who the character
>was (in narrative terms, anyway)? I don't see that it's possible to do
>such a thing, primarily because it is the nature of fiction to describe
>what it presents in the course of its narrative. That is, when one writes
>about a character (as one simply must do if one is going to discuss--even
>to introduce--a character), one necessarily describes that character.
>When you gesture toward someone (fictional or otherwise), you say
>something about him--you have an implicit attitude, an implicit course of
>action (credits to Kenneth Burke). You can't gesture toward someone
>without offering information about him in some sense. Perhaps that
>"information" is only your attitude--dislike, for example--toward that
>person, but even this is information about that person's character
>(relative to you).
>
>I think I'm just misunderstanding you. How do you write about somebody in
>such a manner as to subtract from the body of information available about
>that character?
Steve:
I didn't mean to suggest that Salinger "chose to construct a character
poorly," but that he seems quite brilliant in knowing exactly what to leave
out, creating fill-in-the-blank scenes and character descriptions. Consider
this short passage that comes just as Seymour and Sybil reach the ocean's
edge:
"I like to chew candles," she said finally.
"Who doesn't?" said the young man, getting his feet wet. "Wow! It's cold."
He dropped the rubber float on its back. "No, wait just a second, Sybill.
Wait'll we get out a little bit."
I'm not sure how I read that passage the first time, but on the second or
third it gave me cause to stop, completely impressed, because I actually
saw this little girl in a yellow bikini stoop down and fumble to board a
barely floating rubber float. That's what I meant. I bring that to the
theatrics of the story for myself as The Amateur Reader. I have to beleive
there are countless readers like myself that have witnessed the same scene,
none being exactly alike and many quite different. Perhaps that's why I
thought a thread describing the Fat Lady would be intersesting--limmited,
say, to facial features. So, about Eric and my original post, I guess I
just thought is was a stretch to pronounce him "openly gay" based on the
few details we are given about him and everything that's left out. Even the
author tells us, before anything else, "His regular features, his short
haircut, the cut of his suit, the pattern of his foulard necktie gave out
no really final information." So we're left with a short and brief look
into his immediate past, his appreciation for Ginne's coat and the fact
that he's about to sit through "Beauty and the Beast" for the eighth time.
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. In my version I see Eric trying to help Franklin.
Clearly "BATB" would not be Franklin's first choice of films to see, but
Eric seems to think Franklin could use a change. And how do I know Franklin
is the first guy/gal that Eric thought could benefit from Cocteau's film?
Regarding the relevence of "BATB," I would like to reprint here a Jungian
interpretation I just found, but I'm afraid it's too lengthy and might
irritate some. So, at great risk of attack I'll finish by saying that I
think Franklin is missing love in his life--any love (an emotional
void)--and that Eric see's this (he *is* a bit of a martyr and NO I don't
think he's preying on Franklin). Kinda crazy. It's late, though.
Matt said (regarding the Sybil suit):
>Yes. characters looking beyond the traditionally recognized physical
>properties of an object and seeing instead the essence (spiritual or
>otherwise--dasein?) of that object is a central concern in Salinger.
>Seymour's mistake is perhaps intentional, but it carries the same message
>as the haikus that Buddy discovers: difference is a worldly construction
>useful only as far as we have worldly concerns. A person who has made/is
>making notable spiritual progress (Po-Ling, Teddy, Seymour, D-D Smith,
>blinded by the "crutches" of Western civilization--most successful
>Salinger protagonists) sees beyond "illusory differences."
Steve:
You know, I like what you're saying here, I really do. I just don't see it
applying to Seymour's playing around with Sybil and the colour thing. And
that's all I meant when I said "a few paragraphs sooner," that he *was*
just playing. Perhaps there's more to it. Absolutely. But definately not a
"Hey get out of my face I've got better things to think about" attitude.
Seymour creates the whole situation. He's delighted Sybil has stopped by. I
guess I just feel (perhaps completely ignorantly) that you're pushing a
little with this example.
Steve.
-
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 - 15:00:00 GMT