Subject: Re: sexuality in Salinger
From: Paul Gauthier (gauthier@SLU.EDU)
Date: Tue Jan 28 1997 - 04:37:13 GMT
Malcolm Lawrence said:
> "ps: I've been trying to see seymour as a gay man and have to admit that could explain why he might have married muriel but not much else."
>
> Remember that line of Seymour's from "Zooey": "...all legitimate =
> religious study must lead to unlearning the differences, the illusory =
> differences, between boys and girls, animals and stones, day and night,
> heat and cold."
>
> One of the reasons I love Salinger so much is because he doesn't get =
> sexuality confused with perspective. As re: "Eskimos" proves, Eric's =
> sexuality is a moot point, be it hetero or homo, has absolutely NOTHING
> to do with the story whatsoever and one of the best things about =
> Salinger is that the types of love and compassion he's illustrating =
> haven't got the slightest thing to do with the libido. As such he's one
> of the most revolutionary post-war American authors.=20
>
Malcolm,
First off. I want to thank you for your post's tone; one post has
been placed on this server repeatedly the past few digests (even
after a now famous apology) that suggests I am either homophobic or
uncertain of my own sexuality. People can think whatever they want to
about me, I suppose, but I'd much rather have an academic discussion that
deals with my theory than read continued ad hominem attacks.
That said, I do have to take issue with your suggestion that Eric's
sexuality has "NOTHING" to do with the story. It seems important in
several respects: 1) it explains better than any other theory I've seen
presented why Eric did not serve during WWII, 2) it explains why Eric is
so upset that the man moved out of his apartment without leaving a note,
and 3) it would give us a better idea of how much of an outcast Franklin
has become because he was unable to serve in WWII; society (not me, I
hope this is clear by now) has reduced him to spending his time with gay
men (i.e., a social outcast).
I am also perplexed by your suggestion that Salinger's writing has
nothing to do with the libido; I can point you to several instances where
libido seems important: 1) Eloise and the soldier in the elevator ("Uncle
Wiggly"), 2) the affair in "Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes," and 3) the
narrator's hormones in "De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period."
You might argue that these three examples are not necessarily
dealing with "love"; but clearly the other man's involvement with Eric
could not be termed "love" either. He uses Eric as a laundrymat/pipeline
to theatre producers.
> All these lit crits that you mention trying to discuss homosexuality in
> the Glass stories are completely missing the point, and Salinger is =
> laughing all the way to the grave because they try reading into what his text makes quite clear.
> As I've tried to emphasize by using myself as an example as far as who
> is and who is not homosexual is concerned, things aren't always what =
> they seem. Now that this culture has finally decided to admit that =
> homosexuality is not evil, perhaps it will try to actually be able to =
> identify one soon without falling back on misleading stereotypes.
>
> Malcolm
Malcolm, as I've tried to point out, using yourself as an example is
a false analogy. The story takes place in the 1940's. Society took a
harder line against homosexuality then, as your own post suggests when
you say, "Now that this society has finally decided that homosexuality is
not evil . . ."
Also, in my final post, I tried to suggest that society norms
behavior (students getting their hair-cut at a southern university
pre-Beatles invasion). My suggestion is that Eric refuses to conform to
society's standards because he is not confused or embarrased about his
sexuality; he seems to be an openly gay man to me.
Perhaps a better way of looking at this would be to look at other
characters from the book. They continuously try to appear to be
heterosexual. Almost any character over 12 or so, does this; Let's just
look at the speaking males: Seymour (marries), Walt and Eloise's husband
(interest in Eloise), Franklin (Ginnie's sister), the Chief (his girl
friend), Boo-Boo's husband, Sergeant X (his wife), Corporal Z (his
girlfriend), the two men in "Pretty Mouth" (affair and wife), Jean De
Daumier Smith (repeated references to women) and his father (his girl
friend), Teddy's father.
In fact, the only speaking male who I cannot remember making remarks
that would lead society to believe he is heterosexual is the man who
speaks with Teddy on the deck of the ship. He, of course, does not carry
any of the "stereotypes" (or cultural codes) of a gay man. In fact, his
body language suggests he wants to be perceived as straight as he crosses
his legs, but only at the ankles. Moreover, he doesn't choose to speak
through his pharynx or about women's fashion.
My question is this, why does Salinger include all of those details
about Eric? Is it just superflous detail? Did he need an editor? Or is
there the possibility that he wants us to understand that Eric is
consciously flouting the cultural codes of the time because he is not
confused about his sexuality; he is proud to be gay. Remember, it is not
until the end that Ginnie asks if Eric has a bad heart too; Eric begins
to answer in the negative but does not have time to give the answer as
the scene is interrupted by Selena's return.
Later, WILL HOCHMAN said,
I don't agree with the notion that critics have it all wrong and
used my imagining seymour as a gay man as a point. I don't think
seymour is gay, but when matt posted his piece on that citing
Gwynn and Blotner, I started thinking...and reading things
differently. I still don't agree and know better why now, but I
also had a nice "alternative text" in my mind that made me see
muriel differently than I had. My basic argument in my book will
be that great writing like salinger's is great because it creates
diverse, possible meaning.
Seymour is interesting. I doubt he's gay. He might be confused about
his sexuality though. One of the cultural codes I mentioned was
discussing women's fashion. Seymour is, I believe, the only other person
who engages in conversation (I'm not talking about narration here) about
female fashion. His attempt isn't as successful as Eric's though. He
says something like, "That's a nice blue swimsuit" when the swimsuit is,
in fact, yellow. A confused attempt that may come somewhere in line with
the twin beds found in his hotel room (though I read that more as a sign
of a now loveless marriage (it's not the room they had the first time
they were there).
I'll be interested in anyone's thoughts on these ideas. I'll be dismayed
if people decide to attack me instead.
Paul Gauthier
gauthier@slu.edu
-
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