Re: cubism
AntiUtopia (AntiUtopia@aol.com)
Fri, 06 Mar 1998 06:28:55 -0500 (EST)
I've been wanting to respond to this since Scottie first posted his complaint
that no one responded to his original question, but I had to find the quote,
and since my edition of Seymour was different from his, I had to reread the
thing. I've done so past the part that Scottie quoted from, which is fairly
close to the end, about 3/4 of the way through probably.
Yeah, I have to agree that the post on literary cubism--citing Hemingway, etc,
as examples--was very interesting. But when you read some of the comments in
the article cited, well....let me give you an example....
In a message dated 98-03-06 03:38:59 EST, you write:
<< On the other hand, Salinger *does* to some extent go in for cubism -
as now defined. Those endlessly modifying clauses & the
multifaceted way Buddy presents Seymour, for example, is not
unlike a painting by Duchamp or Picasso. With Salinger more is
better, whereas with Hemingway less is more. --Scottie B.>>
Buddy, in Seymour, An Introduction, most certainly Does go in for literary
cubism as it is defined in the article posted.
I quote...
<<AMF not only remembers the social and emotional scene in which this new
style of
describing was created, but it also, on occasion, reproduces that style.
Because
it is remembering and imitating or replicating, it is highly self-conscious
writing in a way that the best work of In Our Time (such as the Nick Adams
stories) was not. Some would argue that this self-consciousness makes for bad
writing, self-parodic and flat. Other readers might argue that the
style succeeds.>>
I mean, Buddy's writing in Seymour is nothing if it isn't self conscious and
self parodic, filled with digressions and modifying clauses.
Then I started noticing this and realized that "Seymour, An Introduction," is
not really about Seymour at all. More than anything, it's about Buddy writing
about Seymour, with a little bit of Buddy actually writing about Seymour in
the process of talking about what he's going through as he writes about
Seymour.
This is terribly solipsistic. But even the solipsism is self conscious.
Remember Franny's response to "Bananafish"? She said the Seymour presented in
that story seemed more like Buddy than Seymour....
Now about the actual "literary cubism" quote....I don't think the movement
actually called "literary cubism" has much to do with Buddy's use of that
phrase in "Seymour." If you remember, the quote was in the middle of a
paragraph in which Buddy was contemplating the process of describing Seymour's
face. He said if he did so, he'd describe him at several ages at once--as a
boy, an adolescent, and a man. And that he wanted to avoid this, thus
avoiding **literary cubism.** I think Buddy was comparing a description of
Seymour at several ages at once to a cubist portrait that would break up its
subjects into several facets and present them all simultaneously.
The "middle class" reaction against cubism? I think non aesthetes--the non
intelligentsia (as a class, not the unintelligent)--has a lower appreciation
for even remotely abstract art than the intelligentsia and aesthetes. Middle
class art appreciation leans toward straightforward depiction more than an
aesthete's art appreciation would, I think, and in literature this would
require a straightforward physical description--not something abstract, but
concrete and real.
Now, when you actually get around to Buddy describing Seymour's face, he
actually does seem to describe him at three different ages, but not at once.
We have a description of his nose that's specific and direct. I can Picture
the nose being described. But we get a History of the Nose. It leaned
because it was broken with a baseball bat. Etc.
Well, that's what I think of all this. If you read earlier sections of the
story, you'll see some interesting parallels between art and literature drawn
by Buddy as he contemplates the writing process. I don't have time to go into
those, but they may be revealing as to Buddy's use of the phrase, "literary
cubism."
Jim