Subject: Re: In Conclusion
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliaann@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 00:53:08 GMT
>Matt Kozusko <mkozusko@english.uga.edu> writes:
>
>... I *don't* sense a build-up--I sense the intention of a
>build-up. And that's the story's failing. What spoils the story's
>hopes is that nobody's actually expecting what in the end indeed does
>not happen. We're all supposed to be looking for a certain conclusion,
>but we in fact aren't, so when it doesn't materialize, we aren't
>appropriately shocked.
So what you're saying here is that we're not led to expect something that
doesn't actually happen?
Okay. Perhaps that's Salinger's failing in many of his early stories, the
surprise "New Yorker" ending, as Scottie puts it, is not set up well enough.
Or maybe the alternate ending is not set up well enough. Okay, I'll buy
it.
But, and this is a big but, it works. Yes, I was just as surprised as
everybody else the first time that I read Bananafish. I watched the scenes
unfold and knew that I was expecting something, I just didn't know what.
Sean makes a good point that the suicide comes too quickly, that we aren't
given enough time to be sufficiently prepared or alarmed. But what is it,
Matt, that we're supposed to be expecting at the end? Is that your
criticism? That we aren't really expecting anything concrete?
It's an odd story, a fascinating story, one that I read again and again and
see new things in the smallest of phrases... but yes, I see what you mean.
And so, if what you're doing is looking at this story from Poe's definition
of what a short story should accomplish, then yes, it is a miracle that it
works at all. However, Salinger built a career on breaking the rules. And
I think that he accomplished exactly what he was supposed to do: write a
story on the total lack of logic, the apparent meaninglessness, in suicide.
He puts us in the position of watching it happen, keeping us in the position
of an observer. And we're left with the same questions at the end as his
family would have asked themselves: What were the clues? Did we pay enough
attention? Could we have stopped him? Bananafish works because Salinger
manages to create a circumstance in which the reader is left with the same
sense of disbelief and horror as Seymour's family. We want to know why, and
we dissect it, wonder about it, fumble about in an attempt to answer it.
And there's no real answer, just as there is no real answer when someone
close to you does the same thing. You can speculate, you can blame, you can
dissect, but you can't do anything about it. You're a helpless observer.
And that, buddies, is why it succeeds.
Regards,
Cecilia.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 09:45:26 GMT