Subject: Re: and finally....
From: iu (pinkspot@xs4all.nl)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 11:14:00 GMT
> On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 07:29:21AM +0100, Scottie Bowman wrote:
>
>> Seymour doesn't kill himself tactfully & decently
>> behind some private sand dune - but on the bed next
>> to his wife. With such a close drilling there may not
>> have been a very large exit wound, but possibly enough
>> to spatter her lightly with a little pink stuff. How better
>> to leave her with a lifetime of self-reproach?
>
> Scottie, this is something I've raised a few times (but much more
> gently than you do with your unforgettable phrasing!). Regarding
> the story "Bananafish," I've asked something along the lines of
> "What happens after that gunshot?" Because despite all the action
> that has taken place until Seymour's return to the hotel room, this
> one move (pulling the trigger) outweighs everything beforehand and
> really sets SOMETHING in motion. I suppose I'm just a little bit
> obsessive about the survivors, especially that survivor in the hotel
> room.
>
> Now, one can invoke the Hemingway theory that you strengthen the
> narrative by omitting certain action because if you have written it
> "truly" then the reader will know what happened and will be able to
> infer it from the rest of the story. ("Out of Season" is one story
> EH names in "A Moveable Feast," where he intends us to understand
> that the guide commits suicide after taking the couple poaching,
> beyond the limits of the official fishing season.) And I suppose
> it's arguable that part of the effect of "Bananafish" is in its
> surprise ending, its shock, its slap in the face. But still, Muriel
> has to go on living, and that, to me, is at least as gripping a plot
> line as why this curious young man has blown his head off. (Because
> remember, as Scottie also mentioned, that we know nothing about
> Seymour's remarkable secret life as a saint.) Scottie made a sly
> allusion to Sam Goldwyn's comment that if you want to send a message,
> use Western Union, not a movie script; here Seymour has sent quite a
> message to his bride and to the people who are left behind. And,
> arguably, to us, the readers.
>
> And despite all the later build-up of Seymour as saint, we don't
> canonize very many people who (you choose your religious or
> secular version) commit the gravest of mortal sins or scatter
> their brains across the room.
>
> I have to say, from the sidelines, that I much enjoy seeing this subject
> come up again, even if we are "cheating" by stepping outside the bounds
> of the frame of the story. But it's how you look at a painting,
> outside the frame, and it's how you see a play (outside the proscenium
> arch, at least until Brecht shattered that rule), and "Bananafish"
> screams out to be read with at least one good foot outside the framework
> of the story.
>
> If this were Greek tragedy, there would be at least another act that
> shows the aftermath and puts it in context and perhaps has one more
> climactic moment. I suppose we can view the remaining Glass stories as
> such a following act, with us and the other Glasses trying to make sense
> of what Seymour has done. But I can't get out of my mind what it must
> be like inside Muriel's head, when she is awakened.
>
> --tim
>
*********************************
question i've been asking myself long time now,
and untill now, al i came up with is :
either BREAKTROUGH or BREAKDOWN,
there is no in-between possible for Muriel any longer.
To explain, as much as my broken English will let trough:
One optimistic possibility could be that Seymour was realized in the ZEN
sense of the word.
That is the only reason i could find for him to be in this hotel, in this
room, married with Muriel.
Any intellectual giant of his capacity would either avoid the situation or
lust for it in a worldly way.
Not Seymour, so why was he there with Muriel?
Simply because he was, just like an authentic Zen master goes trough/with
life, simply letting it happen, no wishing, no planing, no resistance, no
plans, no intentions, just here and now.
Why suicide than?
Call me crazy, but i see it as the act of compassion in this particular
case.
To come back to the practices of authentic Zen masters,
it is well known that some among the authentic zen masters of the past used
to apply unconventional and unexpected methods in order to awaken their
disciples;
the range of those methods does not exclude some extreme 'devices' like
cutting fingers or actual physical death of the disciple or the master.
It was not like daily practice, but it wasn't something unusual either.
The only work of the Master was to wake people up, no matter what it takes,
if they are to die to awaken..... it was fine.
It takes, of course, an authentic master to recognize the situation, and
use it for awakening and not to just destruct life. Not every method goes
for every disciple or every person if you prefer.
Well, i need not explain Zen to any of you any further, you know what i'm
talking about.
It is impossible that Seymour was thinking about consequences his action
will have for the Glass family,
he didn't even plan to do it.
But it was such a perfect day
for
anything like bananafish,
like Muriel
like Seymour
What seems cruel on the outside could still be the act of greatest
compassion.
That's what Seymour did for Muriel, yes for poor Muriel.
if you came so far
just
one more think
i am not sure at all
that any of this makes any sense
but
it could
just like anything
else
iu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 09:45:26 GMT