Subject: RE: no more balls
From: LR Pearson, Arts 99 (lp9616@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 11:21:02 EDT
Hi all! I'm enojoying this conversation - first proper Salinger fest
we've had in ages.
On Fri, 3 May 2002 14:13:49 -0400 Micaela <mbombard@middlebury.edu>
wrote:
>
> Also, to a comment made earlier about "Teddy" have a "twist" in the end: I
> completely disagree. I think Booper screams at the end because she has
> pushed Teddy into the water. My reasons for believing this are as follows:
> 1. There is no reason for a twist. If Teddy is truly enlightened (as no
> one has yet disagreed with this statement), then he would indeed be the
> ultimate "seer" or prophet. Being prophetic, he would have been able to
> predict his own death as he described earlier and we would have no reason to
> doubt him. 2. If Booper was the one being pushed into the empty pool,
> would her scream be described as "sustained"? These seems like a carefully
> chosen adjective that serves the purpose of depicting the scream as a
> reaction to what she has done/seen. 3. If Teddy is enlightened and Booper
> has not been through many lives yet, what motive/reason why would he be the
> one to push her into the pool?
Maybe "twist" is the wrong word. I wasn't suggesting (as you seem to
think I was) that Teddy has pushed Booper into the pool. I think it's
definitely the other way around. What I was trying to get at is the
effect that ending has on me. I don't, when reading, it, think 'ah,
yes, Teddy's prediction came to pass, he is a true seer'. I kind of
think 'ugh!' I think that ending is a shock. By contrast, in
'bananafish', Seymour's suicide seems absolutely, one hundred percent,
artisitically 'right' to me. It's a shock the first time you read it,
but in a different way. I can't really explain what I mean by this,
though. It's possible that I have this reaction to the ending of
'Teddy' because my original edition of the book had the last few pages
ripped out, so for years I never knew what did happen at the end. I was
probably under ten the first time I read that story, and so couldn't
just go out and get another copy of the book. Funnily enough, I don't
even think I asked my dad (who first read Salinger to me) to get
another copy. I spent a lot of time speculating over the story, but the
missing pages just seemed 'the way it is'. There's a funny kind of
acceptance of things like that when you're a kid, maybe because you're
so powerless. Actually, I've never thought about it, but in a way that
is quite a fitting ending for 'Teddy'. The missing pages, and my infant
acceptance of them!
>
> Another issue: Ramona being, or not being, Walt's daughter. I believe that
> Eloise resents her daughter because her daughter is that much closer to
> Walt. Notice that she wears glasses (symbolic of her ability as "seer") and
> that she has the imagination that Seymour would envy. She is closer to the
> state of enlightenment almost simply by default, as Salinger views most of
> the children in his stories due to their more innocent nature and
> imaginative capabilities. Eloise envies her daughter's capabilities;
> remember how she clutches Ramona's glasses and tries to make her crush her
> invisible friend who is lying on the bed? I believe that she views in
> Ramona what she viewed in Walt and it makes her nostalgic, sad, envious,
> etc.
I agree - Ramona is not Walt's literal daughter, but spiritually she
is. For me, though, Ramona is not at the heart of this story. Eloise is
firmly the central character. I've always felt that way, even at the
age when I tended to identify with the child protagonists rather than
the adults. I think Salinger is most successful when he looks at the
difficulty of attaining / retaining that spiritual innocence. This is
my absolute favourite of all the stories, it still hits me every time I
read it.
>
> One last comment: I don't think there is any way that the character in
> "Bananafish" is Buddy Glass. I actually don't even see how someone could
> suggest it (did someone actually suggest it...or was I misinterpreting?).
> Muriel and her mother both refer to her husband as Seymour, and we know from
> "Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters" that Muriel and Seymour are husband
> and wife. Sybil refers to him as See More Glass, and he kills himself at
> the end (all pointing to the fact that he is Seymour).
>
Buddy suggests it. It's all part of the little game Salinger plays with
us as readers - Salinger as Buddy. He suggests that the portrait of
Seymour can't be trusted because it is too clouded by Buddy. It's
Buddy's idea of Seymour, not Seymour himself. Salinger sure likes to
confuse us! It makes interpreting the Glass stories that bit more
complicated.
On the idea of Teddy as reincarnation of Seymour... Literally speaking,
I think the dates are wrong. Also, Teddy strongly suggests that his
previous incarnation was not in the West. His mistakes in that
incarnation are the reason he has ended up in an American body in this
one. I do think, though, that he might be a reincarnation of a Seymour
type character, and that the cycle therefore culminates in a possible
future for 'Seymour' in a more successful incarnation.
Thank you again everyone for this lovely discussion.
Love, Lucy-Ruth
----------------------
LR Pearson, Arts 99
lp9616@bristol.ac.uk
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 17:14:12 EDT