Subject: Re: no more balls
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 16:54:18 EDT
Nice to hear Salinger discussion going on. I agree with your reading of
Teddy, Micaela -- it's the only one that accounts, I think, for all the
facts of the story.
I think it's possible for Seymour to be viewed as both enlightened and
flawed.
I don't think anyone was saying that the character in Bananafish was
indeed, literally, Buddy, but that Buddy writing about Seymour made
Seymour out to be more like Buddy than Seymour. Make sense? :) He
created Seymour in his own image.
This is all from Seymour: An Introduction. Buddy dismisses the story
saying that he wrote it immediately after returning from the war and not
long after Seymour's death...just a couple months. But I think it should
be noticed that there's a nice little paragraph in S:AI describing
Seymour and Buddy as being very much alike -- in some ways, to know one
is to know a little about the other. So I don't think the Seymour in
Bananafish is to be completely distrusted, despite Buddy's distrust of
his own, or all, writing.
Jim
-
* 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