Subject: RE: Grey Days
From: Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Date: Thu May 01 1997 - 12:49:29 GMT
I just re-read Bananafish with what may laughingly be called the
Zen-mind, emptying it of all the Glass-trivia that infests it
oh-so-disconcertingly and trying to think about the way I felt when I
first read the story. The trouble is that I don't even seem to remember
whether I had read the other Glass stories by then--I guess I'll have
to pull out my college-time diaries. I am sure I hadn't read RHTRBC or
S:AI and may or may not have read F&Z. But I do remember very clearly
that it wasn't then, nor is it now, a *great* story for me. But even
now, when one just goes with what is in the story, it works as a play
in three parts.
The Muriel/Mother Exchange. "Ah, the guy is nuts"
The Sybil Scene at the beach. "Oh, he seems playful"
The post-Goodbye Sybil scene. "How strange! He actually *was*
disturbed, poor sod"
Did Muriel per se *drive* him to suicide? Aw, c'mon, no! Are they
mismatched? Yeah, sure, but prolly no more than most couples are. The
only difference being that most couples don't have psychologically
"imbalanced" husbands-- though I guess that's could be contentious,
too--or shallow, self-obsessed wives...
In a way, yes, I may be seem to be backtracking a bit from my previous
post of Muriel *driving* him to suicide. The point was well made that a
person perhaps can't be *driven* to take his life. The point I was
*trying* to make, though then was that it was a "disturbed" person's
reaction to the external around him. That was somehow what I had
retained in my memory. For an *imbalanced* person, what matters is his
perception.
I still think that based on the narrative as it unfolds, yes, the
authorial voice certainly tries to be objective about Muriel but there
certainly is a disparagingly dismissive undercurrent about Muriel. The
Rilke bit in italics, the way I read it, seems to be Muriel's sarcasm
at Seymour, but sarcasm in a way one chides a loved one..In a way, to
the extent that the she is somehow too unaware of the war-bruises.
Going *only* by what obtains in the story, he seems to want only a
child's non-demanding kinda love where he doesn't have to start
conforming etc. Or to seek psychiatric help. There sure seems a hint of
"no redemption for the war bruised".
For fear of offending sensibilities here, or for being referred to the
introductory paragraphs (no, not the quotes but the explained reasons
of those) of S:AI, I wouldn't dare voice my amatuer pop-psy theories
about the authorial concerns, anxieties, insecurities, worries that
*may have been* attempted to be worked out by this story.
As for the last line being removed etc., and that the death of either
party would perhaps ostensibly serve the same purpose-- the fact that he
kills himself is what infact gives him the heroic stature--otherwise it
would be any old disturbed person "driven" to violence.
I am entirely with Matt on this one. This Seymour, as Buddy also has to
remind us later, is quite different. The other Glass stories are with
the familiar mourning-for-bro motif. Only this time with mythic, larger
than life proportions. And not to mention the rather ramblingly long
post this one's turned out be...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeep Dougal (Sonny, to friends) Holden Caulfield, New Delhi, INDIA
-
To remove yourself from the bananafish list, send the command:
unsubscribe bananafish
in the body of a message to "Majordomo@mass-usr.com".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 15:01:33 GMT