Re: Teddy
Camille Scaysbrook (the_globe@hotmail.com)
Sat, 08 May 1999 22:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Lobster and others wrote:
> >How do we know it's him for sure? Isn't the scream described as >female
>where all of his traits are typical of a little boy? Yet it's accepted as
>him dying. It fits the best with the story. Why?
> >-MW
>
>
>Hmm, I've always thought that scream came from his sister.
> Jared
This seems to me part of an exclusionary tactic that I've begun to notice a
lot in Salinger's fiction. He has always been very concerned about who Gets
in and who Doesn't Get It - literally separating the phonies from the
non-phonies. It seems that Salinger has an inbuilt Phony Detector in many of
his stories - in the form of the obvious answer and the not so obvious
answer. It's as if he can separate his readership into the haves and have
nots by seeing who chooses which option - to wit:
Franny is pregnant/Franny is undergoing a spiritual crisis
Seymour is a pedophile/Seymour is undergoing a spiritual crisis
Mr Antolini is a pedophile/Holden ... you get the picture
Teddy pushed Booper into the pool/Teddy himself dies in the pool, justifying
all he has just said.
And so on. There's lots more examples that I can't think of right now. As
Salinger's fiction progresses, he seems to set up even more traps for the
potential phony. Hapworth 16 would have to be the paradigm here: by its
sheer length and format it's a story that challenges, even repels, reading,
and seems to instantly divide readerships - again - into those who Get It
and those who don't; who are, by implication, unworthy of accompanying JDS
on his great spiritual quest.
That is of course until he decided *none* of us were worthy and with-held
everything from then on. The ultimate exclusionist tactic of them all.
Like I said - it's all about building personal mythology.
Camille
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com