Re: Hapworth
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Wed, 19 May 1999 19:21:39 +1000
Sean Draine wrote:
> Although some might consider this a cheap trick, the author could
side-step
> this problem by attributing his most sophisticated musings to a very
young
> child. A child so endowed would be a super-super-genius (considering his
> age, of course). And just imagine how preposterously smart the little
tike
> would be once his brain was fully developed! Smart enough, perhaps, to
> satisfy even Salinger's god-lust. (That is, if the rascal doesn't go
> shooting himself or plummeting headlong to the bottom of an empty pool.)
Excellent observation! You're right about Salinger's superboys - the
biggest problem for Salinger has always been the fact that he is writing
about an alleged genius but cannot (within the bounds of decent ego)
proclaim himself a genius - hence sidestepping gestures about not being
allowed to publish Seymour's poems, to the point where he actually has to
remove his Genius and rely instead on testimonials, all of which throw
light on an empty wall that form a more-or-less Seymour shaped shadow.
Assuming the mind of a child is a most convenient way of continuing the
ongoing creation of Seymour without having to put the poor guy in another
room into which we are not allowed.
Just for the record I guess I was a Seymourish seven year old myself and,
as one who attempted my first novel at nine and succeeded at twelve (with
wildly uneven success - I haven't looked at that old manuscript for so many
years I have no idea whether it's an unsung work of genius or utter
rubbish) - I think Seymour definitely could have written that. We're very
comfortable in our cultural stereotypes, including not only `children
should be seen and not heard' but `children cannot speak and therefore
should not be heard'.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest