Re: First Catcher memories?
BuddyGIass@aol.com
Tue, 25 Nov 1997 01:45:55 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-25 01:23:49 EST, you write:
<<
<< Catcher as a book with a
happy ending since I believe it's writing is the sign that Holden will
make his transition to adulthood as an author. Will >>
Then I wrote:
>If Holden lives happily ever after, there is no point to the book. >>
I think I might ought to explain what I meant. Let's take another story, the
one about the actual Bananafish. Change it to a happy ending so it reads:
"Certain types of fish can only eat bananas. They all open their mouths so
wide and take in so much that they can't swallow the or spit it out. So they
die. Except this one fish, he found a way to swallow the banana's, so he
lived and was happy." What's the moral now? The story is no longer a warning
to other fish/people. It's just some stuff that happened.
Catcher is the same story. If Holden is ok in the end, it means he found a
way to swallow the bananas. It would cheat the whole rest of the book, and
make it just plot.
The readers are the children playing on the cliff. Holden/Slainger wants to
warn the children/readers, but they can't. The book tries to catch you so you
don't fall, but in the end you fall anyway. And that's the point. There will
always be a "fuck you" sign, no matter how many you try to erase.
A happy ending takes away the moral and The Point, which is a lot more
important than plot or characters.