Re: Salinger
Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Tue, 10 Nov 1998 20:00:49 -0500
I really didn't realize how bizarre my way of thinking was until you
responded with this. Let me TRY to make my point of view a little
clearer. (I realize that with me this might be a lost cause.)
What I did was sort of de-formalizing our analysis of Salinger's
writings. We did not focus on literary stuff for its own sake, but
instead analyzed its contribution to the more important issue: the
"meaning" of the stories. While there is no definitive answer to
"What does this story mean?" we tried to give our impressions of the
stories without getting bogged down in an analysis of literary
mechanics. We discussed the stories for the sake of provoking thought,
not for the objective dissection of its components. Our class was
not a lecture, and not even a discussion; it was more a conversation,
with me (and my teacher-mentor) contributing only a little more to
the class's analysis than the students themselves. It helped that is
was a summer class with only four students.
We studied literary devices in Salinger's writings but never had
any visions of JD sitting in his ramshackle study pausing over the
typewriter and mumbling, "You know, it's about time for a metaphor."
I went to an informal lecture/conversation with Josephine Humphreys
(a recently recognized "Southern" author) where she discussed the
writing process as "a sort of dream state", where she created the
characters, set them up in a situation, and simply recorded what
happened from there. We approached "Franny" and the _Nine Stories_
from this perspective. We didn't ask, "Why does Salinger have the
characters do this?", but instead, "Why does this character do this?"
The issue was never "Why does Salinger make this happen?" but rather
more simply "Why does this happen?" This allowed us to think more
in terms of a human experience than a literary exercise.
I know I get far too longwinded sometimes, but I really hope this
clears things up. If you still have issues with me I'll keep trying
harder to explain myself. I for one think it's worth it, but if
you're tired of me I'll shut up on this subject :)
At 19:17 11/10/98 -0500, Jim wrote:
>I don't know. It seems to me you're just advocating a different set of
>conventions. I don't really see a very big distinction between what
>literary critics do and what "amateur readers" do--it's just that the
>critics do what they more self-consciously.
>
>How do you distinguish between the "literary" aspects of Salinger work
>and
>"Salinger's ideas," his "messages," the "things that make these stories
>unique and unified"? How can you say you don't delve into Salinger's
>"intent" when you do pay attention to **his** messages.
>
>Jim
>
><<We did not delve very far into the "literary" aspects of Salinger's
>works; instead, we focused more on Salinger's ideas, his "messages"
>(if you really want to call them that), the things that make these
>stories unique and unified. We were not afraid to study the _Nine
>Stories_ completely out of chronological and physical order, we were
>not bound by issues of literary convention and the hopelessly tangled
>web of literary terminology (no offense to Will et al). We just sat
>around and talked Salinger. Honestly. Frankly. Without any self-
>righteous section-talk.>>
________________________________________________________
G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________