Re: Salinger
Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:58:28 -0500
At 17:45 11/11/98 +0000, helena kim wrote:
> the style of writing in catcher
> is hugely different from anything else that i've read by salinger. was
> this tone used in the early short stories about the caulfields? what made
> him choose it for his novel? [ie why not write a glass novel?] did he stop
> using it altogether after catcher's runaway success?
I think _F&Z_ and _Roofbeam/Seymour_ really *are* "Glass novels", or at
least as close to them as Salinger will get. The Glasses and Caulfields
are two very different families, and thus have demanded very different
styles of writing.
Why Salinger abandoned the style he chose for _Catcher_ I guess might relate
to this. I'd hate to try to second-guess JD, but it seems like the
characters dictate the author's style. Holden Caulfield is a young, confused,
immature 16-yr-old boy, and since _Catcher_ is written in the first person,
the narration must correspond. In contrast, it seems that even the youngest
Glass was "born old", i.e., never had the _naive_ innocence Holden still
tries to cling to. The Glass's "innocence" seems more mature, spiritual,
transcendent of the rye field.
It may also be that Salinger was horrified by his instant celebrity and
tried to never write another story that brought on such a rush of publicity.
> [cont'd]
> what makes me think of this is that the style of catcher is very, very
> easy to read. would this be a major factor contributing to why catcher is
> percieved as a 'teen' book? its lack of big words and flowery
> descriptive passages?
I can only forgive the "teen novel" classification of _Catcher_ because it
is the only story (besides perhaps "Franny") to which teenagers can feel
they relate. Uncommonly spiritual youths like Seymour, Teddy, and Zooey
might be said to appeal only to similarly unusually spiritual youths.
> [cont'd]
> it seems that catcher is much more ghettoised that other hs books, such as
> the pearl, or lord of the flies. so, obviously the actual narrative has a
> major role in this, but which is the more off-putting feature to Serious
> Literary Types, the style or the content? or is it a 50/50 mix? and what
> other factors come into play?
What do you mean by "ghettoized"? (I'm a Murkan, I use Z's.)
I hope no "Serious Literary Types" are put off from studying _Catcher_ as
literature, but I would understand treating _Catcher_ differently from
another story written from the perspective of another young character, such
as "The Laughing Man" or "De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period". Salinger's
characters seem unique among other authors' favorite casts; Holden Caulfield
is in turn unique among Salinger's major characters.
> excuse the manic fit of curiosity.
No excuses should ever be required for curiosity. We should only be
ashamed of demanding curiosity's shamefulness.
________________________________________________________
G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________