Re: Seymour's death
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:27:28 -0500
Paul Janse wrote:
>
> And this begs the question: could the story have ended some other way?
> Could the last paragraph been substituted by, for instance, Seymour killing
> Muriel instead?
I have fearlessly argued for this reading for years, but not many
people--including my freshman English students, on whom I have conducted
several experiments designed especially for the purpose--buy it. I
think it's a failed suspense story. You're supposed to think that
Seymour is unstable and that he doesn't like his wife (or is
disappointed in her, or whatever), and you're supposed to think he's
going to shoot *her*. Look at the meticulous wording of the final
pargraph. The gun is out, cocked and aimed before you find out who gets
the bullet. Salinger even has Seymour glance at Muriel (suggesting a
kind of "aiming") before he pulls the trigger. When you discover that
he actually shoots himself, you are to go back through the story and
pick up, finally, on the fact that it is Seymour who is the damned fish,
and his intellectual greed that is the banana fever. THe materialsim of
the western world is almost incidental--a piece of deception designed to
fuel the initial "meaning" of the story.
The FAQ entry I posted wasn't intended to start the discussion again,
but it wasn't intended to stifle it, either. Sonny and I had hoped to
solicit alternative readings to post in a series of possible "answers"
to the suicide question. I also sort of wanted to preview mine for
possible editing.
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu