Re: Seymour's death-- See better, Lear!

J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:57:29 -0500 (EST)

Ok, I won't argue with the fact that I'm probably reading TOO MUCH of the
Seymour in other stories into this one.  I will give myself credit for
trying not to, though :)  And for Sey-ing that it needed to be done for
the sake of this discussion :)

But, I think your reading is a bit too close in some areas...see below.

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:04:13 -0500 Matt Kozusko
<mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu> writes:
>J J R wrote:
>
>> While I don't see adequate justification for
>> Seymour's suicide within the context of the story itself--Beyond the 
>fact
>> that Seymour himself was probably the bananafish, and children 
>(their
>> innocence, and honesty, and malleability) the bananas--I don't see 
>Any
>> justification for Seymour shooting Muriel.  
>
>The dialogue between Muriel and her mother suggests fairly explicitly
>that 1) Seymour is unstable and 2) Muriel's parents are worried about
>*her* safety (Seymour may "com*plete*ly  lose control of
>himself"--"*definitely* a *very great* chance..."; and her parents 
>want
>her to come home).  All we know about Seymour is that he's strange,
>unstable, and that his wife's parents think he's dangerous.
>

Ok, you're right, Muriel's mother, in the beginning of the story, is
concerned for Muriel's safety.  But I don't think she's written as a
credible character either.  The reader doesn't see Muriel's mother as
someone to be trusted.  Muriel herself, on the other hand, is completely
at ease with Seymour.  So I don't think we can take the opening dialog as
foreshadowing that Muriel herself is going to be shot--well, we don't
know about a gun yet, do we.  So I'd say, we can't take the opening
dialog as a hint that harm is going to come to Muriel somehow.  Muriel's
own feeling of security makes her mother seem ridiculous, rather than her
mother's threat making us think, "quick, get out while you still can!" as
we do for victims in horror movies.

>Then Seymour spends a couple of pages talking about how it's a perfect
>day for greedy fish to die.  It's not too large a leap from greedy 
>fish
>to Muriel.      
>

I think it is.  He didn't actually spend two pages talking about that. 
The bulk of his dialog with the child was to teach her to be kind to her
fellow child--and not to poke dogs or something.  See, there's no hint in
Seymour's demeanor with the child that he's dangerous at all.  He seems
to actually be giving her moral instruction on her level.  And unless
you're predisposed to reading Muriel as a possible victim, I wouldn't
read the above statement as a threat to Muriel.  

Given the REAL ending, I think it points even more to Seymour as the
greedy bananafish.

>Even though you do acknowledge the "See More"/Seymour distinction, I
>think you're reading a little proleptically--allowing things you know
>about Seymour from later stories to inform your reading of "Bfish."  

yeah, I am ;)  I freely admit I read Franny and Zooey before I read
Bananafish, so that did guide my inital reactions to Bananafish.

>As
>the story unfolds for the first time, there is little, if anything, to
>suggest that Seymour will shoot himself.  All the clues in the story
>initially point to material greed as the source of Seymour's being
>unsettled.  And I refer again to the concluding paragraph:
>
>"...The room smelled of new calfskin luggage and nail-lacquer remover. 
> 

I disagree with the statement, "all the clues in the story."  That's a
bit much.  New calfskin luggage and nail polish remover is hardly the
epitome of American greed.  The luggage sounds more like a wedding gift. 
I would interpret the images provided within the context of the
juxtaposition between Seymour's dialog with the child and his dialog on
the elevator, and see the images as symbols of the adult world, rather
than material greed (exclusively).

>
>He glanced at the girl lying asleep on one of the twin beds.  Then he
>went over to one of the pieces of luggage, opened it, and from under a
>pile of shorts and undershirts he took out an Ortgies calibre 7.65
>automatic.  He released the magazine, looked at it, then reinserted 
>it. 
>He cocked the piece.  Then he went over and sat down on the unoccupied
>twin bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a bullet
>through his right temple." (18)
>
>Note, if nothing else, the specific word-choice:  "aimed."  The
>procedure of "aiming" a gun involves an orientation of the barrel with
>regard to the intended target aided specifically by ocular
>coordination.  You could "aim" a gun at somebody else's right temple,
>but ordinarily, you'd "point" a gun at your own right temple, or maybe
>even "place" it against the temple.  Note also that Seymour looks at 
>the
>girl in the clause immediately preceding the "aiming."  Both the 
>syntax
>and the diction unmistakably suggest that "the girl" is the target.    
> --Matt  

You're being just a tad too certain that the diction "unmistakably"
suggests that the girl is the target.  The "point" vs. "aim" dichotomy
you suggest needs to be established a bit more certainly--I only have
reason to believe that that's how it sounds **to you.**  You know as well
as I that the formal definition of "aim" has little to do with how the
word is used in the vernacular--and Salinger's fiction is all slang, just
about.   If you did a brief survey of the use of language in mid 20th
century American fiction as it describes how guns are targeted both
toward victims and in suicide cases, then you may have a case :)   

But for now, my only response is, "It didn't sound that way to me" :)

Seriously.  I don't remember thinking that my first read.

However, I will acknowledge that there may be a bit of intentional
(horrible word :) ) ambiguity about just Who's Gonna be Shot in the end. 
I'm not saying the idea is unjustified.  Just that it's not certain.  

For the sake of argument, let's say there is "clear ambiguity" (don't ya
love THAT one?) about who Seymour is going to shoot.  Why can't this be
any more than a bit of fun with the reader?  We're set up with an
emotionally unstable character.  He pulls out a gun in his honeymoon
suite.  Shoot the bride, or shoot himself?  Who can tell?  It adds an
element of titillation that's consistent with good storytelling.  It
needn't go any deeper than that.    

So, to answer your question--Could we rewrite the ending without changing
the story? No, I don't think so.  I think you'd also need to rewrite the
scene with the girl on the beach, and make Seymour seem a bit more
dangerous.  Reading the rest of the posts (today, I read this one first)
I think the half of your students who didn't say Seymour killed his wife
probably felt he wasn't capable of it, based on his interaction with the
child.

Jim

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]