Re: jd is just an author
Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:01:33 -0500
At 16:32 11/17/98 -0800, Michael Tipermas wrote:
>I checked my email very fast to see if anyone replied. Someone did.
>That means that I hit a nerve. Someone disagreed. They told me that
>you all are not just a bunch of raving lunatics, but merely a forum for
>people who have "learned" from Mr. Salinger's writings. Define
>"learned" please. Have you been enlightened? Have you been taught some
>new moral code? The most disturbing thing of all is that Pasha responded
>that we have similar concerns in comparison to Franny about the section
>men. This was the first comparison on her mind. A situation from one
>of Salinger's books. Does this mean that for any situation Salinger has
>an answer? Sorry if I insulted you Pasha, but after all this is just a
>forum for discussing and criticizing.
Hehe...you caught me. I'll get this fishhook out of my mouth in a sec.
Since you did not define your use of "learning" either, I don't see it
as something to pick on. I only meant that Salinger's works seem to have
messages, and that they are (almost without exception) thought-provoking.
Any work of literature or anything else that provokes critical thought
must have planted something in your head -- a desire to think, if nothing
else.
Teaching a moral code is like teaching a new religion; sure, I know about
it now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to drop my old beliefs wholesale
and run off to an entirely new way of life. True, some points Salinger
raises in his stories have made me stand back and reconsider parts of my
lifestyle, but I'm not constantly concerned about whether my actions might
be offending the great venerable JD. (Note: cheek pressurized by tongue.)
Of course I would draw a comparison to Franny. This is a discussion of
Salinger -- you expect a comparison to Dickens? I really don't mean to
be hostile here. It's just that a discussion of "section men" has been
through here a few times and you reminded me of it. Maybe my allusion to
it would not have been as striking if you had been here for that.
"Salinger answers something, so Salinger is the answer to everything" is,
I grant you, an enormous and fatal leap. But even I didn't take it. I
only limited myself to the situation you described. And I don't think even
Salinger truly "answers" that issue; he only addresses it. Franny is just
as confused as anyone (and more than some).
And, finally, I'm a "him", not a "her". It matters to me.
________________________________________________________
G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________