Subject: Re: TLM and Tale of Two Cities
From: Paul Miller (phm@midsouth.rr.com)
Date: Thu Oct 05 2000 - 18:40:10 GMT
Mattis wrote:
where the inner story of the
Laughing Man changes with the moods and fortunes of the Chief, it would
appear from the radical ending that it was the Chief who had been
badly
hurt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Yes, either having to quit law school and raise a family or asking his
girlfriend to get an abortion would fit the bill of hurt and loss of
innocence that might make him kill off his youthful exuberant Laughing Man.
Mattis wrote:
not John but Mary who terminated the
relationship. --------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Who said anyone terminated the relationship? Mary simply ran off.
Mattis wrote:
Perhaps, as you suggest she was pregnant, and *she* was the one who could
not
socially accept a marriage with
him. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
If she was not pregnant why would Salinger wedge her between two nurse maids
with baby carriages and have the narrator walk backwards looking at her and
bump into a baby carriage. To me this is obvious and almost comicaly
overbearing use of symbolism on Salinger's part. I didn't mention anything
about that she was unwilling to socially accept a marriage with John.
Mattis wrote:
I am not that convinced that it
is important to know if she was pregnant, any more than we need to know
this about
Franny----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
The Franny is pregnant argument was not supported textually and was simply
based on interpretations of her behavior. If we don't realize Mary is
pregnant we are really left hanging as to what happened between them. The
class distinction theory would need more support in the narrative and ,as
is, is based solely on the last names of John and Mary.
Mattis wrote:
and assuming that the author's personal history is directly reflected
in the
story. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
We don't have to know anything about Salinger to understand the story. I
just threw that in because I did know it.
Oh well the narrator said the Laughing Man story was essentially portable. I
guess thats so we interpreters of stories can carry it around and massage
meaning out of it like aladdin summoning a genie.
Paul Miller
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 17:43:39 GMT