"Nice" and French (Warren)

Jon Tveite (jontv@ksu.edu)
Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:53:18 -0600 

Paul says:

> I've got to suspect here the reason French is using the word "nice" is
> because like the word phony Salinger uses it in his books. I think there
> can be some debate on the meaning exactly of Salingers "nice", but I can
> clearly see why he uses it as an antonym for phony.

You are correct, sir!  The word does appear quite frequently in the
texts, and, more specifically, it proves pivotal at the end of "Uncle
Wiggly," when Eloise holds her little girl and asks herself, "I was a
nice girl, wasn't I?" or words to that effect.  "Nice" seems to be the
word in Salinger that best describes the ideal state of childhood
innocence he's fairly obsessed with.  I think it's appropriate for the
word to be a simple one children might choose to describe a pleasant
experience (I am also reminded of Teddy, when he's asked if he "loves"
his parents and says something like, "I want them to have a nice time,
and all...").  It also has an understatedness that must have appealed
very much to the author, a budding student of Vendanta.

Will said:

> Warren French notes that "Uncle Wiggily" offers glimpses of mr. salinger's
> 2 key worlds.  When last discussed, mr. french was still solid with his
> belief that "Uncle Wiggily" can be a key to unlock 9 stories and
> more... it's too grand to work, but I think mr. french's dichotomy can be 
> a pretty fair reading lens for those who use it.

Yes, I think "Uncle Wiggly" is the story that French reads best.  It's
also the one he seems to respect the most (coincidence?).  I've read his
first book on Salinger, which was published in the early 60s, I
believe.  For the most part, he behaves in it like a literary
anthropologist trying to explain (for the benefit of the critical
establishment) why so many people -- especially young people -- like
Salinger so much.  His tone is often very condescending.  But it's an
interesting read, nonetheless.

As far as the nice-phony dichotomy goes, I agree with Will that it's
useful if you don't take it too seriously or too far.  Like much of
French's interpretation, it's both reductive and over-generalized.  The
real problem with French, however, is this: after he gets done reducing
Salinger, he complains that the writing itself is shallow.  I would
argue it's French's reading that deserves the label.

>From Kansas State University, where Warren French was stationed
(briefly) when his first book on Salinger came out,

Jon (Tveite) <jontv@ksu.edu>