Re: How to avoid phoniness
Pasha Paterson (gpaterso@richmond.edu)
Wed, 07 Oct 1998 15:38:29 -0400
At 14:44 10/07/98 -0400, Jake Shafer wrote:
> So there you have it, a totally bottomless thesis statement. Irgo
>I am here in antioch's library trying to get out of the rain and I just
>felt this urge to send an e-mail to my new friends on the bananafish
>mailing list. If there's any hope that this might turn into a thread, i'd
>like to signal your attention to a couple key topics: Am I a phony
>because I'm approaching Salinger's work in a scholarly fashion? Is there
>a connection between the war and Salinger? I mean a really strong one,
>something that can't be ignored?
Somehow I don't think Salinger would come after you with a shotgun
unless you make the leap from "I see a connection between this and that"
to "Salinger MUST have been OBSESSING over this and that". It is our
right to present arguments, and equally his right to strike them down.
WWII seems to play a big role in Salinger's short stories, almost
becoming a sort of unseen character in itself. It causes tragedies in
all three Salinger families (Caulfield, Glass, Gladwaller) in addition
to some unrelated characters, including Sergeant X of "For Esme..."
and Franklin in "...Eskimos." The war must have effected him at least
a little; I would hate to think that Salinger would be so coldhearted
as to have survived and participated in a war painlessly. It has some
degree of presence in most of his late 40's and early 50's writings.
I would disagree with a claim that his writings were as effected by the
war as those of Hemingway's, but then again, Salinger was a long-time
and long-devoted Hemingway nut, so his connections to those dramatic
wartime novels might be significant.
Remember, even the "smart" are always fallible.
________________________________________________________
G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
________________________________________________________