Re: How to avoid phoniness
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 11:06:44 +1000
I think that what Salinger is reacting against in `Franny' is simply the
over-intellectualising of things. I definitely think that there is a time
and place for intellectualisation, but each and every day I want to bash at
least one person at my university over the head with a largish edition of
`War and Peace' when they come up with some hopelessly arty farty sentiment
or another. I did a course on Modernism last semester that was a humdinger
for this sort of thing. When one student remarked she `could hardly believe
it' when she saw the real Mona Lisa, another student said, in all
seriousness `Is that true? So you could not physically believe in what you
were seeing. Why is this?' PLEASE! The thing that maddened me about this
course was that although it was about art we barely even saw a single piece
of artwork! The *real* icing on the cake was when I got my final essay
marked and was given a poor mark for - oh NO! - voicing my own opinion,
because, and I quote, `your own opinions are no substitute for serious
engagement in academic literature'!
THIS is the sort of thing I think Salinger rails against - after all, he
himself only lasted 2 semesters at college - the idea that thought is
simply a series of predestined processes which you only need follow to have
academic success. Salinger, I believe, writes not necessarily for the
intellectual (although I think intellectual thought on Salinger is
thoroughly enlightening and imperative) but that little bespectacled person
we all talk about, the amateur reader. I think Salinger wants us to know
that you don't necessarily need a college degree to enjoy his books.
As I've said before, I think the ideal academic is one who thinks and
intellectualises 50% of the time, and emotes and follows his/her instincts
the other 50%.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
> I don't think teachers in general and "section men" are equivalent,
> either. As I read "Franny", her conception of a section man seems
> to be someone who forces ideas down the students' throats, and who
> automatically assumes that any deviation from his own interpretation
> of the texts is either flawed or totally wrong. They present their
> own arguments, refusing to admit that they might themselves be less
> than complete, with the attitude that their thoughts and opinions
> cannot possibly be fallible. I would argue (and I would hope Franny
> would as well) that a _good_ teacher of literature would certainly
> present plausible interpretations of the texts, but also encourages
> the students to think about the texts further, instead of merely
> accepting those opinions as gospel. I also enjoyed reading French's
> books on Salinger, and precisely because he was presenting his
> arguments without ruling out alternatives. Perhaps it was only
> because he was "lecturing" from a book that he did not cross the line
> into becoming a section man; he had no opportunity to strike down
> any of the arguments that followed from or countered his own. The
> experience of reading French's books is analogous to the "good"
> model, in that the presentation was thought-provoking, not a
> pronouncement from on high. I did not mean to say that all English
> teachers are section men, and I don't think Franny would have
> either. I only referred to the difference between a teacher who
> presents arguments to elicit critical thought, and a section man
> who lectures on his own opinions to the exclusion of all others,
> as if all he knows is all we need to know.
>
>
> At 10:02 10/09/98 -0600, Will wrote:
> >Dar Pasha,
> >
> >I don't need Franny to tell me who I am...but yes, if "section man" is
> >part of what I do, then believe it or not, I'm not the least bit
> >horrified if my "section man" work amounts to more intelligence.
> >
> >I have both MFA and PhD degrees but more than any degree has taught me,
I
> >know that reading gives me good ideas. Mr. Salinger's work has given me
> >much and yet I don't believe his approach to "section men" (or section
> >women!) is acceptable. I've learned a lot from "section men" like
Warren
> >French and John Wenke about Mr. Salinger's writing. Their ideas and
> >others have made my reading experiences richer.
> >
> >I very much respect how this list is not centered with "section men"
> >thinking, but since I've honestly and fairly tried to learn about
> >Salinger's fiction, I find nothing at all horrific about Franny's voice
> >and know it's part of what has shaped my work.
> >
> >will
> >
> >On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Pasha Paterson wrote:
> >
> >> At 16:11 10/08/98 -0600, Will Hochman wrote:
> >> >before you give me your "come, come" tell me if you've read Geofrey
> >> >Hartman's _Criticism in the Wilderness_...as for corrupting the
young, I'm
> >> >a teacher, what do you expect me to do?
> >>
> >> Have you ever been sitting in class talking about Salinger's works and
> >> suddenly had the horrifying experience of Franny's voice whispering
> >> the words "section man"? I would hope not.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> G.H.G.A.Paterson (804)662-3737 gpaterso@richmond.edu
> ________________________________________________________