RE: Pilgrim Books
Sean Draine (seandr@microsoft.com)
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:22:36 -0700
> > Recall the author's claim at the beginning of "Zooey" that
> the story is
> > about love, not mysticism. I think Salinger is urging the
> reader here to
> > interpret the story as one concerned primarily with human
> beings, not
> God,
> > the universe, or other theological beasts.
> >
>
> I guess this gets us to the fundamental idea of what God is. I think
> transcendent love is mysticism.
Salinger seems to think there's a distinction between love and mysticism
(hence his warning at the beginning of the book), and I agree with him. Love
is a fundamentally human phenomenon -- to see it as something that can
transcend humanity is to miss the point. Zooey argues along similar lines
that Jesus was fundamentally a human being, with all of the messiness and
imperfection that implies. To see him as the saintly St. Francis of
Assisi-type is to misunderstand him.
In my mind, a nonmystical, hocus-pocus-free reading of FaZ is the most
enriching way to appreciate these stories. (Same goes for the bible, by the
way.) Next time you read the book, temporarily suspend any belief in divine
beings, magic, the Cartesian Soul, alternative dimensions, spiritual
transcendence, etc., and see what happens. Possibly you'll be moved to tears
solely by the wit, charm, and, yes, "cleverness" of Salinger's writing. If
that doesn't get you, then possibly the beauty, complexity, and actuality of
his characters will. And if that doesn't get you, well...
> One of the main points of all the Glass
> stories, for me, is that Salinger presents the sacred as right here in
> front of us rather than putting it off in some netherworld.
But exactly! Is this not the very antithesis of mysticism?