Re: Touching

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 15:09:38 -0700 (PDT) 

OK, Camile, I'll try to re-rread it,a little gentler this time.

Thor


>To enter into the spirit of things I made a decision to thoroughly re-read
>Hapworth 16, pencil in hand for notes and page-scoring double underlinings.
>I did read said tome, it seems like a long time ago but is probably a year
>and a half ago - and, let's face it, it's a difficult book not to skim a
>*little* - but it's about time to give it the proper once over. So like it
>or not you'll be hearing my thoughts on it (:.
>
>The first thing - and I've been meaning to bring this up for ages - how
>tantalising is Buddy's opening statement of Hapworth's miraculous relation
>to a story he is `currently writing'! How tempting to be given that small
>peek into Safe Salinger. Imagine the insights we would gain into Hapworth
>had we been allowed to read its sister story. It seems almost purposely
>taunting to mention it, if Salinger intended and planned (and it's not at
>all improbable) that Hapworth should be his final public utterance.
>
>I had a long think about Seymour's obsession with the word `touching'. In
>the context in which he uses it, it's quite a peculiar word when you think
>about it, and an appropriate one, because it conjoins the physical with the
>mental - it is at the same time a tactile and spiritual world. To touch
>someone can be an entirely tangible or entirely intangible experience.
>However, Seymour strikes us as such an untouchable, impenetrable character,
>but the fact that the world seems to touch him without him touching it is
>significant. There is something so strange and sterile in the way he
>expresses obviously inexpressible emotions and feelings: `Oh my God I am
>relishing this leisurely communication!' It's as if he strives to touch, or
>to express the way in which the world has touched him, but isn't quite sure
>how to do it. I was always puzzled at the way a committed student of Zen
>such as Salinger seemed to abandon the traits of succinctness and
>under-reliance on words to such an extent. Perhaps his message is that
>words are *so* false; are so misrepresentative of the emotions they attempt
>to evoke as to be merely perfunctory in themselves. That is, words should
>not be evocative because it is impossible for them to evoke, only describe.
>Unfortunately this also
>gives a Teddy-like impression of supreme detachment which, as I said, makes
>the character of Seymour himself strangely untouching.
>
>There is of course also the constant motif of `touching' in Seymour's story
>- I think in particular of the famous quote about the scars on his hands
>from touching certain people, the girl he threw the stone at because she
>was so beautiful, the kissing of Sybil's foot ... all forms of touching
>where the attempt was to merge the spiritual and physical sense of touch.
>Hmmm. More on Hapworth later, but I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.
>Like it or hate it, as Salinger scholars we can't afford to ignore it.
>
>Camille
>verona_beach@hotpop.com
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com