<snip> > > Your statement here is more than fair. Readers are obviously entitled >to their opinions and feelings upon reading any work of fiction. Nobody >on this list (hopefully) will deny that right. If you truly believe this, you wouldn't be ascertaining that I *was* wrong because it does not follow *your* ascertations of what the book represents. > >> >> In any of Salinger's books that I have read (everything he has published in >> book form, excluding his short stories that were published in mags only), >> my feeling on his books is that while the Glass family is a popular one, >> each story is a story in and of itself, and if I remember correctly, there >> really *is* no definite setting to control the stories together. Meaning, >> that none of the stories really tie to one another, other that they are >> just representations of each and of itself. >> > >I don't know if I can agree with this sentiment, mainly because of the >nature of "Zooey" in relation to "Franny". It seems as though you can't >the later story without the earlier one, but, ultimately, you'd have to >ask Mr. Salinger directly (or an editor) if this was in fact the case. >>From my perspective, it would seem that "Zooey" was written as a >follow-up (not a sequel, per se) to "Franny". I can't agree with this statement. In Franny we see a glimpse in the days of the life of Franny. In Zooey it is the same thing. Neither are prequels or sequels or follow ups to each other. SAI gives us a view of Seymours life, second hand through Buddy. And perhaps the only "true" first hand experience we see of Seymour (much beloved and talked about in all of the Glass family stories), is in PDFB. None of the stories are tied together other that they are all glimpses in the lives of the Glass family. And again, *your* perspective doesn't have to equal *my* perspective, that is why reading and discussing books is fun. You see perspectives of how someone else see's the book, which might radically different from your own. > > >> He does in fact give Bessie a hard time about the pilgrimage story, and >> keeps pushing her to ask her WHY Frannie is so incessent about doing the >> pilgrimage. > > > Yes, however, much of the leaning on Bessie by Zooey centers around >Seymour's influence, which is an aspect of these two stories you have >yet to address. I have not addressed the stories because I don't consider them imperative in this argument. Seymour is not in this discussion, and thus, when Zooey leans on Bessie, its to get his mother to understand or attempt to help Franny other then just poo-pooing it off. > > >> If you have ever read "The hills of White Elephants" by Hemingway, its >> almost eerie now that I think about it, how the premise is the same. In >> that short story, teh conversation, between the guy and his girl, is >> layered to "look" like something else, and when in fact its all about the >> young gent getting his girl pregnant and sending her off. > >Yes, I have read that wonderful story by Hemingway many times, and I >don't think the premise is the same at all. You have a couple who >already KNOW there is a pregnancy involved. The story demands that >there be more focus on the couple and their dialogue exchange. Also, >there is no spiritual backdrop, no Jesus Prayer or anything comparable >to it in "Hills..." In "Franny" the focus is almost completely on her >and internal struggles. Lane seems more than anything else to be a >grotesque external aggravation of her struggles--a physical >manifestation of those elements that sicken Franny. I disagree with you. You do NOT know that the girl is pregnant. It is not told, but rather implied, and not even implied clearly enough to understand what the story is about. You really have to read it various times to really understand all the symbolism going on in the story and make the deduction yourself. When I first read it, I just took the story for what it was: a couple exchanging dialogue at a train station. You really have to dig through all the external bullshit to get the full gist of what is *really* going on. > > >> And franny was "human", and she was not absolved of being pregnant in anyway. > >Of course. There is no question of her ability (or lack of) to produce >children. This is not what I meant. I meant that Franny was not some goddess OR some other supernatural being that was absolved of "getting herself in trouble". She was/is female, she was having intercourse with her boyfriend (implied definitely), and she was not above getting herself pregnant. > > >> Salinger gets pissed if someone spells his name wrong <grin>. >> Regardless or not, interpetations of his book(s) are always going to be >> waht the reader precives them to be. That alone is the whole joy of >> reading, is the different ways we each see a book differently. And if >> Salinger *was* miffed, as you claim he was, perhaps if Salinger was >> attempting to convey something OTHER then what was taken, he should have >> clarifed it more to get the point across. > > Ah! This point makes me wonder what story we have been discussing. I >think Salinger does a superb job of conveying something OTHER--the whole >spiritual quest she has apparently begun. Your comment here seems to be >a direct criticism of Salinger's talents as a writer and not at my >argument. Is it really? It is not what I said. This is a perfect example of interpretation being different from the perspective OR what is *really* meant. You are taking what I said and conveying it to your own purposes. I never said that Salinger was a horrible writer, OR criticized his work. That is not, in any way shape or form, true. The whole wonderful thing about Salinger, is that *each* story/book et al he has written is open to interpretation by each person that reads it. Each person who reads any of his stories gets something different out of it. His characters are memorable because they are characters that do NOT follow against the norm. Each person on this list identifies with one of his characters because that character has done/said/is constructed in a way that the person reading it can go "yes! this character is neat-o and I can identify with his/her struggles, thoughts, what have you." Salinger has a way of saying and doing things that make those who can not identify with really anyone, can identify with his characters, and in essence, not feel so alone in this world. Take a look at Holden. How many people read that book, and for once, felt it "okay" to go against the "norm". Despite all of his hang ups, Holden is a true individual. > If you want to challenge his artistic talents and motivation, >by all means go ahead and write a "clearer" end to the story and submit >it to Little, Brown and Co. for future editions. You are now bordering on serious allegations. You are now bordering from absurd to amusement. I never said that Salinger is a hack, nor did I ever say that he lacked artistic talent. Your making a serious allegation, in so far much as implying and putting words in my mouth. Do not do that. If you can not argue logically and rationally without saying such, then you do not need to continue on this debate. For the last 20+ years, Salinger has been in hiding, not speaking to anyone or writing anything. When using the Internet became popular, he used his lawyers to go through and threaten lawsuits to anyone having any web pages up having to do with him, that supposedly bordered on copyright infringement. in fact, Luke Seemen (who I believe is on this list) had "The Holden Server", which was by far the most popular Salinger site around. (Luke, I ripped off Holden's hat from your server and used it as a link to your page, and you and I swapped a few emails right when the server had gone up). Salinger makes it awfully plain that he does not want the outside world to mess with is work, despite if its with love or hate. He is one of the most seriously debated authors of our century based on these actions. > > >> Well, no sexism aside, you may have witnessed your wife going through two >> pregnancies, but I have seen myself and various female friends almost >> follow symbollically the same path that franny did. The dizziness, the >> throwing up, the listlessness, the "ohgodmylifeisending" fear, the >> depression, the franzied throughts. TO me, if she WASNT pregnant or THOUGHT >> she was pregnant, she did an absolute wonderful interpetation of it. > > >Well, pregnancy or not, again the spiritual aspect of the story is not >being addressed. >From these words alone, I have given *you* enough food for thought to think that perhaps Franny *was* pregnant. We are not discussing her moral/spiritual implications. We are discussing whether or not she was pregnant. >The assumption here is that a female who exhibits these >"symptoms" is pregnant--there aren't supposed to be any other >possibilities. I never said that. Look at what I said: "TO me, if she WASNT pregnant or THOUGHT she was pregnant, she did an absolute wonderful interpretation of it." I never ruled out anything else that she could be. She could have been suffering from stress (which was implied throughout the story), but *I* do not think so. That is *my* interpretation of the book >However, I have to say that when some people make >religious conversions of one sort or another, their physical reactions >may take on many forms, which may happen to "appear" to be something >else. The spiritual aspect of the story is not being allowed to stand on >its own merit without some precipitating cause such as pregnancy. >Consider that, too. You are making a mole hill out of an ant hill. This whole *debate* has nothing to do with Frannys "spiritual" connection. It is on the implications of whether or not she was/is pregnant in the story. No one ever said Franny "wasn't" spiritual, or "wasn't" "religious" for what she was doing. *MY* interpretation of the story, is simply that she is using the "religious/spiritual" conversion because she *IS* pregnant, and she is dismayed to have found herself to be in that particular predicament. Now you on the other hand, have said "pregnant or not", which leads me to believe that you are no longer quite sure how you feel about the whole incidence, and then you keep hammering in on her "spiritual" convictions, as it were the end all be all of the story itself. The whole debate is whether or not Franny was pregnant in the story. I believe that i have kept my original conviction and stuck with my whole premise. You on the other hand have accused me of calling Salinger a hack, as well as implied, albeitly slyly, that I can do a better job of writing the story. Again, if you can't debate about the original point of this argument "is or franny is not pregnant" without making such allegations, I really do not wish to continue on. > > >> This *maybe* true, but unfortunately, sexism aside, a male presepctive of >> what a woman is going through (thinking she is pregnant or is actually >> pregnant), does not always match what the woman is ACTUALLY going through. >> If you spoke to the person I was engaged to at the time I had thought I >> was, and read what I wrote regarding the experience, it would almost be >> entirely different preceptions of the actual event. > > >Fair enough. However, we are talking about a male author in his mid-30s >who is inside the mind of a 20 year old woman of his own creation. We >are not talking about someone who has directly experienced pregancy >himself, of course. Again, here, I think you are questioning Salinger's >artistic talents and interpretations, especially in light of the >spiritual quest that Franny (Salinger, too) are taking. And here you do so again. Again you keep bringing up that I am attacking Salingers talents, which I never did. I do not like tactics that require cheap shots at the other person. And you keep insisting that the whole story is based on Franny's "spiritual quest". One more time. THIS IS YOUR INTERPRETATION. Do not foster your interpretations on me as though they are right. You are not Salinger. I have given my opinion, either you can accept is as thus, or you can not. If you cannot accept what I have to say, do NOT continue to claim that because I do NOT agree with you that I am attacking Salinger himself. > >> >> Also think as well, that both you and Salinger, WANTED these children into >> the world. Franny was single, young, and she was not that crazy about her >> beau. In fact, the more I think about it, considering how she felt about >> him, as well as her behaviour, as well as doing the pilgrimage (which could >> be thought as a spirtual way of absolving herself of having a child out of >> wedlock "forgive me being pregnant and not being married, i willd o this to >> absolve myself of the sin") type of deal. And also thinking, since >> Salinger's daughter was born the same year that franny came out, would it >> not be an absolute tribute to both his wife and daughter to have one of his >> more favored characters become pregnant? >> > > >No. As a champion of Innocence, particularly through Holden, I think >Salinger would be appalled to think of creating a female character who >gets pregnant out of wedlock. In fact, the idea of promiscuity seems >one that Salinger, through his characters, is lambasting. If that were true, would Seymour would have killed himself? And I don't think Salinger would be appalled at such an idea. What a better way to make his characters more memorable then to have them do something against the norm, which is what Salinger is apt to do in the first place. Whether or not Salinger is champion of innocence is entirely your perception. I see all of Salinger's works more as a opening door into minds of "true" individuals who can think for themselves and do not follow the norms of society. Much of what many of Salinger's characters believe in, their faiths and ideals, are much along the same lines as I do. In fact, Franny *is* the one major character I identify myself with, for her strong emotional and often turbulent ideals. > Again, here, >you seem to want to pinpoint a specific cause for the spiritual quest >she has decided to take, and that is not allowed to be anything other >than guilt over pregnancy. Here you go again. One more time incase you missed it. You keep insisting that she is on this spiritual quest. I do not see it as thus. > > >> Well, I think your wrong. :) And I think my points justify my points. > > >I'm not going to engage in a "nah, nah, stick-your-tongue-out, >I'm-right-you're-wrong" debate. You have already done so. You have said, not in so many words, that I am wrong completely and you are right, because according to you, she is on a spiritual quest. You claim that a persons opinion DOES matter, and that the book is obviously subject to interpretation. When I gave my interpretation, you have changed the tune that has disregarded the original debate, and to the whole "spiritual" quest. I have not touched on her "spiritual connection" because It is not relevant to this argument. The argument is about her pregnancy or lack of pregnancy. You can rightfully say that she is NOT pregnant because of the spiritual quest, which is your every right, and I can take that as thus. But you CANNOT disregard my statements or my opinions because I refuse to follow along the same line of path of thinking that you are doing. > Your points do justify only if you are >willing to ignore the spiritual aspect of this story and the rest of >Salinger's work, which is something I'm not willing to do. The obvious >assumption that a young woman who collapses, with dizziness, is >pregnant. I never said that and you know it. You just proved my point with your first sentence in this paragraph: "Your points do justify only if you are willing to ignore the spiritual aspect of this story and the rest of Salinger's work," One more time: This debate is regarding whether or not Franny is pregnant. This debate is not about any other of Salinger's works other then to use them as points to back up the argument. This debate is open to interpretation of whether or not Franny is pregnant, where as both parties involved in said debate can back up their points with what they feel is justified. You have maliciously and bordered on the outrageously accused me of many things which I do not like being accused of SIMPLY because I will not agree with your point of view. I do not see your point of view because I do not believe that Franny was on a spiritual quest, but rather she was frightened/frenzy/shocked, and thus were her motives for her actions. You have left the whole pregnancy debate behind and now keep hawking on her spiritualness. Either finish your original argument or we can agree to disagree. > However, Holden also, at one point, collapses with dizziness >in a similiar fashion. So is this sort of collapse a sign of >spiritual/emotional illness or pregnancy simply on the basis of a >character's gender? Holden is male, don't be absurd. Holden did NOT go through all the movements/actions of someone who is pregnant/hysterical pregnancy. And dizziness is NOT the only symptom of pregnancy. You say you watched your wife go through two pregnancies, I would assume that because of this (and taking your word on it) that you would at least recognize that there is more to being pregnant then dizziness. Holden was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. And thus his actions spoke of such. > In Salinger's case, this is likely not the answer. >I think that sort of analysis strikes me as REVERSE sexism. *Laughing* Think what you will. You have used every cheap ploy to discredit me because I do not agree with you while saying that having my own opinion was fair. I do not ague/debate with people who use such tactics. Nor do I debate/argue with someone who constantly speaks as though they know Salinger personably and that they have inside information. You do not. This argument is a moot point,a and if continued on, will result in quite nastiness. You can retain your point that she was not pregnant, and I will retain my point that she IS pregnant. We are both rightfully right because it is our own interpretation of the book. If you can share with me WHY I should be persuaded to believe you, I am all the more for it, but continuing making absurd and blasphemous remarks as you have thus far, I will not continue with said debate. ttfn. lisa -- Lisa M. Rabey Simunye Design http://www.simunye.com Coming to a browser near you --------------------------------- "The Internet, of course, is more than just a place where you can find pictures of people having sex with dogs." -Time Magazine, 3 July 1995