Re: franny pregnant?
Lisa M. Rabey (simunye@pacbell.net)
Wed, 03 Sep 1997 04:59:58 +0000
<big snip>
>OH Boy! Oh Boy! In a word or coupla dozen, it would appear that I have
>struck a nerve. Hummm....."absurd and blasphemous?" Well, the absurd
>part is obvious; the blasphemous I don't quite follow.
Well let me make it QUITE clear to you. First off, someone posted something
asking the opinion of the list 'was franny pregnant. When I fired off my
reply, I had stated that it WAS my opinion, you did not have to agree or
disagree with me. And that matter of my "opinion" was not up for debate. It
was how I felt when I read the story, and what I received to be what I
think if she is pregnant or not. This is what was asked of everyone. The
debate would be thus begin with WHY we felt that way, which I had given you
since you had challenged my opinion in the first place.
Now, you may NOT agree with my opinion, which is fairly obvious, but you
should at least respect it. I did NOT appreciate being told that I was
critiquing Salingers work, NOR that I was implying in anyway I could do a
better job at writing the book then he can. To me, that is blasphemous
because YOU choose to take what I was saying and twist my words. That is
not debating, that is outright slander.
> My intent has
>been all along to show why, using both your words and arguments, I
>firmly disagree with this interpretation of the story. I have never
>attempted to 'discredit' you--just the argument and why the reasoning
>leading up to it seems sophistic.
If you had not attempted to discredit my words, you would not have said i
was criticizing Jerry's work NOR would you have said that I *should write
Little and brown and tell them I can do a better job".
And I also used your words and arguments to show why YOU were wrong to me.
In fact, in majority of your last letter, you didn't mention Franny's
pregnancy (the topic of debate), but critizing me for not concentrating on
her spirituality. Her depth is not at debate here, whether or not she is
pregnant IS. That is why people were giving their opinions in the first
place, based on their thoughts/feelings when they read the story.
>My points on many cases are not being
>argued by you--you seem far more bent on taking my points as personal
>attacks, or on not understanding my reasoning by not carefully reading
>of what I wrote.
And I can say the exact thing about you. You used your wife as an example
of what a women is like when she is pregnant. I then said to you, with no
sexism aside, that while you may get a fist hand glimpse of the beauty of
being pregnant, you do not actually *know* how she is feeling, because you
are not her, and you are also not female. Sad but true. I even used myself
and several of my friends as examples, of what happens when you THINK you
are pregnant. That "OHMYGODIWILLDOANYTHINGIFONLYIAMNOTPREGNANT" fear. And I
had also said, when I had thought that I was pregnant a few years ago, many
of the ways that Franny had felt, I had felt as well, as many of my
girlfriends when they had discovered they were pregnant and it was unwanted
or they have THOUGHT they were pregnant felt the same way.
And many of franny's "physical" symptoms, can also be attributed to
pregnancy, including mood swings, depression, sickness and fainting. It is
not discrediting her as not being a deep person or even spiritual, but the
fact is SHE is female and she and lane had slept together (while that is
still out for the court to decide).
You had even give me MORE proof when you had said Jerry's wife had their
daughter the same year that Franny was published. You had said something
along the lines of how cliched it would have been if he would have taken
one of his most beloved characters and had her get pregnant.
And I had replied that there would be nothing more romantic NOR meaningful
then to idolize his daughter and his wife by getting the same said
character pregnant, or THINK she is pregnant to show what it MIGHT have
been like if she were.
> Example: I pointed out that in "Hills..." the couple
>already knew of the pregnancy. You read it to think the READER (you, me
>or the janitor of the building across the street) knows or doesn't
>know--my point was, and still is, that the COUPLE, if you were to have
>been there five minutes before the story actually begins, knew BEFORE
>the story even started--the READER figures this out (maybe) during the
>actual reading. Huge logistical difference. Much like Holden knows he
>has a Mother and Father BEFORE page 1 of TCITR.
No its not.
By using your own logic, *IF* Franny is pregnant, or THINKS she is
pregnant, she knows before the story begins. What we see is her reaction to
the possibility of the reader thinking "is she or isn't she" if the reader
THINKS she is when they read the story, much like Hills.
> Yes, the argument was/is whether or not Franny was pregnant, and I
>think my points have been well-thought out and consistent with Franny's
>ENTIRE character. My belief is that ignoring her new found spiritual
>quest, Seymour's (and the rest of Glass families') influence, and
>Salinger's own (spiritual quests, too) potential motivation (considering
>the puzzled letter he sent to his editor friend at the NYer) in writing
>the story cannot be done in this debate. That, to me, borders on the
>ludicrous.
Where does Franny's "new spiritual quest" come in?
It doesn't. Her spiritual "quest" could very well be from her pregnancy, IF
she thinks or if she really is pregnant. There is NOTHING in the book,
other then the letters to Lane (that I remember correctly), that show her
being anything BUT what she is other then the glimpses we see in other
stories. Franny's character is given to us much in "Franny" itself, and
this is where we disagree once more, because in MY eyes, I don't truly know
her till I read the book itself, and thus, can only make judgements about
what she is or isn't till I finish.
>If we are going to focus solely on any one aspect of
>Franny's "personality", then I think the whole field of
>psychology/psychaitry needs some revamping.
We are not characterizing her "personality" and pregnancy isn't an aspect
of her personality, its a physical issue. This is where we are going to
disagree again. I have maintained that I am NOT characterizing or judging
Franny based on her personality, I am debating on whether or not she is
pregnant. I have not take her "personality" into effect, because I am
looking at the 'proof' as well as reading between the lines between the
underscore of emotions running when she meets Lane, and the whole ordeal at
the apartment with Franny/Zooey/Bessie.
> The pregnancy issue in this
>story is never given to us empirically (despite the ambigious references
>to intercourse) and we, as readers, will interpret as necessary to
>satisfy our needs for understanding, no question.
This begs the question of then why you have taken it upon yourself to
critise my opinion. Am I not allowed to have one whether or not you agree
with me?
> This is where the
>pregnancy argument to me fails. Salinger clearly, to me, seemed bent on
>leaving the story without resolution to Franny's condition as
>representing a more mystical (a.k.a spiritual) meaning and avoid Western
>Empirical tendencies/interpretations.
All of Salinger's stories are "unfinished" as they do not give closure to
many questions. Why did Seymour kill himself is one. While Salinger uses
spirituality much through out of his books, all the issues that are at hand
do not have to deal with spirituality per se, nor do the questions that the
reader is left holding the bag to ask.
> Yes, I bring into my debates an element of absurdity. "Life is
>absurd." "Reductio ad aburdum" Do these sound familiar?
Yes, they are cliche's.
> I tried to
>use the absurdity factor, such Holden's very SIMILIAR collapse
>paralleling pregnancy and the re-writing the end or F&Z, as a point: to
>highlight why I feel the pregnancy impression doesn't wash from the
>start.
Unfortunately, sexuality is going to play at this issue. Franny's
"symptoms" to me play a part of her being pregnant because she "is" female.
Holden on the other hand does not have similar symptoms other then the fact
that he fainted at one point. Holden was also very near a physical and
emotional collapse as well as being mentally unstable. Franny from my
recollection is much nearer in her senses and much more stable then Holden
ever was.
And for the rewrite, it was never said nor implied that I disagreed with
anything in Franny, nor was it necessary for you to imply that I had said
it. That to me is when the argument stops because to use that kind of ad
honieum accruement is out of place as well as insulting.
>My whole argument has been a conscious attempt to show WHY the
>pregnancy argument shouldn't exist in the first place. The whole
>pregnancy argument seems like a slap in the face to those women who are
>young, intelligent and spiritually motivated--reverse feminism to me.
And you haven't been doing a very successful job of doing it either.
What you are also forgetting is that the book was written in the mid 50's,
when pregnancy out of wedlock was a daring thing. It is NOT reverse
feminism, because in the sense that there is nothing wrong with being
pregnant, and you are insinuating that by saying so that something is.
>So when my daughter grows up, am I to ASSUME that any time she collapses
>that she is pregnant?? Of course, I won't. (God Help all of us Fathers
>and future Dads out there!)
So if your daughters attitudes suddenly change, she gets sick at the sight
of food, and she gets dizzy spells, is lethargic, is depressed, is no
longer speaking to her boyfriend, are you going to suddenly say: Daughter!
I see you are on the verge to higher enlightenment!
Of course not.
You are going to wonder if she IS pregnant.
>That a young woman of 20 years cannot
>collapse (with a Russian written treatise on Prayer in hand) without
>being pregnant bothers me.
And the fact that
a: it was the 1950's,
b: she and her bf were sneaking in and out her house,
c: she went to go see him at his college
d: she gets nauseated at the sight of food
d: she is depressed and lethargic
e: she is no longer speaking to her boyfriend
f:she won't communicate with anyone save her brother, and even then its all
coded
g: she faints and has dizzy spells.
These are all physical symptoms and psychological symptoms that *something*
is wrong. And to me it speaks of pregnancy.
>(Patti: I don't think it cheapens the
>story--it seems like an easy answer for many readers, though)
You had said earlier that is as above JD's caliber to even THINK Franny
could be pregnant, and even said it was cliched, and now it doesn't cheapen
the story?
> My wife
>remembers being in college and how at that time in her life she did a
>lot of soul-searching. The first time away from home and the constant
>questioning of the way she was brought were forefront in her mind.
Many people do soul-searching, and most of it IS in college, due to the
wondrous new doors that are open to people as they are going thrust out in
the world.
But this same rule doesn't apply to obviously anyone.
>Franny obviously had an unusual upbringing and that HAS to be considered
>if we are to consider her actions in this story. Perhaps her spiritual
>quest is going against the norms she was BROUGHT UP with and not
>necessarily those of society?
> I am sorry if you think you have been maliciously accused of anything
>in this discussion. As I said before, I have tried, with vigor, to
>attack the argument. I have never claimed 'any inside information or
>that Salinger is a buddyroo".
*laugh* Now again, if that were true you wouldn't have said what you did,
NOR keep mentioning all these little tidbits of information that you have
given like: considering the puzzled letter he sent to his editor friend at
the NYer. From the way you write, that you have inside information on him.
> Two points here: I, too, have written
>(and do still) many pieces of short fiction and I'd like to think I can
>see (See-more?) things from the writer's/artist's perspective when
>trying to decipher a story. (Try the brilliant Pynchon sometime--you
>can spend a week on a single paragraph, forget about the whole piece)
I am not critizing the fact that you are a writer, I am sure that you are
one. But what you seemingly forget is that each artist/writer/author writes
their stories for themselves. What their interpretation of what the story
is, can vary from what their readers think. And chances are, what they
meant, is not always going to be what is read.
And I will skip on Pynchon, thanks.
>This may appear as "inside information" but is just looking at it from
>how a writer may or may not have mentally approached a character and
>scene. With "Franny" and the pains JDS goes through to highlight the
>Jesus Prayer and "The Way of a Pilgrim" (which I have also read), as a
>fellow fiction writer I find it hard to accept the pregnancy answer.
You are but one of 1000's if not millions of people who have read that
story. YOU may not take that she is pregnant, due to your thinking
measures, but for those of us who do, it does not give you the right to say
that we are wrong. As stated in my first paragraph in my first letter, I
had stated it was my opinion. I have also said this many times in this same
letter as well. The way you see things and the way I see things are going
to differ, obviously, but that does not make you justifiably right because
you see it from "the writers" perspective, nor does it make me justifiably
right because I see it from another perspective.
The whole purpose of this listserv is to share ideas and to discuss things
in a civilized manner, as well as learn. TO be criticized and insulted is
another measure.
And again, to me, the whole purpose of debate is that I win regardless of
the outcome. If you can prove to me WHY i should agree with you, i learn
something and thus am satisfied. If I prove to you why you should agree
with me, same measure applies here.
Truth be told, I think I will re-read Franny in the next few days and see
if my opinion/thoughts/feelings change on the pregnancy issue. Will write
up something then...
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