Seymour: the signature Salinger spice
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Sat, 24 Oct 1998 11:30:25 -0400
Camille wrote:
> Hello ??? Am I the only one who reads my posts ??? (look for one written
> about a day ago : Re: Teddy is much more than stained Glass)
Sorry--I misread that header as "Teddies are nice, but they ride up your
a**." Naturally, I'm not interested in reading that sort of thing. As
you know, we Americans have no interest in salacious press.
Though I don't remember Buddy explaining how "certain elements of
Seymour were sort of transformed and fitted on to Teddy," I agree with
you. Elements of Seymour inhabit "Teddy" and its title character in a
way that's different from--more direct than--the way Seymour colors
other characters (by Buddy's admission). Seymour and Teddy are two
versions of the same story. They have the same ingredients. The
Seymour dish ends up being a sort of classic western literature puzzle
that thrives on conflict--plenty of conflict, but all sort of vague.
Like a triple chocolate cake with chocolate layers, chocolate icing, and
chocolate filling thrown in a blender; it's hard to figure out what's
going on, but there's chocolate for sure. The Teddy dish is the western
un-classic. It works to diffuse conflict--Teddy tries to disarm
conflict by pointing to its constructedness, its unecessariness and
westernness. You order a piece of the triple chocolate cake, and Teddy
explains to you how bread, eggs, water and chocolate are like apples,
and how you don't want any, really.
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu