Re: From Daumier to Smith/Franny acting
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@hotpop.com)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:50:08 +1000
Jim wrote:
> I just finished the story and now I'm inclined the think the dummy inside
the
> window display is the center of meaning for the window scene. He first
sees
> it as the god of a world filled with enameled urinals who rules over his
> world regardless of how far he develops, and the thought disturbs him to
no
> end. I think this thought is that the banal really rules the world and
the
> enlightened individual can never really rise above it. This isn't too
far
> from the disillusionment most of Salinger's characters seem to have with
the
> world.
So, you're saying that try as he or she might, the true artist can never
really alter or improve the human condition? Interesting interpretation. I
guess the story could be seen as a statement on the failure of the
transcendence of art - which is a concept which I suppose denies the
concept of satori which relies on unexpected, unpremeditated sources of
enlightenment. It would also have interesting implications for Salinger
himself, as it's the disillusionment that is also demonstrated in his
desire for anonymoty and his seeming belief that talent should be directed
inward to improve oneself rather than outward for the benefit of - or
corruption by - all. *He* can't change any of us dolts into people who
could move the stars to pity, we will only ever be beating out tunes for
bears to dance to, so he's not going to bother.
Are we really all that bad? (:
Speaking of Franny - I just reread some Maynard-era articles in my Salinger
dossier when I noticed that Salinger had reccommended that Maynard `write a
play in which she could star'. Now, doesn't this seem totally at odds with
his attitude towards publication somehow? I was always intrigued by
Salinger's suggestion - many years previously that he might play the part
of Holden onstage - why is performing different to publishing? It's curious
that it's an opinion he held onto for that long. Why do you think Salinger
seems to see performance as a good sort of `publication'? Why are such
purely spiritual characters as Seymour allowed to perform on something as
tacky as `Its A Wise Child'? Is it perhaps because performance is both a
passive and active experience? I'm puzzled over this.
Also makes me wonder: are there any plays in that safe of his?
Camille
verona_beach@hotpop.com
Jim also wrote:
> But then the second time he comes to the window, a woman is replacing a
truss
> on the dummy -- trying to dress it up, so to speak. And that's DDS's
life
> too -- drying to dress up the banal. I think he sees everyone as trying
to do
> the same thing in their own way. The revelation, then, might be for him
to
> still value art without making it everything -- the source of all value.
It
> frees him to be himself, admit he wants a chair in his room, and to
release
> Sister Irma to let her dress up her dummy her way.
>
> This isn't too different from Franny and her vocation as an actress,
either,
> although she went in different directions.
>
> That's where I'm leaning now, anyway...
>
> Jim