Seymour shoots Muriel?
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu)
Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:17:46 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Brendan McKennedy wrote:
[regarding a small outline of a theory of the end of "Bfish"]
> I'm not really positive what you mean here; that is, are you
> suggesting that we SHOULD think Seymour was about to kill
> Muriel, or that we SHOULDN'T? It doesn't really change the
> topic much, it'd just be nice to know your opinion.
I'm delighted with much of what was in the post I'm replying to, Brendan,
and I'd like to respond to it in more detail; in the meantime, I'm
re-sending (apologies) a post I initially sent a while back.
>From mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu Thu May 1 01:14:22 1997
On this note, and drawing on the idea that "B-fish" is considered by some
to be one of "the very best": AS a story, I think "b-fish" is fantastic.
As a Salinger story, I think it is a little awkward (which isn't
necessarily bad). I think it misses or fails at a few of the things it
tries to do to readers. For instance: take a look at the last two
paragraphs. If we replace the last four words ("through his right
temple") with ellipses, I think it can be argued that Seymour shoots
Muriel, not himself. It seems to me that the reader, on the edge of his
seat, is supposed to think that Seymour is going to shoot Muriel.
Knowing nothing at all about Seymour Glass--as readers in jan. 48 did--
but what we learn in the story, there is a case to be made for Seymour as
nuts--dangerously nuts. Muriel's mother is clearly worried along these
lines. When we plug in all that we know about Seymour, the idea of him
shooting his wife is absurd. Very unlikely. But if all that we know
about him is that several people think he's dangerous, that he is odd in
general, that he is rude to people in elevators and that he is not happy
with the idea of gluttony, it makes perfect sense that he would shoot his
wife. "The room smelled of new calfskin luggage and nail-lacquer
remover." Just the kind of thing to drive a person over the edge? Just
the kind of detail to mention if you want to suggest a connection between
materialism and violence on the part of disturbed people?
Do look at this last paragraph (I can't quote it, of course). The
narrator provides us with carefully ambiguous information down to the last
four words. A psychologically unstable person plays with a little girl,
insults someone in an elevator, goes to his room, takes out his gun,
checks the magazine, cocks the gun, sits on a bed, looks at his wife, aims
the pistol, and shoots....who?
Is anybody buying this? It makes perfect sense. It's all the more
shocking when we discover that Seymour shoots *himself*. It's exquisitely
effective. We immediately reread the entire story, looking for clues. We
begin really to think about what's going on. Seymour becomes mcuh deeper,
much more enigmatic. we are much more sympathetic. we are sucked into
the Salinger narrative...
A student suggested that I try white-ing out those last four words next
time I pass out the story. It would end "and fired a bullet..." I bet
new readers would offer answers on both sides. He shoots Muriel, he
shoots himself.
The problem is, I don't remember my first reading happening like this, and
my class said they weren't expecting Muriel to be killed. But I'm partly
convinced that if we take off those last four words, nobody would really
know who gets shot. If nothing else, I'm mostly convinced that this is
the effect Salinger is going for. Does he fail? Comments?
sorry for the length. (and I am taking those xeroxes back up!!)
-------------------------------------------
mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu
-------------------------------------------
mkozusko@virtual.park.uga.edu