Re: Catcher Paper
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:06:34 +1100
Jim - nice (: You actually gave me an idea on one thing that was bothering
me - I now think Salinger's tendency to ... well, some would call it
`waffle', others would frame it more nicely - is part of a larger tendency
towards non-rationality. If anything, Salinger's work seems not just
non-rational; it's anti-rational; anti structure and anti-typical. Some
mistake `anti-typical' for `innovation' - and Salinger is undoubtedly an
innovator, but somehow I value the innovations he made with the mundane
rather than the all-out `anti's. Guess that's why he demands `anti-readers'
for his `anti-stories' (: There's no doubt also that his stories are meant
to be anti-intellectual, too - that is to resist intellectualisation - but
I think this could be largely attributed to a Zen impulse too. Zen is a
markedly non-intellectual religion; the emphasis being that any ordinary
man can achieve his own salvation. I often wonder if Salinger is
intimidated by intellectualism more than anything; maybe he's even afraid
to learn the deeper insights in his own writing, or acknowledge that anyone
other than himself could discover those insights. It seems a shame that
Salinger equates analysis (and thus intellectualism) with phoniness because
when you think about it - just like Salinger, all we're doing is looking
for the truth (: Funny also you pick up on Holden's dislike of `morons' -
which makes you think - we're not allowed to be morons, we're not allowed
to be intellectuals - what are we allowed to be???
Man, I can hardly imagine entering Salingeralia via `Franny and Zooey'
rather than TCIR. Sorta like judging Scorsese solely on the basis of
`Kundun'. It'd give you a whole different expectation.
> The phrase, "had to come out here and take it easy" points to the
> possibility that Holden is staying in some kind of an institution.
Yeah ... but wouldn't a pair of parents like Holden's have a completely
different tack? (I doubt very much they'd care too much about the state of
Holden's lungs; in the 50's everyone smoked like chimneys but it didn't
bother them any more than it bothers any 90s person on a caffeine jag)
Consider the evidence:
1) Holden's Dad backs Broadway musicals
2) DB is in Hollywood writing movies
therefore
3) Holden has been sent to stay with DB in Hollywood ... which when you
think about it is a pretty good place to start whinging about phonies and
complaining about the movies from (:
Which is pretty improbable - this being my point. I'm afraid what I
consider Section Manism (or Womanism ?) is things like people quibbling
with Flaubert when he gave Emma Bovary three different eye colours in
various sections of `Madame Bovary' (maybe not the best choice given your
quote about the French there (: ) Flaubert was a realist; he was *the*
realist. Yet Emma Bovary has grey, blue, and brown eyes. And the book is
still `real', Emma is still `real'. Likewise `Julius Caesar' loses none of
its impact by our knowledge that there were no clocks in Ancient Rome. I
can never understand why such things are such a bother to some.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest