Re: DeDaumier Smith

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@hotpop.com)
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:04:13 +1000 

Again, I just can't see how DDS cannot be seen as a character who is quite
simply taking the piss out of himself. To me, that's a fundamental part in
the understanding of the character; unlike Holden who seems to be separated
by considerably less time from the self he is talking about and the self
who is doing the talking, DDS has enough distance to be rueful and
self-deprecating about himself. He's still a bit of a flashy jerk but he
has learned a bit about himself from the experience. Still, if ya don't
like it, ya don't like it ... as to the precise nature of the Epiphany, it
was always one of my favourite of Salinger's epiphanies simply because it
is so nonsensical and non-definable - a true blue moment of real Satori.

I'm getting a sudden itching to do a comparitive study of DDS and Catcher!
Whoever is in charge of that Bananafish journal (and Please can we come up
with a more creative title, it's so dull. Surely there's some gem of a
title we can pluck *somewhere* from Salinger!!!) keep the gates open long
enough for me to throw a few more tidbits in!

Camille
verona_beach@hotpop.com

Jim wrote:
>>I'm writing this from work because it's a bit slow right now and I have
nothing better to do :-)  I just started rereading the story last night -
got to the point where he was accepted to the art school and then skipped
ahead to his epiphany at the end.  

First off, some factual stuff.  He's around 27 during the writing of the
story.  We know this because he was born in 1920 and his stepfather died in
1947 - to whom he is dedicating the story.   His parents got divorced in
1928 and his mother remarried shortly after that.  In 1930 mother,
stepfather and son all moved from New York to Paris, where he did receive
some recognition for his work (which didn't happen in the States).  Around
June of 1938 (he was 19) his mother died and he and his stepfather moved
back to New York.  After that point he enrolled in art school.  

I think that the most telling thing about this character is that when he
was
19, he did 18 oil paintings and 17 were of himself.  But this is also the
same year his mother died.  His solipsism may be the result of grief for
the
loss of his mother, but I don't see that he ever stepped out of this much
even ten years later.  However, the Dentist cartoon was a genuine riot :-)

In May of 1939 he applied to the art school run by the Japanese couple,
claiming to be 29.  The semester started June 24, and I haven't read far
enough to know exactly how long it lasted, but I do get the impression that
the school didn't last long.  

Now, I do see some immediate parallels to Holden, like DeDaumier's tendency
to lie extravagantly.  But, again, I don't see too much in the way of self
criticism here.  Holden was aware of what he was doing and saw it as some
kind of a personality quirk or flaw.  DDS only admitted that at that time
he
lied with more conviction than he told the truth.

The other thing I have a problem with, and this is really stupid, is the
way
he was dressed when he got off the bus station in Montreal.  Beige double
breasted gabardine suit, navy shirt, solid yellow cotton tie, brown and
white shoes.  Does this sound like a person with developed artistic
sensibilities?  I know the aesthetics of dress were a bit different then
than now...but the colors?  And don't say the author is laughing at himself
here from a later perspective, because I just don't buy that.  

Anyway, I don't have the time to write much more, but the bottom line is
that the guy is self centered during the events of the story, the narrative
voice seems pretty close to the perspective of the character (so I don't
see
that he's grown), the humor seems incidental to me because of that, and,
above all, I just don't get very well (yet) the epiphany.  He's aware that
he made the girl in the window uncomfortable and caused her to embarrass
herself as a result.  That was painful for him.  I give him credit for
that.
The glass seems to represent some kind of boundary he can't cross.  And he
learned from that to allow people - the nun, at least - to follow their own
destinies.  But I don't see that it was a problem for him at all before he
met the nun.  So the point, please?

This is why I never really liked this story much.  And it all revolves
around the fact that I just don't much like that main character or
empathize
with his plight.  And since I don't see much development, I have little
reason to respect him.

I don't see how this character is that much of a departure for Salinger,
though.  He's exceptional and flawed like all the Glasses, and Holden.  If
he had been a mediocre talent artistically, THAT would have been a
departure.  But Salinger doesn't allow DDS mediocrity.  

So I'm not too sure about the argument presented about this character...<<