Re: Teddy = parts of Seymour ?
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@hotpop.com)
Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:58:30 +1000
No, it was the second paragraph that you reference that I was referring to
(I think; there may be some more details a little further on) - I again
wonder if `Buddy' writing the story of Teddy (it's hard not to go overboard
with the `'s here) was not an attempt to reconcile himself with Seymour's
suicide - as indeed the Bananafish story could be? As he tells us, the
Seymour of that story is a fictionalised Seymour; one seen externally. The
more I think about it the more I see it almost as one of those
`re-enactments' you see on those True Crime type shows - it's speculative,
it fills in the gaps that could only be filled by the protagonist
otherwise, it's poetic and mysterious and offers no real answers (except to
Buddy?) In fact, what Buddy seems to be saying is that each and every story
he writes is really based on Seymour. Whoa boy, that could take some
digesting!
As an author it's a very sneaky way for JDS to discredit his earlier story
and effectively remove it from the Glass canon as unsatisfactory. Just as
sneaky as giving the rights to Seymour's brilliant haikus to Muriel so we
can never read any (:
Camille
verona_beach@hotpop.com
citycabn wrote:
> 1. In the paragraph beginning, "At this point, it doesn't seem to me
> merely chummy to mention that I have written about my brother before...",
> Buddy talks about how if he had to write a story about a dinosaur he
would
> give him some of S.'s mannerisms. And then speaks of some people--not
close
> friends--who insisted a lot of Seymour went into "the young leading
> character of the one novel I published ... but I will say that no one who
> knew my brother has asked or told me anything of the kind--by which I'm
> grateful..." Said long paragraph then admits to the flawed Bananafish
> story with the "Seymour" character really being a representation of
Buddy.
> [This is crucial because the Seymour of Bananafish is NOT the Seymour of
the
> Glass Saga. Yes, the Glass Saga Seymour committed suicide, but I wager
if
> JDS could have re/written APDFB in '55 right after Raise High, the
> atmospherics, the depiction of Seymour, would have been much different.
> Obviously Buddy regrets the Bananafish story. And much later in SAI, in
the
> long paragraph beginning, "One remark in this last paragraph...", Buddy
> admits he needs to readdress Seymour's suicide: "--the details of his
> suicide, and I don't expect to be ready to do that, at the rate I'm going
> for several more years." Just my pet theory, no need to agree.]
>
> 2. The other paragraph, beginning "In one or two conveniently describable
> ways...." contains the only reference to Teddy in SAI. Buddy talks about
> the "short story about a 'gifted' little boy aboad a transatlantic
> liner",quotes the sentence from "Teddy" re his eyes. Buddy then says
those
> eyes"were not Seymour's eyes at all. Yet at least two members of my
family
> knew and remarked that I was trying to get at his eyes with
> thatdescription..." Buddy then attempts to describe , what I infer, are
the
> eyes of a God-knower, a mukta, a ring-ding enlightened man, and makes a
hash
> of it like Schopenhauer. A thought: was Schopenhauer describing the
eyes
> of the Buddha?
>
> Granted, I might have missed what Camille and Jim are referring to.
Will,
> Sonny, Tim--please set us all straight.
>
> --Bruce
> -----
> From: Camille Scaysbrook <verona_beach@hotpop.com>
> To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
> Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Teddy and Booper
>
>
> >citycabn wrote:
> >> ----- Camille wrote:
> >> It's
> >> >always interested me that in S:AI Salinger/Buddy admits that Teddy is
a
> >> >fictionalised portrait of Seymour --
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you have that wrong. Buddy is talking about only the *eyes*
of
> >> Teddy and Seymour being similar. (Though in fact they are quite
> >physically
> >> different; as I feel the personalities of Teddy and Seymour are.)
> >>
> >> Question: anyone know which Schopenhauer work and personage JDS is
> >> referring to in the Seymour eyes section of SAI?
> >
> >No, there's definitely a reference in there to the fact that the
character
> >of Teddy is `based' on Seymour - it's somewhere in S:AI which, I am
> >chagrined to admit, I don't currently have a copy of. Buddy speaks about
> >how although the two characters are physically different, Teddy was sort
of
> >pieced together with equivalencies to aspects of Seymour. Can anyone
help
> >me out here?
> >
> >P.S. I am equally chagrined to admit I know next to nothing about
> >Schopenhauer. For an anti-intellectual Salinger can sure make some
> >high-falutin references (:
> >
> >Camille
> >verona_beach@hotpop.com
> >