Sonny wrote: > Much as I like the Alsen book, it is to my mind, just one > interpretative theory. Which is what it perhaps aspires to be. > > Besides, what relevance it has on a reading of his fiction is really > something which eludes me completely. Now, if in "Inverted Forest" we > find a pronounced parallel that echoes some Vedantic thought (which > actually should not be too difficult for any one with any, as Derrida > would perhaps say, imagi/Nation, to "prove" as the Vedantic thought > can be about almost anything)... So, perversely, you're arguing along the same lines as Scottie - that we have a tendency to find meaning where there simply is none? I can easily see that that could be a problem. However, I think this is not so far from what I was saying the other day - that Salinger knows our tendency to dig for autobiography, to dig for meaning - and he plays with it. I'm not suggesting that this level of sophistication is at work as early as `The Inverted Forest'. I have argued before that Salinger's interest as demonstrated in the early material is that of a dilentante, (or at the very least one who is not sure that Veda is a good thing to plop into a Slick story!) In particular I have noted that he may have found a structuring device for Catcher in the tales of Buddha and several other religious texts. On the other hand I do think Salinger was a lot more clued-up about Eastern religion - and earlier than we probably know - than we sometimes give him credit for. Rumours of enormous note books crammed with haiku from the 40's that were too way-out for publication abound. I think in the end Salinger's obsession grew until it morphed with his concurrent obsession with literature until they became one and the same. I have always noted with interest that according to the Maynard biography, Salinger proclaimed himself a `failed Buddhist'. All the more evidence to say that like the monks who spent 40 years illuminating manuscripts, writing has become Salinger's religion. Camille verona_beach@hotpop.com