Re: Teddy = parts of Seymour ?
Sundeep Dougal (holden@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in)
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:34:27 +0530
> But I think it's quite beyond mere speculation that Salinger was
interested
> in, and influenced by, Eastern religion. We *know* it, he's said
it - all
Right, I am not disputing his interest in, or getting influenced by
"Eastern religion" howsoever defined, but my point basically is that
it is an a truism (or a tautology or whatever the right word is, that
I'd leave Scottie to correct) that almost anybody would be influenced
(which is again a loaded term) by whatever their preoccupying interest
of the moment, or over a period, was.
> we have to discern is how early on, to what extent ... which varies
> throughout his career. It appears in his work residually, obliquely,
> obviously and covertly, in various guises - but one thing we CAN NOT
deny
> is that religion - from all parts of the world - is one of
Salinger's
> implicit themes. I simply don't understand how Salinger's fiction
can be
> fully comprehended or appreciated without at least some knowledge of
>this!
I have trouble with this notion that to "fully comprehend or
appreciate" (whatever that may be said to imply) a piece of fiction
we have to understand the author's literary or spiritual interests or
inclination. I would have thought that the given piece of work or the
oeuvre as such should be enough for the purpose. There are many
implicit themes, to my mind, and they naturally evolve over a period
of time. Off hand, holding on to "innocence", nostalgia for people
past (particularly deceased siblings) and a lively or humourous (as
against a dull) way of looking at things come to mind, but I could
come up with a much better list, I am sure, if I were to sit and scan
through his texts chronologically.
Why, he himself seems to prefer his "amateur readers".
> This is quite beyond structure, theme, or even Seymour quoting the
> Bhavagad-Gita on the back of his door - this is the fabric of which
> Salinger's fiction is woven. The search for the TRUTH. This, I
believe, is
Yeah right. Even the hippies in their own way, and the Dharma Bums, or
those who tuned in, turned on and dropped out (or whatever the heck it
was that they did) were also the seekers for salvation, or TRUTH.
Aren't we all?
> tremendously important in the study of his approach to fiction. I'm
not
> saying either that it makes his fiction more special, more
attractive or
> less attractive - it's just a simple `is' as far as I'm concerned.
All right, this maybe points to the difference in our perceptions. I
must admit that 'the study of his approach to fiction' doesn't
interest me in the least. Study of anybody's approach to fiction
doesn't interest me. The only approach that I am interested in is that
fiction which makes me read it, and by itself maybe makes me make my
own "connections" to various things, but not that 'to fully comprehend
and appreciate' which I have to look up the author's shopping or
laundry list. If I ever do that, I'd be the first to admit that I was
doing it purely for other purposes than to understand or comprehend
or appreciate his _fiction_.
I am not at all suggesting that literary biography, or detailed
academic
endeavour to study the various influences, themes etc. of a particular
author's works by itself is not legitimate, just that it is quite a
different
field all together. Of course there would be overlaps, and perhaps the
academically inclined might want to argue that their reading
experience
is more fulfilling and such like, but who's to decide such things?
Those who just read and run could well argue, couldn't they, that they
get a more unadulterated spontaneous understanding and comprehension.
At the same time, to bring in the point discussed recently on the
list, it is again somewhat of a truism that any piece of writing
(particularly poetry) which is multi-valent, or which directly or
indirectly seems to be allusory, or is so construed by the individual
reader, which makes one relate to it, becomes more satisfying and
so on...
> I've already postulated the various similarities between `Catcher'
and
> various Eastern (and Western) religious texts in my famous and
oft-posted
> essay on the topic - and some of those simply can't be explained
away by
> the 32 major plotlines theory.
I am sorry, I seem to have missed reading that, and would love to do
so at the earliest opportunity now and then respond to that, the
moment I have time. But off hand I'd just point to the examiner's bias
and leave it at that, despite knowing what we do about Salinger's
interests. All religious texts have commonalties and it's question of
how we read them. There is a fundamental interconnectedness of life,
the universe and everything. A dirge even in a language one doesn't
understand is capable of making one lachrymose. Universal themes of
love, separation, death, strivings, seekings etc. induce and evoke
roughly the same goodly feelings and emotions.
And honestly, I don't think I have ever paid more than a cursory
glance to this 32 major plotlines theory (and frankly, I wasn't even
sure of the number. On my own, when asked to name a number at random,
I come out with 42, which can of course be pointed out as a clinching
proof that my very psyche is unhealthily influenced by Douglas Adams).
Sonny