Re: Teddy = parts of Seymour ?

AntiUtopia@aol.com
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 06:43:39 -0400 (EDT) 

Of course, but both of you are missing some substantially important points -- 
well, one really.  And that's that you can't make global statements about 
this subject.  It can only be treated on a story by story basis.  "Teddy," 
for example, is completely unintelligible apart from some understanding of 
Eastern Philosophy.  That is its subject matter.  The same can be said of 
"Franny and Zooey," and that by the author's own comments (which I thought 
you would respect, Scottie).  

But when I read DeDaumier Smith, which seems to be about a young artist, or 
Down in the Dinghy, which seems to be about a mother torn between being 
honest with her young son and the desire to protect him from the hate in the 
world, or Pretty Mouth, which seems to be about marital unfaithfulness, I 
don't see any direct or implied connection between Salinger's personal 
beliefs and the content of the story at all.  

So I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition, and the desire to make 
it so either way is usually indicative of prejudice on the part of the person 
who takes the stance.

Jim

In a message dated 9/23/99 4:44:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rbowman@indigo.ie writes:

<< 
     It hardly needs to be said but I might as well 
     say it - that Sonny's point-by-point statement 
     of the need for a vigorous scepticism when loading
     *any* text with its presumed impedimenta has my
     admiring & uneqivocal support.
 
     Scottie B. >>