In your blog post, please consider connections between these two works of literature. Start with a specific observation and then connect your passage to themes in both works, such as: innocence, PTSD, role of the media, depiction of female characters, glorification of war, hyper-masculinity and war, etc.
You can:
- Choose a specific line and ask a genuine question about it. Try to answer your own question and pose it to the class to consider.
- Choose a specific passage and state what you believe to be its significance.
- Ask a question about something that Salinger DOES in his writing, such as: Why do you think Salinger begins his story, a story whose protagonist is Seymour Glass, with a description of Seymour's wife, Muriel? Try to answer your own question.
Remember:
- Respond to someone else's post. Deepen the thinking, add a new idea, disagree, add textual evidence, make a new connection, etc.
- Your comment should be 5-7 sentences long-- - Use textual evidence as much as possible.
Have a happy holiday!
“‘They lead a very tragic life,’ he said. ‘You know what they do, Sybil?’ She shook her head. ‘Well, they swim into a hole where there’s a lot of bananas. They’re very ordinary looking fish when they swim in. But once they get in, they behave like pigs. Why, I’ve known some bananafish to swim into a banana hole and eat as many as seventy-eight bananas. He edged the float and its passenger a foot closer to the horizon. ‘Naturally, after that they’re so fat they can’t get out of the hole again. Can’t fit through the door.’” [8]
ReplyDeleteThe essence of this passage can be applied in two much different ways - societal standards rooting from Seymour’s character in Salinger's Franny and Zooey, and contrasting this metaphor to the life of a veteran and Billy Pilgrim in Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. In the case of the former, it can be applied to the societal standards that Franny and Zooey persistently criticize across the novel because of the pseudo-intellectuality that Seymour advised them against but then he himself became wrapped up in, which obviously ultimately led to the deterioration of his ego (in the bad sense), and his suicide. The bananafish here serve as metaphors for people who go into life looking to consume as much “knowledge” as possible, but it ultimately just inflates their ego and prevents the person from gaining zen knowledge and releasing their superficial aspects.
On the other hand, this metaphor of Bananafish can also be be compared to the nature of a veteran, specifically Billy Pilgrim in Vonnegut’s anti-war novel Slaughterhouse Five. The fish going into the banana hole represents the innocent man going into the war, and the consumption of the bananas represents them absorbing terrorizing and traumatic memories from different points of the war and storing them in the upper echelons of their mind. Then, as we can see in the examples of Billy Pilgrim and Eliot Rosewater, they essentially “can’t escape the hole” because they can’t escape the “bananas they consumed.” Their traumatic memories have now become themselves, hence the name “bananafish” and the label of “veteran,” that will follow the man and the fish for the rest of their lives. These two stories subtly reference the effects of war but in different manners and different perspectives.
Adding on, I think that the bananafish display his the soldiers, and the banana hole as the war. They go in looking one way, but then they come out looking completely different, knowing they could never go back to the way they were before the event. This connects to Billy Pilgrim’s war experience, as he came in as Mary O’Hare says, a child, and came out a war veteran suffering PTSD. Billy doesn’t act like himself, according to his daughter, and then his whole life after the war is affected by the war he fought.
Delete“‘That’s a fine bathing suit you have on. If there’s one thing I like, it’s a blue bathing suit.’ Sybil stared at him, then looked down at her protruding stomach. ‘This is a yellow,’ she said. ‘This is a yellow’” (6).
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read these lines, I thought it odd that Seymour would see something yellow as blue, which to me seemed like a completely random mistake. Once I reread this passage, keeping in mind that Seymour recently returned from war, I realized that the contrast between blue and yellow highlights Seymour’s newfound outlook on life compared to those around him. While yellow is a bright and typically happy color, blue is usually seen as sad or moody, and both colors are regarded as certain emotions that oppose each other. The fact that Seymour can look at yellow and see blue signifies that the war has changed him and that ordinary things, in this case the color of a bathing suit, remind him of his sadness. This also shows that while the world remains innocent around him, Seymour’s mood is still affected by the war, which foreshadows his suicide in the story. Ultimately, Seymour’s error highlights that immediately post-war, a veteran’s perspective changes in all aspects of life as it is unavoidably weighed down by the past.
I completely agree with your analysis, and the color blue is used in another part of the story, when Muriel's mother asks her, "'[w]ell how's your blue coat'", and Muriel responds "all right. I just had some of the padding taken out" (5). At the time, I was confused as to why Salinger would have them talk about something as seemingly trivial as a coat. However, I think it is highly significant that Muriel talks about taking out some padding in the coat, showing that since the war has passed, less and less of the world is sugar coated to her and she is beginning to face the realities and struggles that the war brings. As you mentioned before, I think blue is used by Salinger to show how people are changed by the war.
DeleteAlthough Seymour seemed to be in a good mood on the beach, he was reminded of his emptiness and sadness caused by the war when looking at the bathing suit. Also when he was telling Sybil about the bananafish and how they died, he changed the subject. The war has affected his way of thinking and maybe even feeling.
DeleteI totally agree with you, Salinger is showing how the war has changed everything for Seymour. I feel this connects to the passage saying, “We couldn’t get the room we had before the war” (5). This line really stood out because it adds to the idea that the world in which he lives has shifted or changed.
DeleteI agree with what Manny said. Even things that are calming and soothing, like a beach, triggered strong emotions. Even talking about death as a whole, hurts Seymour mentally.
Delete"'On the beach? By himself? Does he behave himself on the beach?'
ReplyDelete'Mother,' said the girl, 'you talk about him as though he were a raving maniac-'
'I said nothing of the kind, Muriel'" (5).
This passage stood out to me because it really highlights an outsider’s perspective on war veterans. Muriel’s mother questions everything Seymour does to the point where even Muriel reprimands her mother for her questions. As we have seen while reading Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, war veterans and those who experience war through the media have very different perspectives on its effects. Someone who has never been in war can never really grasp its effects on soldiers, or even sympathize with war veterans. Muriel’s mother is a clear-cut example of this, continuously asking Muriel “are you alright,” rather than asking is Seymour is alright; showing how she only cares about the effects of Seymour’s actions rather than the causes for them. In the end, she denies saying these things, saying, “I said nothing of the kind,” despite just having a whole conversation about Seymour not being stable/ able to control himself. This shows just how unaware people are of the way they think as well as the way their thoughts come across.
When I read your analysis I was relieved someone else recognized this connection! Muriel's mother's questioning of Seymour drew me in as well due to her lack of understanding for his wartime experiences. Specifically how she doesn't question, as you mentioned, if "Seymour is alright". This seems to be symbolic of her inability to sympathize/communicate and therefore her inability to question this of him. From your analysis, I began to question, what are the long-term affects of these communication barriers?
DeleteIn response to your question, I believe the long-term effects of these communication barriers result in the perpetual cycle of the media’s misconception of true accounts of tribulation—which utterly lead to the normalization, dehumanization, and distortion of the ideal image of war. For instance, when Seymour called his wife “Miss Spiritual Tramp of 1948”, she inertly laughed, rather “giggled”, at his somewhat “childish” remark (4). However, by laughing, she is wholeheartedly dismissing and demeaning the psychological trauma he has undergone from war. Her insensible laugh does not account for the bloodshed he has witnessed, the constant fear of death he has internalized, and the physical and emotional battle of subsisting through the torment he has endeavored overtime. Indiscreetly, she validates this imprudent and tactless behavior. Thus, this reveals humanity’s explicit insensitivity towards authentic narratives of affliction and pain. Truly, as long as this prescribed notion of war thrives, these “communication barriers” will exceedingly persist. Furthermore, this can be highlighted through the mother-in-law’s impression of Seymour, as she looks down upon his tendencies to engage in “funny business” regarding “the trees… [his] business with the window… [the] horrible things he said to Granny about her plans for passing away” and so on (4). She backs Dr. Sivetski’s conclusion that he “may completely lose control of himself” (4) and even sets the tone as if “he were a raving maniac” (5). Thus, this wholly reveals humankind’s inclination to inadvertently draw quick assumptions of the “crazy”, the “insane”, and the “psychotic”. Here, the mother-in-law’s swift predisposition to speak rashly of Seymour reflects society’s inconsideration towards genuine experiences of ordeal and distress. Human nature causes people to faultily judge others by a high “human standard”, in which society solidifies what it means to be “deranged” or a “lunatic”. As a result, young, innocent people, such as Seymour, serve as the ideal victim of this crime, as they do not fit the mold of the mainstream population. And to deepen the “communication barriers” that is existent within society, the human race becomes reluctant in trying to understand one’s past and truly empathize with it, rather, we mutually ignore their stories and decide to demean, overlook, and bash them. For instance, Billy Pilgrim can highlight the media’s tendency to misrepresent true traumatic experiences. When he met Ernest Rumfoord in the hospital (after his airplane crashed at Sugarbush Mountain), Rumfoord, who “was a retired brigadier general” (236) yet never experienced the Dresden bombings, viewed Billy as an utter “non-person” and refused to accept that such a pathetic man could ever be in the midst of a momentous time in history (245). He even accused him for having echolalia for echoing what he said about the Dresden bombings. On the other hand, even when Rumfoord became more open towards hearing his story, he consistently justified the event, saying that “it had to be done” in order for the American forces to achieve victory (253). Rather, he chose to rationalize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over understanding Billy’s side (the “human side”) of the story. Thus, this reveals one of humanity’s inherent flaws in nature, that is the inclination to engage in this perpetual cycle of justifying, normalizing, and warping the true image of war. Truly, in light of the definition of humane, humanity is far from being morally compassionate, sympathetic, and ethical towards understanding others – the true question is, what does it mean to be humane?
Delete"'He did,' said the girl. 'And don't get excited. He drove very nicely. I was amazed.' 'He drove? Muriel, you gave me your word of--'" (3).
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, this passage didn’t appear of any significance until I realized there was a continuous, strange tone Muriel’s mother had throughout the reading. To be specific, Muriel’s mother in a way infantilizes Seymour with her recurrent questioning of his actions: “He drove?” (3), “Does he behave himself on the beach?” (5), etc. This tone highlighted a connection to Slaughterhouse Five, where Billy Pilgrim is associated with ‘babying’ through the comparison between him and Jesus as a baby in a Christmas carol epigraph and when his daughter, Barbara, questions what she is going to do with him. This connection shows how society takes up an infantilizing demeanor towards Veterans due to a lack of war experience/presence.
I agree with your analysis as I also noticed throughout the story that Muriel's mother is especially concerned with how Muriel is handling Seymour, as though he is now her child instead of her husband. The fact that Seymour is considered as nearly burdensome in the eyes of Muriel's mother continues to underline what you were saying before about how society somewhat condescends to veterans as though they are children, making them seem as less of threat and more as someone acting out randomly. This fear is what drives Muriel's mother to have so much concern, and is what leads others to treat veterans in the same manner, all because of a lack of understanding of their experiences.
DeleteI agree that this quote points to the ‘babying’ of Seymour by Muriel’s mother. This reminded me of the quote in Slaughterhouse-Five from Vonnegut’s point of view after the war when “we [the now-veterans] were fed chocolate malted milkshakes and other rich foods until we were all covered with baby fat. Then we were sent home, and I married a pretty girl who was covered with baby fat, too” (7). The society that these veterans are in ‘baby’ them so much, feeding them “chocolate malted milkshakes” a food usually associated with children so they are not treated as true adults. The veterans are not recognized for the ordeal that they have been forced to go through. Instead, they are fed “rich foods” so they “were all covered with baby fat” and sent home to make the next generation of soldiers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“‘Do you like wax?’ Sybil asked.
ReplyDelete‘Do I like what?’ asked the young man. ‘Wax.’
‘Very much. Don’t you?’
Sybil nodded. ‘Do you like olives?’ she asked.
‘Olives--yes. Olives and wax. I never go anyplace without ‘em’” (8).
This passage stood out to me because it highlights the utter place of sanctuary war veterans fruitlessly seek out, that is the pursuit of purity and innocence within an avaricious, morally corrupt world. Seymour, who has undergone psychological trauma from World War II, has been forced to cope with his scarring memories of bloodshed and slaughter, thus leading him to spiral into sheer insanity, lunacy, and “funny” business as his mother-in-law calls it – as human definition calls it (6). However, by way of relieving his “psychosomatic” state of mind, he strives to connect with something entirely virtuous, that is children. Essentially, the naïve nature of children provides for himself a haven from the insatiable, unfeeling, and war-ravaged atmosphere of adulthood. Unfortunately, as children grow up, the human race becomes emotionally detached from basic sympathy and compassion for others – they essentially become impure. For instance, Muriel’s mother talks of Seymour as if “he were a raving maniac”, which wholeheartedly dismisses and demeans his past of tribulation in war (5). Therefore, Seymour surrounds himself in the comfort of Sybil’s ingenuous presence, to elude from the insensitive and callous world he lives in. When Sybil asks Seymour if he likes wax and olives, he gains sanity from the simple naivety of her remark. She was a beautifully pure spirit that Seymour admired – he ultimately strived to attain this very innocence. The very notion of their common liking in wax and olives highlights their mutual appreciation for something wonderfully wholesome, authentic, and real. Truly, Seymour wants the whole world to embody this same nature, in which everything is pure and righteous. This reminds me of the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, in Salinger’s novel, The Catcher in the Rye. Ultimately, Holden sought to save children’s innocence through being the “catcher in the rye”, as he caught little children falling off the brink of a cliff. Essentially, Seymour yearns to serve as this same heroic figure, as he strives to preserve Sybil’s virtue, vibrant imagination, and clarity. Like Holden, he doesn’t want a young child to succumb under the detrimental flaws of the human race, in which purity, incorruptibility and sanity is lost. Thus, the loss of innocence and one’s endeavor to restore it reveals one of the many casualties war veterans face; if not combatted, it is at the expense of becoming an outcast in civilization. And unfortunately, Seymour is forced to pay this price.
In a similar manner, Billy Pilgrim epitomizes the ideal outcast, as his scarring experiences in war has ultimately killed his pure, humanistic spirit. Like Seymour, he entered war as a young, innocent man, yet left completely traumatized, losing all hope in the world’s true sense of sanity. However, while Billy learned to cope with his emotional distress through following Tralfamadorian philosophy, gaining the courage to remedy the world through prescribing corrective lenses, Seymour found comfort through the presence of young children, as it helped facilitate his healing process in seeking something true, honest, and pure. Nonetheless, both stories can reflect war’s dehumanizing after-effects, as the loss of innocence in the world can psychologically extinguish one’s lively nature.
I completely agree with your analysis and I also think that Sybil and Seymour's conversation connects to the theme of difficulty of true communication throughout the short story. Only Sybil and Seymour seem able to communicate effectively, although their discourse is on a child’s, not an adult’s, level. Which connects to your idea that the war caused Seymour to seek refuge from Sybil and her powerful innocence from being a child. This innocence is what allows them to understand each other because Sybil had not yet been influenced by the superficiality of the world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“He glanced at the girl lying asleep on one of the twin beds… Then he went over and sat down on the unoccupied twin bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a bullet through his right temple.” (pg 9)
ReplyDeleteThis whole short story had me a bit confused. This last line gave me some clarity but also left me with a lot of questions. The war veteran was traumatized therefore had a somewhat awkward/ different view on small things throughout the short story. Right before what seemed to be a suicide scene, Seymour appeared to be aggressive towards the lady looking at his shoes, thus encouraging his break. But why did he do it in front of the girl?
I agree with your outlook on the war veteran's climax to suicide,and the ending brought me with questions as well. I didn't understand his relationship with both girls he encountered. On the other hand, his relationship with both girls could be the reason why he stayed alive so long after the war but, after so long their motivation to keep him alive could've warned out and he proceeded with the suicide, killing himself in front of them to show his love.
Delete“ ‘Do you like Sharon Lipschutz?’ Sybil asked.
ReplyDelete‘Yes. Yes, I do,’ said the young man. ‘What I like particularly about her is that she never does anything to little dogs in the lobby of the hotel. That little toy bull that belongs to that lady from Canada, for instance. You probably won’t believe this, but some little girls like to poke that little dog with balloon sticks. Sharon doesn’t’ “ (8).
This passage stood out to me because of the possibilities of Seymour’s true meaning behind what he says. The “little girls” that Seymour speaks of seem to encompass all of society, most of whom are cruel to “dogs”, while some, like Sharon Lipschutz, “never [do] anything to little dogs” (8). Also, the “little dogs” is reminiscent of the many references to dogs in Slaughterhouse-Five that relate the innocent creatures to the young people forced to take part in violent wars. Specifically, this reminded me of the scared german shepherd named Princess who was forced to go into battle. She was forced to enter into a violent war, to be “poke[d]” at without having any idea of what was going on. The fact that Seymour likes Sharon because of her rare kindness towards young people shows just how cruel the world can be to the innocent, particularly the innocent who are deprived of it by a society that forces them into wars.
"It was in German!"
ReplyDelete"Yes, dear. That doesn't make any difference," said the girl, crossing her legs. "He said the poems happen to be written by the only great poet of the century. He said I should've bought a translation or something. Or learned the language, if you please."
"Awful. Awful. It's sad, actually, is what it is. Your father said last night--"
While reading "A Perfect Day for A Bananafish", Muriel seemed as a if she was in a trance by Seymour. The fact that Muriel brushes off her mother as she tries to warn her of the dangers of Seymour and his irrational requests, by using an agreeable and fakely emphatic phrase such as "Yes dear,".This phrase seems as if Muriel is dismissing her mother's concern of Seymour because of the character in "Slaughterhouse-Five", who after mistakenly killing a young child tried out the phrase "Yes dear," in order to portray as if he is a empathic person. When really he is trying to comfort himself in the agony of killing a innocent person in war. The mocking phrase of "Yes, dear", is used as a coping mechanism in both texts. As Muriel trying to ignore the strange behavior of Seymour and her mother's concern in "A Perfect Day for A Bananafish,". While Billy friend uses the phrase as a way of coping with killing an innocent child. Why do you think the dismissing/ emphatic phrase "Yes dear," would be presented in both of these anti-war texts?
I totally agree with you Aaliyah and I don't really know why but when I continuously saw the usage of "yes dear" I thought of Billy saying "so it goes". Additionally, I think we need to take in account of Muriel and her mother's broken relationship. Much like in SH5, taking the perception of the character and the circumstances they face is very important.
DeleteI have a different outlook, Seymour was in WWII fighting Germans, and this book of poems is in German, written by a German poet, probably from Germany, it is German in its entirety. I see this excerpt as significant because J.D. Salinger is alluding to this war veteran as someone who admires German pieces of art, regardless of Seymour fighting Nazis. This seems uncommon. Furthermore, I have come to the conclusion that he has some form of PTSD and that is why the mother is afraid/disapproves of him. Moreover, the reason why the mother says in this excerpt “Awful. Awful. It’s sad, actually, is what it is…” (4) is because she is shocked that a soldier who fought in WWII against the Germans could adore something such as a German poetry book and then have the audacity to push it onto her daughter.
DeleteI looked at this poetry quote an outlook on the Untied States home front, in which Salinger makes it seem as if she doesn't care to learn German, in which U.S citizens may not care about the other perspectives, as it isn't them. Sybil seems to only care about learning German when the book is presented in the conversation, yet it can be inferred that Sybil didn't care or doesn't care for the language as she hasn't tried to learn.
Delete“‘Hello,’ she said, keeping the fingers of her left hand outstretched and away from her white silk dressing gown, which was all that she was wearing, except mules--her rings were in the bathroom.
ReplyDelete‘I have your call to New York now, Mrs. Glass,’ the operator said”(3).
When reading this line from the story the first words that come to mind are weak and fragile. Salinger is suddenly hinting on a huge subject in describing the girl this way, virginity. Her name Mrs.Glass has so much significance, things made out of glass are almost worshipped and expenssive (for example the famous glasss shoe of Cinderella). This connects to how virginity is prized and is looked at as only a wealthy deserves it. Glass is very easy to break and is transparent, almost describing the girl this way. Saying she won’t make it in the big city.
That's interesting because when I was reading, I actually saw Mrs. Glass as the opposite. In his initial description of Muriel, Salinger says "she was a girl who for a ringing phone dropped exactly nothing. She looked as if her phone had been ringing continuously ever since she had reached puberty." This description of Muriel makes her seem promiscuous, as if the phone ringing represented the amount of men in her life. Since Glass is actually Seymour's surname, it makes Muriel seem like she has to adopt this fragile aura and change herself to satisfy her husband. And her inability to satisfy Seymour and make herself weak and innocent is what leads to the disconnect in their marriage. Seymour would rather spend time with a small child, than his own wife. His obsession with purity and the way he rejects Muriel leads me to believe that she is not actually innocent.
Delete“I said I see your looking at my feet” (9).
ReplyDelete“The young man suddenly picked up one of Sybil’s wet feet” (9).
When reading “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” I thought it was odd that there was a focus on feet and ankles. I wondered why J. D. Salinger chose to include these passages focused on feet? In the elevator Seymour was very self-conscious. He started yelling at a woman for looking at his feet, however she claimed she was looking at the floor. In this passage ankles and feet might symbolize being grounded in the world, as Seymour obviously lacks this after he comes back from the war and is suicidal. It seems he is very conscious about feet and is even self-conscious about how unstable he is in the world, as other people seem to judge him on his stability.
When I was reading about Seymour sensitivity about feet I made a connection to the description of corpses as having blue and ivory feet in Slaughter House 5. Seymour like Billy would have seen multiple corpses as a soilder and it is possible that he could have been exposed to blue and ivory feet. Therefore he could have associated feet with death which is why he is so welcoming to Sybil's feet because he knows that he is about to take his own life. Obviously he would be agitated in the elevator ride up to his room because he knew that these would be the last few minutes of his life. When he thought the women was staring at his feet, he thought that this death, or what he thought of as peace might be comprised and panicked which would explain his yelling. On the other hand, his explosion could have likely been one last cry for help, for attention, a plea that would never be heard. Therefore I think that Salinger brought up feet as a motif to symbolize death.
Delete"Well. In the first place, he said it was a perfect crime the Army released him from the hospital--my word of honor. He very definitely told your father there's a chance-- a very great chance, he said that Seymour may completely lose control of himself. My word of honor" (4).
ReplyDeleteI feel as if this line was one of the most important lines because we see that Seymour is a POW. This line I saw as setting the perspective of the educated people in the short story. We see the selfishness and blindness of the both the doctors and parents of Muriel. They do not realize Seymour's trauma and experiences that he faces everyday. Although I was very confused throughout the story, after reading this line I had a better understanding as to why Seymour acted in ways that he did.
I agree with your analysis, but I wouldn't really say that Seymour is a POW. He is traumatized, so he can act like a POW. I also find it interesting that Muriel's mom says that releasing Seymour from the hospital was a crime. This really shows the level of insanity that the trauma in the war has created for Seymour.
DeleteWell, they swim into a hole where there's a lot of bananas. They're ordinary looking fish when they swim in. But once they get in, they behave like pigs....Naturally after that they're so fat that they can't get out of the hole again"(8)
ReplyDeleteWhen people go off to war they are innocent beings but when you are there you are shaped and turned even against your own self. Once you get yourself into this "hole" you are turned to something that is not you. Sometimes you are stuffed with too many bad thoughts and memories that you are left traumatized and left in the past. When you go to fight you are changed into a pig that is fierce and ready to kill. You can't win a war with an army of little fish but rather with strong crazy pigs.
I agree with you in that the bananafish go into the hole as innocent children and after consuming all the bananas, or war propaganda, and emerge as pigs, or soldiers, who are ready to lose their lives to a cause that has killed many other bananafish. The story that Seymour tells about the bananafish is he situation that he himself was sucked into. A situation which eventually caused his suicide.
Delete"The he went over and sat down on the unoccupied twin bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a bullet through his right temple" (9).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I was extremely surprised, and thought that Seymour's suicide came out of the blue. However, after closely analyzing the text there are subtle hints of Seymour having PTSD, like when the mother is anxious about Muriel being with him and his anger at the lady in the elevator. PTSD is something that slowly drive a veteran insane, as we have seen with Billy Pilgrim, who talks about aliens and gets "unstuck" in time. Seymour who at first seems like a stable human, even joking with Sybil at the pool. We then see his sudden mood shift, and eventual suicide. This shows that he has been dealing with emotional problems ever since the war, but nothing has been done to help him.
Adding on, I found it interesting that he describes where he sits as the "unoccupied twin bed", because a twin bed is a place for two people but this bed had an unoccupied space which he tried to fill but couldn't. I think this shows how he felt empty inside or had an unoccupied feeling inside of him which lead to his suicide.
DeleteI completely agree with Katelyn that he feels empty inside which lead to his suicide. Adding on, he really didn't seem to feel like himself again after the war. He is also isolating himself from people when he is "In the Ocean Room, Playing the piano," or when he is "on the beach? By himself?" I think this also shows how he feels empty inside which lead to his suicide.
Delete"'Does he behave himself on the beach?''Mother,' said the girl,'you talk about him as if he was a raving maniac--"(5)
ReplyDeleteWhen Muriel's mother asked the question above, I was very suprised because it showed the coldness, and indifference that she displayed toward her son in law, a war veteran. As a war veteran Seymour, like Billy Pilgrim, would have been exposed to death, and lots of it. To a normal person, (someone who does not think like a trafalmadorian) all of the death and destruction that occurs in war could have driven them to insanity, or caused them to kill themselves like Seymour did. Muriel's mother criticism is a clear demonstration of how you should not judge a person until you have walked in there shoes. Muriel's mother has most likely not expiernced death on the same level as Seymour and therefore can not sympathize with his struggles. For her to compare him to child who is misbehaving, is not only unsympathetic but quite ignorant because he put his life on the line to protect his country, only to be criticized for feeling the full affects of war. Therefore I was very suprised by Muriel's mother description of Seymour because she has not been through what he has, and if she had she might be in the same position as Seymour.
I totally agree with your analysis of this passage. I couldn't help but think of the scenario in the Billys perspective. We never got to see somebody else's perspective of Billy beside his daughter and she seemed judgmental. One thing I have taken from both stories, “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” and “Slaughterhouse 5” is that there is not only the soldiers behavior you have to take into account when writing about war veterans, but also the everyday lives of the people around them. A veteran story is written to make readers aware of the inside stories of the military population.
Delete“‘That’s a fine bathing suit you have on. If there’s one thing I like, it’s a blue bathing suit.’ Sybil stared at him, then looked down at her protruding stomach. ‘This is a yellow,’ she said. ‘This is a yellow’” (6).
ReplyDeleteI want to focus on the color scheme mentioned in the short story. Most people associate blue with sad, melancholy,dismal etc. For instance when Seymour sees a blue bathing suit instead of yellow it shows his sad filter on everything as an effect of war. The color yellow is seen as a happy color that radiates cheerfulness. This proves a war veterans everlasting depression when he (or she) returns from the tragic fight. In both war stories we have read this year the war victims in the stories create unreal circumstance in their head. Billy creates Tralfamadore and Seymour replaces happy things with a blue, sad filter.
This is an great point your bring up, but to take it a bit further Billy is fairly happy on Tralfamadore, and the time we see Seymour happy is when he is looking for Bananafish. Both of these things have been created in the veterans heads, and they make them happy. However they both see the real world as a dark terrible place because of war. Also, bananas are yellow and they are the one thing that he sees as yellow, the world can't make him happy anymore he must invent things. This shows the effect of war on the outlooks of veterans.
Delete“‘Where’s the lady?’ Sybil said.
ReplyDelete‘The lady?’ the young man brushed some sand out of his thin hair. ‘That’s hard to say, Sybil. She may be in any of a thousand places. At the hairdresser’s. Having her hair dyed mink. Or making dolls for poor children, in her room.’ Lying prone now, he made two fists, set one on top of the other, and rested his chin on the top one. ‘Ask me something else, Sybil,’ he said” (6).
This passage really highlights Seymour Glass’ attempts to savor innocence, as he rejects his own wife and chooses to spend time with Sybil, a small child. Throughout the story, his wife, Muriel seems to misplace value on trivial subjects such as clothing. She is completely passive to signs that her husband is suffering, and is portrayed in a lewd manner. Seymour even goes to the extent of calling her “Miss Spiritual Tramp of 1948.” The disconnect between him and Muriel stems from her debased values and overall loss of innocence. Instead of spending times with his wife, Seymour spends times with Sybil, a small child, whom provides him with this aura of purity which he covets. He lies about his wife being virtuous and “making dolls for poor children,” as an attempt to save her in his eyes by savoring her innocence.
The passage also reminded me of Bill Pilgrim and Edgar Derby spooning syrup in Slaughterhouse-Five. Both scenes portray veterans attempting to regain the sweetness and purity, that they have been stripped of by participating in war. It’s interesting to see how the same concept is able to manifest within these two completely different works of writing.
I completely agree with this idea of Seymour trying to savor the innocence in his life and others. I think that Seymour is almost jealous of Sybil's look on life and how simple it seems to be. Seymour is depicting his wife in this completely different way almost to impress a child. Seymour longs to once again value the simplistic elements of life as well as hope for his wife to do the same. By ignoring his wife's superficial nature Seymour is indirectly supporting it, leaving his only escape through Sybil, and her innocence. This must build up anger and frustration in Seymour that is just seen through his silence, but this unhealthy coping mechanism just leads up to him ultimately taking his life.
DeleteI agree with you in that the places Seymour chose to say Muriel could potentially be demonstrated the different sides of his wife that he is faced with everyday, but others don't see. The "hairdresser" side is the superficial, materialistic face of her personality and a quality that Seymour subtly detests as he does not have great interest in material goods. On the other hand, there is the motherly/caretaker side to her that epitomizes why Seymour loves her in the first place, highlighted through the word choice of "making dolls for poor children".
Delete"'I just saw one'. 'saw what, my love?' 'A banana fish'"(8)
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that when Seymour is speaking to Sybil and right after talking to her about finding a banana fish,she finds one and tells him about it but,he does not remember what she's talking about- . I think this passage along with many others shows the loss of his thoughts and even the fact that when he fires the bullet its "through his right temple" (9) which is also responsible for the things that go on in his mind which change very much after he comes back from an expierence like war.
I agree with this and also find it interesting how Seymour was very mysterious throughout the story. He faked the tattoo, seemed to forget about the banana fish, and then in the end kills himself. I think this shows some of the effects of war, and how they took a toll and him, and his mind.
Delete" 'You know Seymour,' said the girl, and crossed her legs again . ' He says he doesn't want a lot of fools looking at his tattoo.'
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't have any tattoo!" (6)
Seymour says "he doesn't want a lot of fool looking at his tattoo" is his reason for not taking off his bath robe at the beach. However, he doesn't have any tattoo's. Which makes me think that he is very uncomfortable in his own body now and is afraid of being judged. This can also be because he is extremely pale now and people thing he is sick. I think this has to do with PTSD and how he doesn't feel himself after the war which then leads up to his suicide.
I agree with everything you said and I feel like this speaks to Salinger's commentary on war. He emphasizes the fact that he's having troubles with himself and his family and I believe that Salinger is doing this to show how bad war is.
Delete' "Mother, " the girl interrupted, " I just told you. He drove very nicely. Under fifty the whole way, as a matter of fact." "Did he try any of that funny business with the trees?" "I said he drove very nicely Mother. Now, please I asked him to stay close to the white line, and he knew what I meant and he did. He was even trying not to look at the trees-you could tell. Did Daddy get the car fixed incidentally?"... ... Mother, Seymour said he would pay for it. There is no reason for--" "Well we'll see" (3).
ReplyDeleteVonnegut and Salinger are doing similar things with their two stories. They both show society the real effect of war on veterans. Both stories have main characters that post war have gone crazy, and are misunderstood by the people around them. This can be seen in the phone conversation in the beginning of the book, Muriel's mom is very critical of the way Seymour behaves. This is there to try to impress the reality of things like PTSD on the general public in the hope that they will try to help. Both writers want to show that after everything they go through veterans often receive cruelty and ridicule from people back home. This pushes them to further depression or anger because they begin to fell isolated which can result as it did here is suicide. Both of these stories are in a way cautionary tales to show what happens if our veterans are ignored.
“She washed her comb and brush. She took the spot out of the skirt of her beige suit. She moved the button on her Saks blouse. She tweezed out two freshly surfaced hairs in her mole. When the operator finally rang her room, she was sitting on the window seat and had almost finished putting lacquer on the nails of her left hand” (3).
ReplyDeleteThe character Muriel is portrayed as a self-interested socialite, and seems to be consumed in the materialistic and superficial world of the time. The same world that Seymour is shown to be an outsider of. There is a large connection between the description of her lifestyle and the scene in which her husband commits suicide. Seymour kills himself in the same room as her while she is sleeping. Because she's so caught up in materialistic needs, she's "asleep" and is missing what is more important. This can also be connected to the materialism of the adult world in general, where people lose their ability to connect with others on an emotional level and have even difficulty communicating. This is shown through Muriel’s detached conversation with her mother and Sybil’s with her mother.
I also found Muriel to be superficial and incapable to understand Seymour. I think this is why he is more intrigued by younger children who haven't been as targeted by society to do the things Muriel is pictured to be doing. Sybil is able to play along with Seymour's illusion of banana fish and has her innocence in tact. Muriel is unable to notice anything wrong with her husband because of her detached and selfish demeanor, which is a result of the society she is surrounded by. I agree that Seymour is an outsider to this society and needs to find someone else, Sybil, that can satisfy his emotions.
Delete“‘Did you read ‘Little Black Sambo’?’ she said… ‘It so happens I just finished reading it last night.’... ‘Did the tigers run all over that tree?’ ‘I thought they’d never stop. I never saw so many tigers.’ ‘There were only six,’ Sybil said. ‘Only six!’ said the young man. ‘Do you call that only’” (8).
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I thought about why Seymour was provoked by the fact that there were “only six” tigers in the book. I think that this quote relates to the idea that media can either exaggerate or understate any situation. There is a difference between reading an event and witnessing it. When reading about the six tigers, Sybil decides that the situation was not that dangerous because of the “few” numbers of tigers. She could make this statement because she most likely has never been in a dangerous situation by herself since she is only a child. On the other hand, since Seymour has been in war, he decides that this situation in the book is indeed dangerous because although the tigers’ population does not sound that large on paper, he acknowledges that tigers are still dangerous animals. In other words, if the media were to write about a massacre then it would say that many people died. The writers cannot go in depth about the terror of the massacre since they have not witnessed the event. So to clarify, the trauma that Seymour gained from the war has made him evaluate every situation with more meaning and perspectives, and to not ignore the “little details”. However, the media is not capable of providing these perspectives since it is only capable of viewing an event in only one point of view. This relates to the idea in Slaughterhouse Five about how writing an anti-war novel is useless. This is true to an extent because many of the readers probably have not witnessed war events, and so their opinions on war will not change as a result.
“’I said I see you’re looking at my feet.’ ‘I beg your pardon. I happened to be looking at the floor,’ said the woman, and faced the doors of the car. ‘If you want to look at my feet, say so,’ said the young man. ‘But don’t be a God-damned sneak about it.’” (9)
ReplyDeleteThroughout this short story majority of the characters seem much too irritable toward silly things. Muriel seems to judge and complain about every detail of her vacation and her life, while Seymour seems to find a way to see bad in every situation. I think it is very significant that this looking at feet interaction is the last thing we are aware Seymour ever said before killing himself. I’m wondering what is the significance of this outburst? Was Seymour just looking for things to be upset about because of his obvious horrible mental state? I personally believe that the feet represent something else. This whole outburst of Seymour’s must represent what he hates about his life and the world in general. I think he is saying that people should be more honest and simple, more like kids, instead of sneaking around what they truly want, why can’t people just be honest about it?
“‘See more glass,’ said Sybil Carpenter, who was staying at the hotel with her mother. ‘Did you see more glass?’” (6)
ReplyDeleteThe entire section with Sybil is confusing, at first I question why Sybil’s mother is letting her very young daughter run around the beach unattended. Then I question if the man she encounters really is Seymour (I later realize it is). Finally, my last question was what is the relationship between Seymour and Sybil. When Sybil refers to Seymour as “see more glass” I notice her innocence and acknowledge that Seymour is caring for the little girl. However, the Muriel’s mother’s words of concern sink into my head when I read “‘That’s a fine bathing suit you have on. If there’s one thing I like, it’s a blue bathing suit… Sybil stared at him… ‘This is a yellow’” (6). Not only do I get a creepy vibe from Seymour saying he likes a young girls bathing suit, I learn he is color blind. My perception of Seymour is now a PTSD color blind veteran who appears to be a pervert. However, as interaction between Seymour and Sybil continue, I learn that Seymour cares for Sybil and treats her as a father would treat his own daughter. Tracking back to the quote on page 6: “‘See more glass,’ said Sybil Carpenter, who was staying at the hotel with her mother. ‘Did you see more glass?’” (6) I see the innocence not as something Seymour takes care of when looking after Sybil, but something Seymour wants. However, he comes to realize that having innocence is impossible so he brings Sybil out of the water and onto land. This relates to the entire novel of Slaughterhouse-Five because we all know to read the novel as babies fighting in the war. We have said Billy lost his innocence because of the war, so it is not unreasonable or impossible to also saw that Seymour lost his innocence in the war. I finally realize that when Sybil left Seymour and took her innocence with her and “ran without regret in the direction of the hotel” (9) Seymour became angry, thus the reason for his hostile interaction in the elevator and the reason for why he committed suicide.
I agree, and I also think it shows how Sybil is also misunderstood similarly to Seymour. The are both surrounded by people in their lives that don't understand them, as the people (such as Sybils mother and Seymours wife) represent the superficiality in society that Seymour and Sybil are trying to escape from.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"'When I think of how you waited for that boy all through the war-I mean when you think of all those crazy little wives who--' 'Mother,' said the girl, 'we'd better hang up. Seymour may come in any minute.'" (5)
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this I thought of this as an allusion to housewives in real life war, who cannot wait for their husbands to arrive home from war, whether it be in the past, or present day. Although Seymour is later revealed to be on the beach, he is portrayed as "a raving maniac" (5) who "may completely lose control of himself" (6). This then provoked the question as to why is Seymour portrayed as crazy, and if he needs a "crazy" housewife waiting for him to arrive home from war.
"You know Seymour. He says he doesn't want a lot of fools looking at his tattoo."
ReplyDelete"Call me the instant he does, or says, anything at all funny- you know what I mean."
The style of writing in both "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" are very alike. The way Salinger writes this story is so much like how Vonnegut writes his. Both of them are involve lots of conversation and meaning. Seymour is not trusted in this novel like times when Billy is not trusted either. Billy has to win over the trust of people like Seymour does. Muriel's mother tells her on the phone that she does not trust Seymour, and we see throughout the book weird situations that he's involved in, such as him faking his tattoo. He ends up shooting himself in the end, almost as if he was telling Muriel that she shouldn't have trusted him.
"Mrs. Carpenter sighed. 'All right,' she said. She replaced the cap on the sun tan oil bottle. 'Now run and play, pussy. Mommy's going up to the hotel and have a martini with Mrs. Hubbel. I'll bring you the olive.'" (6).
ReplyDeleteThis passage exposes how Sybil comes to find the innocence in an adult reality. Sybil's mother gives her the olive (the only non-alcoholic part of a martini) which symbolizes what Sybil tries to find within the very adult and superficial society she is surrounded by. Seymour tries to find the innocent in society as well. Sybil and Seymour have very similar mindsets- they are imaginative and youthful. After Seymour's past with the war, he is drawn to the innocence that he can find while he is surrounded by his phony, adult reality. This is parallel to Sybil's mindset because she is at a very young age where she is curious and imaginative (which is shown when she plays into Seymour's child-like fantasy when they are talking about banana fish.) They are both very misunderstood- they are surrounded by a society that is superficial and so different from the mindset they share. Seymour is living with Muriel who symbolizes superficiality, and Sybil's mother doesn't see the same way Sybil does and doesn't understand her when she is saying 'See-more'. They both are ultimately drawn to each other as they find comfort in the qualities that they share, and they find innocence in each other
“‘Muriel, don’t be fresh, please. We’re very worried about. Your father wanted to wire you last night to come home, as a matter of f--’ ‘I’m not coming home right now, Mother. So relax’” (4).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this, one question popped up in my head. What is Salinger trying to say about the effects of war and what his opinion on war is? The tone of this story seems to say that the effect of war on veterans is detrimental to their relationships. Evidence of that is in this quote because clearly Muriel does not get along with his parents. For him to say that he’s not coming home yet and implies that he doesn’t want to shows how he has been affected by war. The commentaries of Salinger and Vonnegut are very similar however Salinger is more discreet with his message.
"'Muriel, I'm only going to ask you once more--are you really all right?'
ReplyDelete'Yes, Mother,' said the girl. 'For the ninetieth time.'
'And you don't want to come home?'
'No, Mother.'" (5)
I thought that maybe, Muriel could be used to Seymour trying to cope with the after effects of war. I also thought that Muriel's mother could find that the normalization that both Muriel and Seymour have to the after effects of war, are absurd, which could be why Muriel's mother would prefer her to come back home so she does not have to be weighed down my Seymours behavior.
“‘All right. Just all right, though. We couldn't get the room we had before the war,’ Said the girl. ‘The people are awful this year. You should see what sits next to us in the dining room. At the next table. They look as if they drove down in a truck’”(5).
ReplyDeleteThis passage shows the superficiality of Muriel, as well as her insensitivity to Seymour and his post-war mental struggle. She remarks that the room she is staying in now is worse than before the war, which seems to be the only thought she can have on the effects of the war. She is incapable of sympathizing with Seymour or grasp the immensity of the effect of war on soldiers. Furthermore, she refers to the people who are now coming to the hotel as ‘what’ instead of actual humans. This dehumanization shows her classist attitude and her lack of empathy. She is also referred to as “the girl” here and in the rest of the short story, showing that she has a childlike and superficial view of the war, as she is only able to see how it affects her and her luxurious lifestyle. In this passage she is portrayed as ungrateful and inconsiderate, claiming that the room is “just all right” and is not able to understand Seymour and others affected by the war.
"Then he went over and sat down on the unoccupied twin bed, looked at the girl, aimed the pistol, and fired a bullet through his right temple" (9)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading that part, I tried to find significance to why he would shoot there of all places. I found out that the word temple means time or it could also mean the part of your head. I think the fact that Seymour shot the temple, meaning time, shows how his time on the war, changed him negatively and he wishes the time he spent would go away. Then, he went to the only he knows to stop the pain, he has been taught in the war to end bad things with violence. Therefore, I believe the shooting of his right temple was because he wanted to erase the affect his time in the war had on him.
Read online Urdu Digests,Urdu Books,Novels,Magazines,Safarnama,Islamic Books,Education Books,imran series mazhar kaleem And Much More http://zubiweb.net
ReplyDelete