JD Salinger published "A Perfect Day for Bananafish" in 1948, just after he came back from fighting in WWII. In Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim admits himself into a mental hospital for WWII veterans in 1948, right after he proposes to Valencia. 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!
“‘Well, they [the bananafish] 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...Naturally, after that they’re so fat they can’t get out of the hole again. Can’t fit through the door’” (8).
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else think that the bananafish serve as a metaphor for the soldiers in war?
Just as Kurt Vonnegut creates the character of Billy in his novel Slaughterhouse-Five, J.D. Salinger creates Seymour in his story “A Perfect Day for Bananafish”, who both portray a veteran’s perspective of the aftereffects of war. Billy and Seymour are veterans of World War Two, and similarly, they create a story in order to deal with their post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While Billy creates the Tralfamadorians so that he can deal with the death and devastation of war, Seymour creates a story about bananafish, who begin as “ordinary-looking fish” whose behavior transforms into that of “pigs” once they enter the “hole”, thus becoming banana gluttons as they “eat as many as seventy-eight bananas”. This story is a metaphor for war, as the fish represent “ordinary” men before they enter war to become soldiers, who “behave like pigs”, which have insatiable appetites. Therefore, the bananafish eating as many bananas as possible is analogous to the soldiers killing as many enemies as possible. The fact that the fish “can’t get out of the hole again”, suggests the soldiers have so many issues after they come home from war, that they cannot fit into civilian life again. The hole that sucks them up is war, and the fact that the fish “‘Can’t fit through the door’” shows the soldiers’ inability to fit back into their former lives. The anti-war commentary that both authors are making is significant, as it suggests that the aftereffects of war alters veterans’ emotional well being, to the point where they cannot function in their families or in a home setting. It is interesting to note that both authors, who served in World War Two, wrote stories that reflect the emotional stress of war through other worlds, thus returning to a childlike phase of their lives when the world felt safe to them.
I thought of the exact same thing when I read this passage, that it is definitely a metaphor for soldiers at war and then their PTSD after war. I also think that is significant that the only person who believes about the bananafish is Sybil, a little kid. This relates to how the only person who believes Billy i Montana Wildhack. Both a little kid and a stripper are people who aren't really trusted or respected in society, yet there the only ones who understand the thinking of a former soldier. I also think this can be related to children and animals and the idea of them representing innocence that we saw in Slaughterhouse. We saw in Slaughterhouse that Billy gets compared to a horse when he is sleeping, and we can see here how Seymore’s mind is compared to a child. Additionally, The dog princess represents innocence, like Sybil does in this story and Billy is closest to his dog in his family, like Seymore is with this child. Both animals and children represent innocence because they would never knowing hurt or kill someone, like Billy and Seymour were forced to at war.
DeleteI really like this idea that you bring forth, the idea that both Salinger and Vonnegut use both pieces to return back to the "childlike phase of their lives". I think it's very interesting to acknowledge that maybe back then writing about your problems and relying on literature to overcome the traumatizing effects of war might have seemed unmanly and weak. Yet both authors managed to cope with the effects of war by creating these characters and these philosophies in their writing. Through writing about Tralfamadorians and Banana Fish both authors not only help each other cope with the emotional stress of war but they even expose us to deep philosophies that help the world undermine this glorification of war that we constantly promote blindly. I also like the way Cookie tells us how innocence is also incorporated in both Vonnegut and Salinger's work. Just like the Tralfamadorians and Banana fish highlight our misconception of war, the children and animals in both pieces of writing also help us understand that after all war truly is a "Children's Crusade"
DeleteI also thought the same thing when reading this passage. It reminded me of how in Slaughter House 5, Billy continually references his blue and ivory feet, and the orange and black of his daughter's wedding tent, and the mustard/rosy smell that keeps coming up, and I think that Vonnegut is doing the same thing there that J.D. Salinger is doing here which is that they are both using these recurring motifs that convey the negative affects of war on soldiers.
DeleteThis passage reminded me of when Billy was trying to comfort a twelve-year-old boy who had lost his father in Vietnam, by telling him about the Tralfamadorian philosophy, trying to teach him the truth about time. Similarly, Seymour uses the bananafish to tell Sybil the truth about war from explaining the violence of it and how it affects soldiers after. They both try to impose their ideas on children, as they’re innocent in a world of misconception since they still haven’t formed their own opinions on things as big as war. I also found it interesting how the mother of both children try to deny their truths, as the boy's mother thought Billy was crazy and took her son home, and Sybil’s mother couldn’t understand why Sybil was repeatedly saying Seymour's name, telling her to stop. This shows Billy and Seymour want to teach children before the other adults in their lives, such as the boy’s/Sybil’s mother, get to them and give them the wrong understanding of war/time.
DeleteI also think that it's interesting that both Salinger and Vonnegut use fictional creatures to show their perspective on the affects of war. As we see with the tralfamadorians in SH5 and their philosophy we can also see in the behavior of the bananafish in this story. Along with that there is also a small note of irony in both scenarios as we really are meant to do the opposite of what these creatures do, don't just push war and death off to the side
DeleteDon't eat the bananas!
“"If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man. ‘But don't be a Goddamned sneak about it.’ ‘Let me out here, please,’ the woman said quickly to the girl operating the car.”
ReplyDelete“"If you want to look at my feet, say so," said the young man. ‘But don't be a Goddamned sneak about it.’ ‘Let me out here, please,’ the woman said quickly to the girl operating the car.”
In this scene it is very clear that Seymour is being very irritable and mean to this women, who didn't do anything to him. However,right before this he was being very sweet to Sybil, a little girl. I think this is highlighting the idea of how people are more than just black and white. This was a theme that we saw in Slaughterhouse five, especially when Vonnegut says, “Another thing they taught us was that nobody was ridiculous or bad or disgusting. Shortly before my father died, he said to me, ‘you know-you never wrote a story with a villain in it’ I told him that was one of the things I learned in college after the war.” Both Vonnegut and Salinger understand that people aren't just good and bad. However, in war soldiers, and overall countries make the other side of the war into the bad guys, which justifies war. I also found it significant that the only person Seymour is nice to is a child, which relates to how Billy relates with animals. Both children and animals represent innocence in each of the books, so they give the main characters hope in humanity, since the main characters have seen firsthand how terrible humans can be.
Yes, I agree with you, that J.D. Salinger’s character Seymour is rude to this woman in the elevator, right after he displayed such a nice attitude with the little girl Sybil. A possible explanation for the interaction between Seymour and the woman, is that due to his suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Seymour struggles with his interactions with adults and uses startling behavior to distance himself from them, such as this woman who was truly minding her own business but happened to gaze in the direction of his feet. Seymour appears paranoid, because he feels as if he is being attacked in some way, when in reality, he is not. Likewise, Seymour separates himself from adults when he is “‘playing the piano in the other room’” while on vacation with his wife, yet has an easy time talking with the little girl Sybil at the beach (5). Sybil represents the innocence in life that Seymour has lost in World War Two. He therefore checks out of adult life and prefers the company of a child, who cannot be guilty of a horrendous war. As you stated so well, Salinger’s character relates to a child’s innocence, most likely because he does not feel threatened by it and it comforts him. Similarly, Kurt Vonnegut’s character Billy also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, and just like Seymour, he leans towards innocence when he creates Tralfamadore. In Billy’s world, the Tralfamadorians’ books “produce an image of life that is beautiful” in which there are “no causes, no effects” but only “the marvelous moments seen all at one time” (Slaughterhouse-Five, 88). In this way, Billy can escape the breakdown of humanity that he experienced in war, and imagine a kinder world. Both Salinger and Vonnegut illustrate the severe aftereffects of war, and veterans’ inability to assimilate back into society. They therefore produce characters that re-create the innocence that they lost in World War Two, in the hope of giving them a way to cope with the abominable war they just returned from.
DeleteI think another reason that Seymour is irritable towards the woman in the elevator is that he imagines she does not understand his plight and disregards him as a ludicrous person. He immediately defaults to this view because every other adult as well is censorious of him. He desires to be understood and this is evidenced by his relationship with children being very hospitable and his relationship with most adults being quite the opposite. One can observe that his wife’s mother is very concerned about her daughter’s wellbeing around him, even though it does not appear that she is in any immediate danger at all. He only feels comfortable opening himself up around children and feels very insecure when around adults who judge him.
DeleteI agree with everything that has already been said, and I think that it’s also important to look in this scene in context with what follows. After the altercation with the woman in the elevator, Seymour promptly walks up to his room and shoots himself in the head. This surprised me because, although it was most likely the straw that broke the camel’s back, it seems odd that this was the instance that really affected him to such a large extent. However, I believe that this interaction was so troubling and damaging to him because it showed in many ways the lack of human empathy towards others (which ties into his affection of children, as they do not display these same qualities). Here he is in this elevator with a stranger, and she can’t even be bothered to look up at him or acknowledge him in any way. Seeing this, Seymour’s notions surrounding the lack of empathy humans possess are confirmed, and he feels disgusted with the way humans act around others, especially those dealing with or recovering from trauma.
Delete“He suddenly got to his feet. He looked at the ocean. ‘Sybil,’ he said, ‘I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll see if we can catch a bananafish.’ ‘A what?’ ‘A bananafish,’ he said, and undid the belt of his robe. He took off the robe. His shoulders were white and narrow, and his trunks were royal blue. He folded the robe, first lengthwise, then in thirds. He unrolled the towel he had used over his eyes, spread it out on the sand, and then laid the folded robe on top of it. He bent over, picked up the float, and secured it under his right arm. Then, with his left hand, he took Sybil’s hand” (7).
ReplyDeleteJ. D. Salinger and Kurt Vonnegut were both World War II veterans. Being a witness to the atrocities of World War II and the dehumanization of people during the Holocaust must have affected both of their personalities. Seymour Glass is a personification of J. D. Salinger. When J. D. Salinger wrote A Perfect Day for Bananafish, he was channeling himself through Seymour. There was a lot to channel as he felt that his experiences in the war could never be understood by those who hadn't experienced it firsthand. For these reasons, J. D. Salinger chose to live in solitude and told people to leave him alone. Similarly, in the story, Seymour is sitting alone at the beach until Sybil, the only person who understands him, comes along. When interacting with Sybil, he is able to be cheerful and natural. He has within himself a desire to return to the innocence of childhood and the time prior to the trauma he experienced during the war. In Slaughterhouse Five, someone asks Billy, “How come they call you Billy instead of William?” to which Billy responds, “Business reasons,” but Billy also tells the reader that, “It would also make him seem slightly magical, since there weren't any other grown Billys around” (46). This shows that Billy also has a desire to restore his childhood innocence.
I completely agree with all of your points and I think that you're right in saying that J.D. Salinger and Seymour Glass are alike and that both of them want to be secluded from society due to their experiences in war. I think that this is true for most soldiers and that they are either ostracized by society or they simply aren't able to integrate back into society due to the horrors that they've seen during the wars and the atrocities that they must've witnessed or taken part in during the wars. I also agree that people need at least one person that's able to understand them or else they'll go mad. Sometimes even that person that understands them isn't enough like with Seymour Glass. Finally I agree that soldiers want to keep or get back to their innocence and to be able to forget the horrors that they've seen or committed during wars.
DeleteI agree. Their perspectives are very similar and we see some of Vonnegut in this short story. The fact that two war veterans share the same views on war displays the reality of war and how it compares to the perspectives of outsiders or war as well. It creates unity between them but also takes away individuality a bit
DeleteAlthough I agree with your point in his striving for acknowledgement (see Amanda's answer to Cookie's response), I do not agree with your argument that Billy is attempting to return to his childhood self, but when he says ,“It would also make him seem slightly magical, since there weren't any other grown Billys around," he is really referring to his peers in war all being children, (allegedly younger than him, 18).
Delete"Did he get one in the Army?"(6). "he took out an Ortgies calibre 7.65 automatic. He released the magazine, looked at it, and then reinserted it. He cocked the piece. 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).
ReplyDeleteWhen her mother asks if he got the tattoo in the army we can infer that he was a soldier. This for me helped to create a connection between him and Billy from Slaughterhouse Five. In other parts of the text Muriel describes him as "so pale"(5). which again helped me connect him to Billy. I connected them because here it's showing that even soldiers, people often depicted as powerful weapons and as heroes, have flaws much like when Billy was depicted as "skinny" and "shaped like a coke bottle". Furthermore with the quote I chose at page nine it shows the affect that war can have on a person and how his experience in the war caused him to commit suicide. In Slaughterhouse Five Billy had to cope with all that he had seen by creating the Tralfamadorians and the philosophy that people are always alive just at certain times. Both of these characters were deeply effected by their experiences it war only in A Perfect Day for Bananafish the soldier had no made up philosophy to escape the horrors he had seen, causing him to eventually kill himself.
I understand your reasoning and explanation towards the real reason of why Seymour killed himself but I believe that it was not because of the horrors he has seen in the war but instead he fears of being unable to come back to civilization. Seymour finds his comfort zone of being able to be with Sybil since she is a child, Seymour being an adult finds it hard to cope with his emotions with people his age because of all of the guilt and “bad blood” other people have as adults. Seymour looks at Muriel as he shoots himself as a sign of thankfulness for her attempts of giving her a psychiatrist and helping him come back from the war and into the real world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is something very interesting about the relationship between the Narrator and her Mother....
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that they constantly cut each other off. An example would be when the mother says "Muriel I want you to know. Your father-" before being cut off by the narrator. I think this like many other instances throughout the short story play an important role in highlighting the relationship between Muriel and her mother. And then what makes their relationship even more peculiar is the fact that she refers to her mom as "mother" rather than something less formal like "mom" or her moms actual name. After proving how they constantly cut each other off you would expect the narrator to even refer to her in an informal manner, yet she doesn't she even calls her "Mother,darling" at one point.There relationship is pretty strange after all. It is also significant how caring and attentive her mother appears to be in the beginning. The way she constantly says "Are you alright, Muriel"? This kind of implies that in a way Muriel is the one being a bit disrespectful. Through her tone Especially. Like when she responded to her mom by saying "I said he drove very nicely, Mother. Now please..." There's just something about her tone here that makes her sound annoyed by her mother, if anything this kind of portrays her mother as this overprotective old lady. She constantly keeps asking if Muriel is okay and Muriel keeps responding with "Yes, Mother," said "For the nineteenth time."Another example could be the instance where the mother insist Muriel come home and she responds by saying "I'm not coming home right now, mother. so relax."
This is something I also noticed throughout the story. The mother and Muriel are cutting each others sentences the whole time. This really emphasizes the motif of miscommunication in the story. All the characters are not able to understand each other; Muriel and her mother, Sybil and her mother, Muriel and the psychiatrist, Muriel and Seymour. Miscommunication is what in my opinion drives Seymour to commit suicide, he just wants someone to understand him and help him return to innocence, but the case is that Muriel is more worried about material wealth than to comfort her husband who is obviously having a hard time
Delete“‘Well. How’s your blue coat?’
ReplyDelete‘All right. I had some of the padding taken out.’
‘How are the clothes this year?’
‘Terrible. But out of this world. You see sequins--everything,’ said the girl.
‘How’s our room?’
‘All right. Just all right, though. We couldn’t get the room we had before the war,’ said the girl” (5).
In this passage, Seymour’s wife, Muriel is speaking with her mother on the phone. Muriel taking “some of the padding” out of her jacket, represents the glorified version of war that was stripped away after it. The padding in the jacket holds similar symbolism to that of the safety goggles in Slaughterhouse Five. Both protected regular citizens from the realistic harshness of warfare. The war is also represented in the last line when Muriel mentions that they “couldn’t get the room [they] had before the war” which highlights how war changes the life soldiers. Many people often believe that veterans can return to their normal life after returning from war but this is untrue. By not being able to occupy the same room that they did prior to Seymour’s leaving to fight shows how inaccessible their former life is to both parties.
This passage also highlights the themes of gender that are prominent when talking about warfare. Muriel is only referred to as “the girl” and not as a woman. Despite this, her husband is treated like a man and was sent to war which relates to Vonnegut’s recurring idea that soldiers are boys. These women are shown speaking about clothes, which is a stereotypically female subject. While women are seen as “girls” and conversing about “sequins” and clothes, their male counterparts are expected to defend their countries.
"Did he try any of that funny business with the trees?"(3)
ReplyDelete"At least, he said he did--you know your father. The trees."(4)
Throughout this story I noticed that J.D. Salinger used the motif of trees several times in different contexts. At first I was very confused because I didn't understand why he was saying it,why he was using trees, and how it helped move the story along. Once I took into account that the story is about the affects of war on soldiers, and how Salinger was using this story to convey that, I realized that by using Trees, he is using them as a metaphor for soldiers, and how they need to be tended to, how they need to be fed, how they need to be groomed, how they need nutrients and love to live. This reminded me of how the imprisoned soldiers in Slaughterhouse 5 in the syrup factory were taking spoon full of nutritious syrup that was meant for pregnant women, which was a metaphor for how the soldiers found a way to receive those important nutrients that the war was taking from them.
“Mother,” said the girl, “we’d better hang up. Seymour may come in any minute.”
ReplyDelete“Where is he?”
“On the beach.”
“On the beach? By himself? Does he behave himself on the beach?
“Mother,” said the girl, “you talk about him as though he were a raving maniac--” (5)
This passage of dialogue stood out to me for many reasons and was very reminiscent of multiple themes and ideas brought up throughout Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Throughout this short story, the condescending nature with which both Mrs. Glass and her mother refer to Seymour Glass shows how they constantly walk on eggshells around him and are very aware of his instability following his service in the war. This idea, to me, related back to Vonnegut’s commentary on his treatment after the war, and the large amount of privacy he lost due to people’s interests in him simply because he was a returning soldier. As is evident in both SH5 and “A Perfect Day for Bananafish,” this notion is incredibly toxic because it continues to promote the idea that soldiers are somehow changed or different after returning from war, and should be treated as such. This also ultimately ties into the idea of innocence, as both Billy Pilgrim and Seymour Glass connect with children after the war, and find them to be great company. Longing for this lost blissful ignorance, children offer both Billy Pilgrim and Seymour Glass an escape from a world that puts them under a microscope and attempts to constantly analyze their trauma. In “A Perfect Day for Bananafish,” it is evident that Sybil, Seymour Glass’s young companion, obviously cares about him and wants the best for him. The rest of the world however, only wants to help him so they can receive personal gain or benefit in some way. That is the difference between children and adults represented in both Slaughterhouse Five and “A Perfect Day for Bananafish,” which works to explain why both Billy Pilgrim and Seymour Glass feel so connected to them.
"Oh, no. No. I couldn't do that," said the young man. "I'll tell you what I did do,
ReplyDeletethough."
"What?"
"I pretended she was you." (7)
This bit of dialogue stood out to me because he is talking to Sybil a small child as if he cheated on her. it doesn't quite sound like intimacy yet its the most he has through out the story. I think the amount of time he spends around children is representative of both PTSD and the theme of innocence. we see that his wife criticizes and tries to suppress the problems he has since he left the war and when he talks to the kids its as if he has a romance with them it shows the mental state he is in as he can only connect to children and babies showing the same way that billy was only a baby when he went to war and still maintains this child like view on some things so does the character in this story
I agree with this analysis and like it a lot. I also thought about writing about this passage for my entry because it is definitely interesting to look at his interactions with children. Adding on to you, it is interesting because it is obvious that Sybil does not care about his past experiences and asks him simple questions such as what he has read and if he is going to swim. In comparison, his wife speaks about his mental state and the life he faces after the war for almost the entirety of her conversation with her mother. From this one can gather that he prefers children because they do not force him to think about his past and accept him for who he is now.
DeleteI also agree with you and Nicole! I would like to contrast the climax of the story, Seymour's suicide, with your analysis. When I read your analysis I thought of how Seymour takes his own life despite as you said his interactions with Sybil are the most intimate throughout the story and how that relates to the motif of innocence. I think that his suicide would arguably destroy Sybil's innocence and ruin all intimacy tied to their relationship, achieving the exact opposite of what it looks like he is trying to achieve in your passage or analysis.
DeleteWhy is the mispronunciation of Seymour name important to the motif of vision in “ A Perfect Day for Bananafish” and how does it compare to the motif of vision in slaughterhouse five?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the text Sybil’s mother mishears Seymour’s name a countless amount of times. She believes his name is See-more Glass instead of Seymour Glass. The mispronounced version of his name is significant to the story because of its connection to the motif of vision. After reading Slaughterhouse five, a book with a similar situation , where Billy is shown to the realities of war, after that his vision of life metaphorically changes, which is also the case for Seymour. By having the “name” See-more, Seymour literally is able to “see more” than the other characters because of the atrocities he experienced in war. By spending time with Sybil he is able to overcome his defeated emotions because she is a child and therefore can only see the innocence of the world. This emotional connection between a war veteran wanting to feel innocence ( embodied by children) is also shown through Billy in Slaughterhouse Five. The quote “ Not in my face, baby” (pg 6) shows that Seymour prefers the company of “a baby” to that of an adult. This is the only time he has had a relaxed conversation in the story, which shows that he cannot communicate with the adults because they embody what is wrong with the world ( materialism and miscommunication). Seymour and Sybil both read the Little Black Sambo which is a children’s book. The line “ It just so happened I finished reading it last night” (pg 8) shows the wanting to return to his pre war state of innocence and the only way of doing it is by associating himself with children books. This compares to the line in Slaughterhouse Five “I’ll tell you what, I said, I’ll call it the children’s crusade” ( pg 15) emphasizes the motif of innocence and children by showing how the horrors of the world are concealed to children because they have limited vision and only can see the good.
What is the significance of Muriel being sunburned?
ReplyDeleteMuriel complains she can no longer travel since she's “so sunburned” and “can hardly move” (4). On the contrary, Seymour is described as “pale” and that “he needs the sun” (5). Seymour is physically untouched by the sun to represent he's unable to be touched by the wrong perceptions of war made by people. This is because he was a soldier himself, and experienced the true horrors of war, knowing the true image of it. On the other hand, by being burned, Muriel was affected by the sun, representing being affected by the general view of war by giving into it, which is shown through her not being able to understand Seymour’s unstable behavior postwar. Another passage connecting to this is when Mrs. Carpenter was “putting sun-tan oil on Sybil’s shoulders, spreading it down over the delicate, winglike blades of her back” (6). Mrs. Carpenter is using the sun-tan oil on her daughter so she can attract the sun, and ultimately receive more color, just as Muriel wanted to. This represents how children, whose views on war haven't formed yet, are affected by the adults around them who haven’t encountered the true war experience, and have conformed to the false idea that soldiers are strong men who aren't troubled by war. By putting the sun-tan oil on Sybil, her mother wants to impose these same ideas on her, just as Muriel’s mother did by trying to convince her that Seymour was too dangerous to be around.
I think the notion of appearance versus reality make a statement throughout this short story as it does throughout Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. In Slaughterhouse Five, Billy/Vonnegut describes the soldiers who have just removed their uniforms to be "high school students again," while in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish," Salinger includes a "bathrobe" that Seymour uses to comfort his PTSD, as he refuses to take it off. Both depict the struggles condemned upon soldiers as it demonstrates their innocence prior to war, and their Post Traumatic Stress post-war.
Delete“He glanced at the girl lying asleep on one of the twin beds. Then he went over to one of the pieces of luggage, opened it, and from under a pile of shorts and undershirts he took out an Ortgies calibre 7.65 automatic. He released the magazine, looked at it, then reinserted it. He cocked the piece. 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). Why is Seymours suicide in the ending of the short story significant towards understanding the life of a real veteran who has seen the horrors of war?
ReplyDeleteSeymours suicide is a very significant part of the short story because it allows the reader to grasp the idea of what the effects of war has on a person. Seymour does not want to be like one of those Banana fishes, who ends up with this inability to come back to civilization, so he decides to change his future of going into this depressed state of mind and going into this hardship, so Seymour takes the course of suicide, even though unknowingly he is already in this bananafish ideal and he is making the cycle of a bananafish complete by killing himself. Salinger makes Seymour point the gun specifically towards the temple of his head because Salinger is trying to emphasize the idea of Seymour in his attempt towards trying to kill himself spiritually from what he has seen/experienced in the war. It is also significant that Seymour decides to go up to the room and kill himself while directly looking at Muriel because he wants to show her what he was really facing through this whole time, after the war, and that there are no words to describe what he has seen in the war, relating back to Kurt Vonnegut’s idea of there is nothing intelligent to say about war, but instead he believes that suicide will bring meaning towards his behavior. This idea is also reinforced by Muriel's attempt of getting him a psychiatrist to analyze what he is going through and killing himself is his way of telling Muriel exactly what he has been feeling.
I also saw seymour relating himself to the banana fish throughout the story, this idea that the fish can only eat so many bananas before they explode can also be translated to seymour and how there are only so many instances that he feels like an outsider before he finally realizes he can no longer be a part of this society and he too expodes
Delete"Muriel, I'm only going to ask you once more--are you right?
ReplyDelete"Yes, Mother, said the girl. "For the ninetieth time." (5)
The relationship between Muriel and her mother is not strong at all. There's this resistance Muriel gives toward her mother. It's as if Muriel is annoyed with her mom and purposely shuts down her input and tries he best to ignore her. For example, Muriel's mother was trying to talk to her about Muriel's father and said "Awful. Awful. Its sad, actually, is what it is. You father last night--"
"Just a second, Mother," the girl said. She went over to the window seat for her cigarettes, lit one, and returned to her seat on the bed. "Mother?" she said, exhaling smoke (4). Muriel's actions demonstrates a persona that she doesn't care what her mother has to say.
"Sharon Lipschutz."
ReplyDelete"Ah, Sharon Lipschutz," said the young man. "How that name comes up. Mixing
memory and desire." He suddenly got to his feet. He looked at the ocean. "Sybil," he
said, "I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll see if we can catch a bananafish." (7)
Seymour's relationship with children seemed inappropriate at first, but his interactions with sybil to me seem more pure and understanding, like he feels safer with her. i think this feeling came from the fact that sybil is just a kid and doesn't ask difficult questions and doesn't see his behavior as unusual. Seymour connects more with kids because they can play into his view of the world because they are more imaginative. when an adult dismisses his behavior, like his wife does, it is seen as being ignorant or not seeing the underlaying problems. when a child ignores his problems it is normal.
I agree. I feel like because Seymour is an adult and he ignores his problems, its seen as ignorant. However, with a the same scenario in a child its seen as perfectly normal. This ties into the patriarchal ideas within society aswell.
Delete^
Delete"I don't know. Reiser or something. Well, he's supposed to be very good. never heard of him. Well, he's supposed to be good, anyway"
ReplyDeleteI just thought this was interesting because it shows how the style of writing that Vonnegut uses in Slaughterhouse-Five. With terms like anyway, and "or something", it is showing this sort of lack of care or passion. Not directly meaning that Vonnegut has a lack of passion, but that he portrays his character as more careless, or down. I compared this to the line that he used many times in Slaughterhouse-Five: So it goes. I just thought that this was an interesting and apparent similarity.
This makes me think about the purpose of the casual style that Salinger writes in in this short story. It highlights the childlike qualities of Seymour, and I think speaks to Salinger’s commentary of the effects of war on veterans. Seymour has returned to an almost childlike state, and it is only appropriate that his story is told in a very nonchalant and calm way.
Delete“No, thanks,” said the girl, “we’d better hang up, this call is costing a for— “
ReplyDelete“When I think of how you waited for that boy all through the war-I mean you think of all those crazy little wives who— “
Even though this is a short quote, I think it represents how women are viewed during war. They are perceived as housewives and they are supposed to wait for their men to come home. This quote is displaying how the mother is concerned that her daughter was that way while waiting for the “boy” that is fighting in the war. Also, the fact that he is called a “boy” instead of a man highlights that soldiers are babies fighting in war. That relates to the media’s false portrayal of war. Soldiers are portrayed as strong men, that fight and come home, to their wives, as war heroes. But they suffer from things like PTSD from all the trauma that they endured. Salinger was also a veteran, so he seems to have a very similar, perspective of war to Vonnegut.
I agree. Most of the grown women in the short story have a similar demeanor to them. They are vacuous and inconsiderate, and Seymour cannot relate to them in anyway, much like how Billy Pilgrim also cannot relate to any women he meets (besides Montana Wildhack). I think that the stereotype of how women should act, especially after war, definitely played into this. This shows why Seymour is suicidal; he feels out of place and, even more so, alone.
Delete"'Did the tigers run all around that tree?'
ReplyDelete'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?'
'Do you like wax?' Sybil asked.
'Do I like what?' asked the young man. 'Wax'
'Very much. Don't you?'" (8).
I find this passage interesting for multiple reasons. Firstly, the content. Seymour is seen having only two conversations; one with Sybil and the other with the woman on the elevator. Simply put, this interaction, for him, seems smoother and easier, like Seymour had been friends with Sybil his whole life, showing how he values and admires youth and innocence. This touches on the fact that he is a veteran and had his innocence stripped from him during war. Secondly, this same sequence of conversation is seen more than once throughout the story between the two characters. One asks a question, the other says "What?" and then the question is explained. I do not know the importance of this observation or even if it is important at all, but I found it interesting. Thirdly, the question about wax and the answer about wax are formatted on the same line, although they are said by different people. This is also not the only time it happens. I am wondering if this has any significance as well.
Why does J.D. Salinger include the characters Sybil Carpenter and Sharon Lipschultz, who are three years old and three and a half years old respectively?
ReplyDeleteWhen reading “A Perfect Day for Bananafish” through the lens of comparison to “Slaughterhouse Five,” I thought it would be very important to focus on the children of the story, as “Slaughterhouse Five” is subtitled “The Children’s Crusade.” This focus led me to some interesting observations and, in turn, analysis. First, we established in our analysis of “Slaughterhouse Five” that children are a symbol of innocence, so the fact that Seymour Carpenter, the war veteran, likes to play with and entertain children shows, in my opinion, a desperate attempt to regain the innocence he lost during war. Another way I thought this could be interpreted is that Seymour is trying to help people who are still innocent maintain and enjoy their innocence after losing his in war and seeing the real effects of the loss of innocence.
One final thing I found interesting is that Seymour likes the fact that Sharon Lipschultz is nice to all dogs. I found this interesting because when discussing “Slaughterhouse Five” we also agreed as a class that dogs were another symbol of innocence, so the fact that Sharon Lipschultz is nice to all dogs could explain why Seymour likes her so much: they share a love of innocence.
So to answer the question, I believe that Salinger included these young characters not necessarily in order to highlight the innocence that Seymour Carpenter lost, but more to highlight the struggle that veterans go through in order to try to recapture their innocence that they lost.
“… ‘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… Naturally, after that they’re so fat that they can’t get out of the hole again. Can’t fit through the door” (8).
ReplyDeleteI found this quote particularly intriguing in its comparison of bananafishes to soldiers, banana holes to war, and bananas to casualties. Similarly to Vonnegut, J.D Salinger demonstrates the dehumanization of war as he describes these fishes to behave like pigs once having experienced being in the “hole.” To connect Vonnegut’s way of describing PTSD to Salinger, Vonnegut describes the soldiers to return from war covered in “baby fat,” and Salinger depicts these “fishes” to be so fat that can’t get out of the “hole.” I find this to be extremely significant in its demonstration of PTSD and why soldiers have trouble coping with their war experiences and trauma, as the horrifying realities of war truly do leave scars (physical and metaphorical) too thick to be able to return to the “ordinary-looking fishes” these soldiers once were before entering the “hole.”
On the other hand, what I found interesting is that instead of portraying these fishes to be innocent upon entering the hole, they are considered “ordinary-looking,” which depicts nothing of their character… What does this imply of humans/soldiers pre-war?
“The young man suddenly picked up one of Sybil's wet feet, which were drooping over the end of the float, and kissed the arch. "Hey!" said the owner of the foot, turning around. "Hey, yourself We're going in now. You had enough?" "No!" "Sorry," he said, and pushed the float toward shore until Sybil got off it. He carried it the rest of the way. ”
ReplyDeleteSalinger’s choice to not use Sybil’s name when Seymour kisses Sybil’s foot is interesting to me because it represents Salinger’s decision to have a disconnect from the character in that moment. It is a sexual act in nature, as is evident in Seymour’s actions towards Sybil, but in his omission of her name in that particular moment, I think Salinger is trying to demonstrate what Sybil is to Seymour - she is not as important to him as a person as she is physically. This speaks to the insignificant depiction of female characters in the story, with Salinger choosing to not write the name of Muriel’s mother, as well as Sybil’s mother. The depiction is that they are mothers, it does not matter what their names are. I see a connection to Slaughterhouse Five in this depiction through the manner that women are depicted in the novel. When Billy arrives at the slaughterhouse, a women says that “all the real soldiers are dead.” She is portrayed as indifferent and unable to see that the real soldiers have to be dead to be considered “real.”
"That's a fine bathing suit you have on. If there's one thing I like, it's a blue bathing suit."
ReplyDeleteSybil stared at him, then looked down at her protruding stomach. "This is a yellow," she said. "This is a yellow."
Sybil prodded the rubber float that the young man sometimes used as a head-rest. "It needs air," she said.
"Sure you know. You must know. Sharon Lipschutz knows where she lives and she's
only three and a half."
"I like to chew candles," she said finally.
"Who doesn't?" said the young man, getting his feet wet. "Wow! It's cold." He dropped
the rubber float on its back.
The entire novel, we are being led to believe that Seymour is a child, (honestly, I am still a little fuzzy on the details), but Seymour is really a mentally ill war vet. This, combined with a condescending tone with which the mother asks Muriel about Seymour, sums up Salinger's criticisms regarding the way that society treats war vets, and also to who these soldiers are (innocent/childlike). A clear connection can be drawn between Kurt Vonnegut's view of the true nature of soldiers in "Slaughterhouse Five" and the similar commentary in "A Good Day For Bananafish." Furthermore, the fact that Vonnegut nearly named his novel "The Children's Crusade," illustrates his commentary towards who soldiers are. Similarly, in "A Good Day For Bananafish," in addition to all of the reasons above, Seymour is both a newlywed, and is constantly referred to a "young man," leading us to believe that he is most likely under 25, roughly the same age as Billy in SH5, yet another parallel.
Read online Urdu Digests,Urdu Books,Novels,Magazines,Safarnama,Islamic Books,Education Books,imran series mazhar kaleem And Much More http://zubiweb.net
ReplyDelete