Franny and Zooey by JD Salinger

[tonywalt]

I've just re-read Franny and Zooey. It's pretty obvious that Salinger inserts himself in most of the characters. Franny is having existentialist issues to say the least and Zooey helps her as best he can. Franny is the side of Salinger that was not at ease in the world. Zooey is the practical side that embraces a Zen Buddhism approach and was someone Salinger sought to emulate in a certain way. Trying to make sense of things, through a certain philosophical and spiritual approach

Franny's boyfriend, Lane is everything that Salinger hated and loathed about the arrogance of academia and subsequently the publishing world.

His writing got more and more complex and intellectual after Catcher in the Rye, I doubt his unpublished writings is for mass consumption, but very few know.

[Henry Please]

Certainly Franny's problems are "existential" but it's important that she chooses the Jesus prayer as her outlet. Existentialism as a philosophy does not accept the concept of a divine human, namely Jesus, and so in that regard her problem is much different. She chooses a Christian -- faith in the divinity and resurrection of Christ as the son of God -- response to an "existential" -- essentially a Humanist, we're on our own, no-God, problem. Salinger's character's may hold certain beliefs that correspond to certain dogmatic religions/philosophies, but that has absolutely no bearing on what Salinger himself was concerned with, because he was a fiction writer. To judge Salinger's personal philosophy by the philosophical/existential dilemmas of his characters is a mistake. The writer and the work are separate entities, even though they may display similarities. That said, obviously you're into Salinger. Certainly nothing wrong with that; he was a great fiction writer. If you're interested in the philosophical direction his characters are headed then I suggest you read the Stoics and the Gnostics. That's where you will find the roots of these issues as far as Western thought is concerned. After that read Carl Jung; he brings these things -- both Eastern and Western -- together. Also read William James. After that read John Gray's "Straw Dogs" for a more contemporary, and, as a result, much different argument.

[tonywalt]

I disagree.


I think anyone who has read his books and spent some time comprehending the writing can clearly see that his personal philosphy, dabbling with Zen Buddhism and Hindu practice was inserted in his writing, albeit fiction writing. On top of that, he almost blatantly added his own personality in his non ficiton writing. Many writers have their own beliefs splattered all over their works of fiction.

Henry, it sounds like you have "certain" beliefs of your own, which is fine. Your positive and very descriptive description of Franny's Christian beliefs are noted. But your quick dismissal of of Salinger's beliefs as "dogmatic" are also noted.

[Henry Please]

Point taken.

Here's a short piece from Slate.com about Salinger, and will we get anything new in print any time soon:

http://entertainment.salon.com/2012/01/17/what_was_j_d_salinger_working_on/singleton/

[tonywalt]

No problem. I think there is likely a clause in the Trust(s) he could have set up that has a long term publish date. Mark Twains autobiography was a hundred years!

I hope that is not the case, but incredibly there has been no leakage of information. He still has a very blabbery daughter who wrote a book about him, I cannot help but think she would say what she knows, if she does know.

After Catcher is writing became very complex, metaphoric, and outright intellectual for the mainstream. This matched his progression into isolation. I cannot help but think his writing after the mid 1960's was complex to say the least.