Youtube subtitles download by mo.dbxdb.

com

Professor Amy
Hungerford: In light of the

fact that I have just sent you

paper topics,

my lecture today is going to do

two things.

It is going to give you a way

into Franny and Zooey,

but it's going to actually

give you more than a way into

it.
It is really going to give you

a whole packaged reading of

Franny and Zooey.

We have just the one day on

this novel, and what I'm going

to be doing for you is modeling

the way literary critics use

evidence to advance an argument.

It's useful to you when you

think about writing a paper to

remember, if it's been a long

time since you've written an

English paper,

or even if it isn't a long time

since you've written an English

paper, that the facts that we,

literary critics,

and you, writers on literature,

the facts that we deal with are

the details of the text itself.

You may have noticed that I am

very fond of reading aloud to

you from these novels.

I'm very fond of reading out

passages.

I do it a lot.
Why do I do it?
Well, there are two reasons,
one because I want you to hear

literary art.
Literary art is a verbal art,

and I think too often we only

read it silently;

probably not since you were

children that people read to you

so much.
So, to get a sense of that,

you have to have it in your ear

and feel the sound and the

rhythm and the quality,

the timbre, the expression of

the voices that we have in these

novels.

Our writer for today thinks so

highly of that capacity of

literature to embody the human

voice that he imagines a whole

religious world around him.

That's going to be the gist of

my argument today.
But then, there is a second,

sort of, less mystical reason,

and that's that these are the

facts of a literary argument,

these words that I give to you.

It's like, if you're in an

astronomy lecture,

they're going to give you some

facts about the composition of a

planet, or its atmosphere,

or whatever.

Those are the facts for that

field.

For this field,

these are the facts.

So, in your papers,

if you find yourself writing
and you get to the end of a page
and you look back,

you scan back over your page,

and you see that there are no

quotation marks,
you are not using any of the

facts of the novel to produce

your argument,

to support your claims.

So, that's like the eye test,

the glance test.

Are you supporting your claims?

If you have very few

quotations, chances are you are

not.
So, think of this lecture,

as I go through it,
as a kind of model.

Pay attention to what I'm doing

in using these textual bits and

pieces and putting them together

and making claims for them.

I do it every week.
It just so happens that this

argument is more closed,

more settled,

in my own mind.
It's less of an opening

argument than it is something

that I want to convince you of.

So, there's a reason for that

and that is that I'm writing

about this novel.

It's in the introduction to a

book that I'm writing about the

literature of this period,

and so it's very present to my

mind as a sort of piece of a

larger argument about religion

and the American novel in this

period,
so that's what I'm giving you.

When you approach any novel

to make an argument about it,

if you want to be ambitious,

the first thing to think about

is well, what's obvious about

the novel?

What can you observe at first

glance about its style,

about its form,

about its setting,

about its character,

about its presuppositions?

In Franny and Zooey,

what did you notice?

Tell me what you noticed,

at first bat,

if any of you have read it.

What did you notice about the

novel?
Uh huh.Student:

It doesn't move around very

much.

It just stays in a limited

space.Professor Amy

Hungerford: Absolutely.
Confined settings,

very confined settings,

absolutely.

Yes.
What else?

Yes.Student:
A lot of

dialog?Professor Amy
Hungerford: Lots of dialog,

yes.
What else?
Uh huh.Student:
[inaudible]Professor

Amy Hungerford:
Yeah, yeah.

Absolutely.
Yeah.

There's a back story.

You can feel that back story to

the novel.
Yeah.

What else?
What else did you notice?

Yes.Student:
There's a lot of focus on

like little motions that people

do,

like picking up cigarettes and

dropping things.Professor

Amy Hungerford:
Yeah.

A lot of attention to physical

detail and physical movement,

and that's connected to this

point about confined spaces.

It's the movement of bodies

within confined spaces that

really preoccupies this novel.

What about the style of the

novel?
You talked about dialog.

Is there anything else about

the style that you noticed?

Yes.Student:
There's a lot of

italics.Professor Amy
Hungerford: A lot of

italics.
What does that connote to

you?Student:
Trying to convey
feeling.Professor Amy
Hungerford: Yeah.

Absolutely.
A lot of emphasis,

a lot of variation in tone,

and the italics are part of the

representation of that.
Yeah. What else?

Yes.Student:
A lot of the dialog seems

to be combative.
There's arguing between two

people.
Professor Amy

Hungerford: Yes.
This is a book about arguments,

absolutely.
What are they arguing about

most of the time?

All right.
Well, that's where I will pick

up.
Oh, Sarah.

Do you want to say?

Student:

There are a lot of abstract

ideas.Professor Amy

Hungerford: Yeah.
Yeah.

Absolutely.
They are talking about abstract

intellectual ideas,
often religious or

philosophical ones,
and that, plus its setting:

I hope you noticed the sort of

New Havenish setting of Franny's

breakdown.
We're told that Lane isn't
exactly a Yale man,
but he sure looks a lot like a

Yale English major,

dare I say, such an unpleasant

character, and so,

so pompous.

What you do,

when you write a paper or try

to advance an argument,
is try to write an argument

that will attend to all those

things that you guys just said,

that you take the obvious

things, and when you craft an

argument, the best thing,

the most ambitious thing,

to do is to come up with
something where,

in the end,
you can say something about

those major aspects.

You don't have to do it in the

paper, but it should be an

argument that has something to

say back to those obvious

things.

Why is the style this way?

Why is the plot working this

way?
Why are these particular

characters behaving in this way?

Why use those confined spaces?

So, my argument today is

going to try to have something

to say back to all those obvious

aspects that you pointed out so

rightly.
But I'm going to start from a

much more pointed and local

question.

And this is the other thing

that a good short paper

especially does,
is that you don't get at all

that big stuff by,

kind of, taking it head on.

You have to come down to the

facts that I was talking about,

the bits of text,

the text itself,

the words that author chose;

that's where you begin.

And part of the genius of a

strong paper is choosing the

place in the text to begin that

pointed analysis.

So, my choice for this is that

odd introduction in-between the

two stories, and this is on 48

and 49.

This is, we come to find out,

Buddy, Zooey's older brother,

narrating the story,

and Buddy gives us a little

preamble telling us how the real

characters in the story,

the real people who are then

characters in his story,

how they felt about the story

and what their objections to it

were (and this is on 48).

We find out that Franny objects

to the story's distribution in

the world or the movie,

the prose home movie as Buddy

calls it, because it shows her

blowing her nose a lot.

His mother, Bessie,

objects because it shows her in

her housecoat.
But Zooey has a more

substantive objection.
It's the leading man,

however, who has made the most

eloquent appeal to me to call

off the production.

[This is in the middle of page

48.]
He feels that the plot hinges

on mysticism or religious
mystification.

In any case,
he makes it very clear,

a too vividly apparent

transcendent element of sorts,

which he says he's worried can

only expedite,

move up, the day and hour of my

professional undoing.

People are already shaking

their heads over me and any

immediate further professional

use on my part of the word "God"

except as a familiar,
healthy American expletive will

be taken or rather confirmed as

the very worst kind of name

dropping and a sure sign that

I'm going straight to the

dogs.
And then, he speaks back to

Zooey.
He says, "Well,

I'm going to still distribute

my story.

I still want to tell this

story," and he does it in a kind
of roundabout way.
And this is on page 49.

Somewhere in The Great

Gatsby, which was my Tom

Sawyer when I was twelve,

the youthful narrator remarks

that everybody suspects himself

of having at least one of the

cardinal virtues and he goes on

to say that he thinks his,

bless his heart, is honesty.

Mine, I think,

is that I know the difference

between a mystical story and a

love story.
I say that my current offering

isn't a mystical story or a

religiously mystifying story at

all.
I say it's a compound or

multiple love story,

pure and complicated.

What Buddy does,

in this passage,

is set up this opposition

between his own reading of his

story and Zooey's.

Now, why are we given these

objections?
I think it's to give us a

dynamic sense of the family

conversation going on between

them, but it also addresses one

of those obvious things.

They talk a lot,

as Sarah said,

they talk a lot about abstract

questions, and this puts the

meaning of the story in that

abstract register.
Is it a love story,
or is it a religious story,

a mystifying story?
Which is it?

I am going to argue that it's

both.

And I'm going to advance that

argument by going straight to

the theological question that

Zooey is so intent on solving

when Franny is having her

breakdown in the living room.

So, just to review:

Franny has her breakdown when

she comes into what I suspect is

New Haven to attend the

Yale-Harvard football game with

her boyfriend,

Lane.
So, Franny when she sees Lane,

affects great enthusiasm,

and so on, but this is what we

hear about Lane from the

narrator.

This is on page 11.

Lane was speaking now as

someone does who has been

monopolizing conversation for a

good quarter of an hour or so

and who believes he has just hit

a stride where his voice can do

absolutely no wrong.

[I always read this and I

think, "I'm lecturing."]

"I mean, to put it crudely,'"

he was saying,

"the thing you could say he

lacks is testicularity.

You know what I mean?"

He was slouched rhetorically

forward toward Franny,

his receptive audience,

a supporting forearm on either

side of his martini.

"Lacks what?"
Franny said.

She had had to clear her throat

before speaking.

It had been so long since she

had said anything at all.

Lane hesitated.
"Masculinity," he said.

"I heard you the first time."

"Anyway, it was the motif of

the thing, so to speak,

what I was trying to bring out

in a fairly subtle way,"

Lane said, very closely

following the trend of his own

conversation.

"I mean God.

I honestly thought it was going

to go over like a goddamn lead

balloon and when I got it back

with this goddamn A on it in

letters about six feet high I

swear I nearly keeled over."

Franny again cleared her throat.

Apparently, her self-imposed

sentence of unadulterated good

listenership had been fully

served.

"Why?"
she asked.

Lane looked faintly interrupted.

"Why what?"

"Why did you think it was going

to go over like a lead balloon?"
"I just told you.
I just got through saying this

guy, Brughman is a big Flaubert

man or at least I thought he

was."
"Oh," Franny said.

She smiled.
Franny is disgusted by his

pomposity.
This experience,

combined with her experience in

a religion seminar with this

man,
Professor Tupper,

at school, has convinced

herself that the world is

superficial,
that it's impossible to find

anything meaningful in the

academic discussion of these

pseudo-intellectual problems,
the "testicularity" of one

writer or another.
And Lane's engagement with

literature, specifically,
is all about his ego inflation.

So, he can't wait to tell

Franny that the professor said

he should try to publish it,

and then my favorite thing:

he wants to read it to her over

the football weekend.

"Hey, come, let's read my

English essay."

Hello.
Student: Hi.

Can I interrupt?
We have a couple of singing

valentines.
Can we deliver them
now?Professor Amy
Hungerford: No,

you can't.
Sorry.

Student:
Thank you.Professor

Amy Hungerford:
And I'm worried about

e-mail!

Talk about pricking my

pomposity.

All right.
So, she starts saying the Jesus

prayer, which is,

"Lord Jesus Christ,

Son of God, have mercy on me,

a sinner."

Now, she has taken this prayer

from a book called The Way of

the Pilgrim.
It's a Russian Orthodox

religious classic,
a very old text,

and it depicts the life of a

pilgrim.

And we get the summary of this

a little bit in the novel,

as Franny explains it,

or tries to explain it,

to Lane, who is entirely

uninterested.

It is about a man who tries to

take seriously the Bible's

injunction to pray without

ceasing, and the prayer for

Franny becomes a kind of mantra.

She is trying to say it over

and over again as she goes about

in this world that is so
disappointing to her,
feels so false to her.

And so, finally,

the strain of trying to hold

out this kind of religious

awareness in the face of Lane

and his English paper is just

too much,

and she faints.

Now, Zooey has a big

problem with her use of this

prayer, and this is what gives

the book that sort of combative

tone that we were talking about

a little earlier that somebody

mentioned.

So, if you look on page 169,

my question now is,

in my argument:
What is Zooey's critique of

Franny's use of the prayer?

What constitutes that critique?

What's wrong with it?

So, on 169, he says to Franny

as she's sniveling on the couch:

"God almighty,
Franny," he said.

"If you're going to say the

Jesus prayer,

at least say it to Jesus and

not to Saint Francis and Seymour

and Heidi's grandfather all

wrapped up in one.

Keep Him in mind if you say it,

and Him only,

and Him as He was and not as

you'd like Him to have been.

You don't face any facts.

This same damned attitude of
not facing facts is what got you
into this messy state of mind in

the first place,

and it can't possibly get you

out of it."
And then, this argument goes on

for a couple of pages,

and I'm just going to pick up

the end of it here,

on the bottom of 171.

He is explaining who Jesus was.

"If you don't understand

Jesus, you can't understand His

prayer.

You don't get the prayer at all.

You just get some kind of

organized cant.
Jesus was a supreme adept,

by God, on a terribly important

mission.

This was no Saint Francis with

enough time to knock out a few

canticles or to preach to the

birds or do any of the other

endearing things so close to

Franny Glass's heart.

I'm being serious now, goddamit.

How can you miss seeing that?

If God had wanted somebody with

Saint Francis's consistently

winning personality for the job

in the New Testament,

He'd have picked him,

you can be sure.

As it was, He picked the best,

the smartest,

the most loving,

the least sentimental,

the most unimitative master He

could have possibly picked.

And when you miss seeing that,

I swear to you,

you're missing the whole point

of the Jesus prayer."

So, Zooey's critique is that

Franny is not being specific in

her use of the prayer.

She's paying no attention to

who Jesus was and what it means

to actually pray to that figure.

But, to anyone paying attention

to the other things that Zooey

says and the other things that

he does in this novel,

this is kind of odd,

and it's hard to square.

So, my next kind of question

is: How does that very

doctrinally specific
understanding of the Jesus

prayer relate to the whole

religious education that Buddy

and Seymour gave him,

and that he seems to be

thinking so hard about as he

reads that letter in the

bathtub?
The letter in the bathtub tells

us about that education,

and let's look on 61.

Sorry.
That's not exactly the right

page.
This is 65.

I'm sorry.

In this letter Buddy explains

to Zooey what he and Seymour

have been trying to do.

"Much,

much more important though,"

[Buddy says in the middle of 65]

"Seymour had already begun to

believe,

and I agreed with him as far as

I was able to see the point,

that education by any name

would smell as sweet,

and maybe much sweeter,

if it didn't begin with a quest

for knowledge at all,

but with a quest,

as Zen would put it,

for no-knowledge.

Dr.
Suzuki says somewhere,

that to be in a state of pure

consciousness,

satori, is to be with God

before He said,

'Let there be light.'

Seymour and I thought it might

be a good thing to hold back

this light from you and Franny,

at least as far as we were

able, and all the many lower,

more fashionable lighting

effects--the arts,

sciences, classics,
languages--'til you were both

able at least to conceive of a

state of being where the mind

knows the source of all light."

So, the religious education

that Zooey's response to Franny

comes out of,

is precisely not a doctrinally

specific Christian education.

Rather, it's something more

like a Buddhist tradition,

a syncretic,

mystical tradition.
The idea is that there is some

state of being with God.

Knowledge, all the arts and

sciences, literature,
all of the religious writings

of the world are manifestations

of that voice that at its origin

is God saying,
"Let there be light."

It's the voice of creation.

Seymour and Buddy want Franny

and Zooey to rest at that

origin, undistracted by the

manifestations of the creation,

and know some kind of

consciousness of God in that

place.

So, Zooey, pretty much,

subscribes to these tenets,

and you can see it especially

on page 175, when he goes into

his brother's old room.

Now, let me explain a

detail that I think is

important, but I think a little

lost to us in today's world of

technology.

There's a phone in Buddy and

Seymour's old room that is a

private internal line,

and it just goes from one room

to another in the apartment;

it's not an outside phone line.

And what's interesting about

it, and what indicates its
importance to Buddy,
is that Bessie gets on about

him getting a phone where he's

teaching in upstate New York;

he's teaching writing as a

visiting writer at a college in

upstate New York.

And Bessie, his mother,

keeps saying,
"Well, why won't you get a

phone, Buddy?
You're paying to maintain this

interior line in our apartment,

and yet you won't get a phone."

For Buddy, the phone that's

within the family compound,

so to speak,
family apartment,

is the more important line of

communication.

So, when Zooey goes upstairs to

use that phone,

it's freighted with all the

significance that Buddy has put

upon it.
But there's a whole ritual

involved in Zooey's entrance

into this place.

This is on 175.

At the far end of the

hall he went into the bedroom he

had once shared with his twin

brothers,

which now, in 1955,

was his alone,

but he stayed in his room for

not more than two minutes.

When he came out,

he had on the same sweaty
shirt.
There was, however,

a slight but fairly distinct

change in his appearance.

He had acquired a cigar and

lighted it, and for some reason

he had an unfolded white

handkerchief,

draped over his head,

possibly to ward off rain,

or hail, or brimstone.
So, why does he do this?

What's the meaning of this

little detail of Zooey's

appearance?
Well, one thing that a literary

argument can do is take

something small like this and

try to give an account for it,

so that's what I'm going to do.

He's venerating the room that

Seymour and Buddy occupied.

He's covering his head in a

traditional religious fashion,

so in order to enter this holy

place he covers his head.

(The cigar?
I don't have an account of that.

You guys figure that out.

That's the other nice thing

about literary arguments.

There are always little details

that they don't account for,

and that's the loose thread

that you can pull to make your

own.) And so,

what does he find when he goes

in to this holy space?

Well, he finds two panels of

beaver board,
on 178,179, and they have the
quotations that Seymour and

Buddy have collected from all

their favorite religious,

philosophical,
mystical, literary reading,

and I'd like you just to think

about one of them.

So this is the bottom of 178.

This is from Sri Rama Krishna.

"Sir, we ought to teach

the people that they are doing

wrong in worshipping the images

and pictures in the temple."

Rama Krishna:
"That's the way with you

Calcutta people.
You want to teach and preach.

You want to give millions when

you are beggars yourselves.

Do you think God does not know

that He is being worshipped in

the images and pictures?

If a worshipper should make a

mistake, do you not think God

will know his intent?"

This is, I think one,

of the best examples of that

syncretic view of religion,

that basically all worshippers

are worshipping the same god.

They may do it in different

forms;
they may make mistakes;

they may be mistaken about

where God resides.

But, in this view,

God is so powerful and so

transcendent that God will know

the heart of the worshipper.

So, if you apply that back to

Franny, why does Zooey have this

difficulty?
Why does he have this

difficulty in the specificity of

her prayer?

What is it that is bothering

him?

Well, I think you begin to get

an answer to this tension

between specific doctrine and

syncretic religion when Zooey

gets to the subject of acting,

which is what this second

attempt at speaking to Franny,

this time over the phone,

is concerned with.
There is a detail here of

course that Zooey,

in making a second attempt to

converse with Franny about this,

impersonates his brother,

Buddy, on the phone.

Now I'm just going to leave

that observation,
remind you of that.

I have a way to account for

that, but it's going to take to

the end of my argument to do

that,

so I'm going to argue that

that's significant,

but I'm not going to talk about

why it's significant yet.

But let's look at that

theology of acting.

This is on page 198.

This is coming towards the

climax of their conversation.

Part of what's been bothering

Franny is her frustration with

acting, and that's one of the

things that Lane is so surprised

she has given up;

it was the only thing she was

passionate about.
And we know--from reading

Buddy's letter over Zooey's

shoulder in the bathtub--we know

that Zooey had similar concerns

about his own acting career,

his own commitment to acting

that Buddy tried to persuade him

out of.
"You can say the Jesus

prayer" [Zooey says to Franny],

"from now 'til doomsday,

but if you don't realize that

the only thing that counts in

the religious life is

detachment,

I don't see how you'll ever

even move an inch.

Detachment, buddy,
and only detachment,

desirelessness,
cessation from all hankering.

It's this business of desiring.

If you want to know the goddam

truth, that makes an actor in

the first place.

Why are you making me tell you

things you already know?

Somewhere along the line in one

damn incarnation or another,

if you like,
you not only had a hankering to
be an actor or an actress,
but to be a good one.

You're stuck with it now.

You can't just walk out on the

results of your own hankerings.

Cause and effect,

buddy, cause and effect.

The only thing you can do now,

the only religious thing you

can do, is act.

Act for God if you want to,

be God's actress if you want

to.
What could be prettier?"

Zooey has this understanding of

the cosmos that suggests that

strong, specific human desires

actually change the course of

cosmic futures.
So somewhere,

maybe in pre-incarnational time

before Franny became Franny,

she wanted to be an actress.

The religious thing Zooey says

is to inhabit that,
to honor that,

to follow up on the results of

that prior desiring.

But why is it acting?

Why specifically acting and why

this weird comment at the end,

"What could be prettier?"

What does prettiness have to do

with this?

Well, if you look at the

description, for instance,

of Zooey's face,
there's a beautiful description

of how his face is beautiful,

in what way his face is
beautiful.
We know that Franny is an

attractive young woman.

We know that she worries about

beauty, and especially in

poetry.

When she's trying to explain

what's wrong,

part of what's wrong is that

when she learns poetry in the

classroom none of it seems

beautiful to her;

it all seems like some other

kind of production,

not the production of beauty.

So prettiness,

beauty, the aesthetic is at the

heart of the spiritual practice

that Zooey is urging upon

Franny, the spiritual practice

of acting.
And I would remind you,

looking back to that passage on

page 65 and into the 66,

that specifically among the

figures that Buddy mentions,

the religious and literary

figures,

we find Shakespeare.
And I think Shakespeare in this

train of figures represents the

literary that is also the

dramatic.
So, in our tradition

Shakespeare is the literary name

above all others.

It's important for Salinger

that Shakespeare was a

dramatist.
It's important for this novel

that Shakespeare was a

dramatist, not just because

Zooey wants Franny to inhabit

acting fully as her desire and

as her religious practice as

opposed to saying the Jesus

prayer.
Acting has a deeper relation to

the novel and here's where we

get back to that question of

being in closed spaces and the

lack of movement.

If you think about this

novel, it has the structures of

drama.
It takes place in small rooms.

If you begin to think about it,

you can almost see the set

changes: in the diner,

on the train station.

That's about the most open

place, on the train platform.

That's about the most open

place we see.

In the diner,
in the apartment:

all you do in the apartment is

move from one room to another.

These are dramatic spaces.

Moreover, the bathroom:

completely a dramatic space.

It even has a curtain hiding

Zooey from his mother.

Acting becomes a religious

practice for much more than

Franny, not just for Franny and

for Zooey 'cause Zooey's an

actor too.
It's a religious practice for
the novel itself.

And that, I would suggest to

you, is where we can begin to

bring some of those obvious

things: the prevalence of

dialog,
those enclosed spaces,

the tone, the exaggerated tone,

the somewhat histrionic

quality,
the combativeness of that

conversation,
its sheer style.

These are great talkers!

But, I would suggest to

you, Salinger is trying to

balance something very

carefully,
that relates back to this

question of doctrine versus

syncretism in the religious

sphere of the novel,

in the religious thematic

material of the novel.

And, for this,

I'd like to look at the very

end of the novel.

Zooey finally suggests that

it's attention to the audience

that makes an actor really a

special actor,

a religious actor,
and he points back to advice

that Buddy gave him

about--sorry,

that Seymour had given

him--about performing on a radio

show.
So, they were all radio show
whiz kids, and one day Zooey had
not wanted to shine his shoes

and says--this is on page

200--that:

"The announcer was a

moron, the studio audience were

all morons, the sponsors were

morons,

and I just damn well wasn't

going to shine my shoes for

them, I told Seymour.

I said they couldn't see them

anyway where we sat.

He said to shine them anyway.

He said to shine them for the

Fat Lady."

Now, why the Fat Lady?

It's this mythical,

incredibly humanly embodied--

whenever you see a fat lady in a

novel,
one of the first things you

want to ask is:

why does that person need to be

excessively embodied?
That's what fatness is in a

novel like this.

It's excessive embodiment,

the human.
That's what this woman

represents, the human.

Connect to the human audience;

respect the human audience.

Act for them, to them.

Don't act as if they are just

some bunch of Philistines out

there who can't appreciate your

art.

And then he says to Franny:

"I'll tell you a terrible

secret.
Are you listening to me?

There isn't anyone out there

who isn't Seymour's Fat Lady.

That includes your Professor

Tupper, buddy,

and all his goddamn cousins by

the dozens.

There isn't anyone anywhere who

isn't Seymour's Fat Lady.

Don't you know that?

Don't you know that goddamn

secret yet?
And don't you know--Listen to

me, now.
Don't you know who the Fat Lady

really is?
Ah, buddy.

Ah, buddy, it's Christ Himself,

Christ Himself,

buddy."
This seems like a completely

Christian answer to Zooey's

problem, and we're back on the

horns of that dilemma.

Is this a syncretic religious

vision, or is it a Christian
one?

But look what follows.

This is not the last word.

For joy,
apparently, it was all Franny

could do to hold the phone even

with both hands.

For a foolish half minute or so

there was no other words,

no further speech,
then "I can't talk anymore,
buddy."
The sound of a phone being

replaced on its catch followed.

Franny took in her breath

slightly but continued to hold

the phone to her ear.

A dial tone of course followed

the formal break in the

connection.
She appeared to find it

extraordinarily beautiful to
listen to, rather as if it were

the best possible substitute for

the primordial silence

itself.
The dial tone is that state of

awareness of the divine that

Buddy speaks of when he says-

when he speaks of being with God

before God said,

"Let there be light."

Zooey's voice breaking that

dial tone in the beginning in

his phone call,

and then the resumption of it

afterwards,

that dial tone encases Zooey's

voice, so that what Zooey says

to her is one of the rays of

light of God's creation,

one of those things,

like Shakespeare,

that is part of the whole

created world,

but what Franny can tune into,

after hearing his voice,

is that very essential divine

sound,

meaningless sound.
And so, this is how Salinger
balances the syncretic,
the sort of empty mysticism of

Seymour and Buddy,

with the embodied,

doctrinal, specific insistence

that we see from Zooey,

from the insistence on human

specificity,

the Fat Lady,

the very material human fleshly

person.
Salinger's own novel performs

in this way, and that's how you

would want to think about

moments like on the bottom of

180.

This is describing the bedroom

of Seymour and Buddy as Zooey

walks in.
A stranger with a flair

for cocktail party descriptive

prose might have commented that

the room,
at a quick glance,

looked as if it had once been

tenanted by two struggling

twelve-year-old lawyers or
researchists.

And then if you flip back

to--let's see--172 describing

Zooey's sweaty shirt,

"His shirt was,

in the familiar phrase,

wringing wet."

And there are lots of moments

like this, self-conscious

moments of style.
So, "in the familiar phrase,

'wringing wet,'" he's saying,

"I'm about to use a

cliché.
Here it is. There it is."

He says someone with a flair

for cocktail party conversation,

a witticism,
would say this.

He gives it to us,
but he frames it as an

affectation of style.
So, what Salinger,

I think, shows us is that

affectation, without something

like love, is just affectation,

and that's what Lane

represents.
That's the affectation of

literature without any human

connection.

That's why when he talks on and

on, it's as if Franny isn't even

there listening to him.

He's been going on a quarter

hour, and he's just hitting his

stride.

Franny, Zooey,
Buddy, Bessie:

they all try to speak directly

to each other.

The family language is what

makes them very human;

they embody this very specific

family language.And so,

I would argue to you that

Salinger imagines literature as

a performance of this kind,

a performance of a language of

family love that is nevertheless

also an aesthetic language.
And I think,
actually, probably the best

image of that is in Seymour's

diary.

When Zooey sits down to make

that phone call,

he opens up Seymour's diary and

he sees Seymour's account of his

birthday celebration,
where the family had put on a

vaudeville show right in their

living room.

Remember, his parents are

vaudevillians.

And that description,

which I won't read just because

we're running out of time,

it's on 181 and 182.

You can look at it yourself.

It's brimming with pleasure and

love.
This is why Buddy really can't

insist that Zooey is wrong about

this being a religious novel,

because being a religious novel

and being a love story are

finally for Salinger the same

thing.

It's the performance of human

connection.

That's the phone line;

that's conversation;

that's letters.
The performance of family

conversation is like acting,

and that is why Zooey

impersonates Buddy;
he's acting.

But Franny can hear the

specific voice,
and this is when you know that
Franny is not just a sort of

empty air head.

She may be mistaken about who

she's praying to in the Jesus

prayer, but she damn well knows

the timbre of her brother's

voice and his particularity of

speech.
And so, when he tries to

imitate Buddy,
she finds him out very quickly.

And this is when you know that

Franny really does benefit from

Seymour and Buddy's religious

education in the same way that

Zooey has.
And so, if we step back for

a minute now from my reading,

there are a couple of things I

want to say.
First of all,

I hope you can see,

using that as a model,

how I went from big claims

about the novel into specificity

to support those claims.

That's the structure of any

good literary argument.

The attention moves from the

very small to the large and back

again.

There is a kind of rhythm to

that, that folds in those

obvious parts of the novel to a

more thematic set of concerns,

in this case about the

religious philosophy of this

novel.
So, as you think about writing

papers, go through that two-step

process of thinking about the

large picture of what a novel is

doing as a piece of literary

art,
and then thinking about a

focused set of concerns.

And, in the final development

of your paper,
making sure that those two can

relate to one another.

The second thing I want to say

is less about paper writing,

and more about the trajectory

of this course and what we're

seeing in common between these

novels.
So, you can read this very

closely to On the Road.

If Dean cared for "nothing

but for everything in

principle," you could say,

conversely, that Salinger cares

for everything in particular,

and in principle,
nothingness.

It's nothingness that is the

mystical state rather than

everythingness.
And it's interesting to think

about whether those two are

really opposites.

I think these novels imagined

them to be opposites,

but it's something for you to

think about, about whether they

really are.
So, Zooey's specificity is the
specificity of doctrine,
but it's also the specificity

and more importantly the

specificity of person.

So that's the everything that

he cares about,

person.
I will stop there,

and please bring both On the

Road and Franny and Zooey

to section this week.

And, by the way,

one last thing:

If you've been sketchy about

your section attendance,

I suggest that you try to pull

up your socks and go.

We will be talking about papers

in the section.
It will be helpful to you,

and it will also give you a

chance to talk about these

books, so please do go.