Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Portnoy’s Complaint, Zooey’s Remedy

Salinger may have predated Roth, but he was also a step ahead

Print Email
(Vance Lessard/2AM Photography)

A young man taking a long, languorous bath is paid a visit by his mother, who sits down (presumably on the toilet seat) to chat, and, despite her son’s half-hearted attempts to get rid of her, remains there for most of the next 48 pages. She’s come to talk about the young man’s college-aged sister, who is in the living room in a state of nervous collapse, attempting to reach enlightenment by repeating a mantra, the “Jesus Prayer,” to herself. In the meantime, the girl is refusing even to eat a nice bowl of chicken soup. How long is it going to take for her to reach enlightenment, the mother asks the son. Not long, he replies. If she keeps going with the prayer, “a procession of saints and bodhisattvas [will] march in, carrying bowls of chicken broth.” The mother says she doesn’t think this is very funny.

The scene, which takes up almost a quarter of J.D. Salinger’s Franny and Zooey, is classic American Jewish comedy, but it’s just as notable for the joke it doesn’t make: the obvious one about emasculating mothers who hang out in the bathroom with their grown sons. When the mother, Bessie Glass, touches her son Zooey’s bare back as he shaves and compliments how “broad and lovely” he’s gotten, he recoils—not because she’s broken an Oedipal taboo, but because he’s afraid that too much reflection on the beauty of his physical form will corrupt him spiritually. Zooey has plenty of complaints, but Portnoy’s is not one of them.

What do we do with J.D. Salinger, the midcentury American Jewish anomaly who wrote the episode above (which the writer Janet Malcolm has called “one of the most remarkable mother-and-son scenes in literature”) and many like it? As the writers who’ve eulogized him in the past week have demonstrated, we can love him with a slightly defensive fervor, as though a superior critic might at any moment squash his literary reputation forever; or look beyond his small oeuvre to the subcultures of fans it has spawned; or use the strange path of his career to think through larger questions of what we want from our authors. But how do we do with Salinger what we do with most famous writers when they die—that is, figure out where they fit into our individual and collective literary canons?

One potential place to “put” Salinger would be with the other American Jewish male writers who came to prominence in the 1950s and ’60s—authors like Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, who’ve come to define an era in American Jewish literature. Up to a point, this makes sense: like various among them, Salinger served in and wrote about World War II and critiqued the culture of the American boom times that followed. Like them, he masterfully combined elements of high and low art, a practice that since then has become almost synonymous with the American aesthetic. And like them, his work was frequently animated by a quarrel with the religious affiliation of his youth. But—and this slight distinction makes all the difference—he was picking a different fight with Jewishness. It had nothing to do with the strangulations of insular community life, or the struggle to move beyond immigrant parents and become American, or to move beyond a castrating old-world mother and become a man. Salinger’s assimilated, upper-middle-class characters don’t have to worry about these things; in fact, Franny and Zooey Glass and their five siblings—his most Jewishly identified characters—are, like Salinger himself, technically only half-Jewish. The specter of intermarriage (or, to put it in more Rothian terms, the possibility of banging shiksas) isn’t a taboo-smashing fantasy, here; it’s a very comfortable fact.

Salinger’s quarrel with Jewishness was about structures of thought that are much less visible and less risible than the clannishness of immigrants: he objects to the premiums placed on education, analysis, intelligence itself. The Glass family stories concern the attempt of seven brilliant siblings to escape from brilliance—and, in particular, from the psychoanalytic thought that permeated Jewish intellectual life at the time. If Alex Portnoy visits his Dr. Spielvogel in an attempt to cure himself of the strangulating effects of parochial Jewish community, the Glass children turn to eastern religion to escape the limitations of a world where everyone sees an analyst.

In a well-meaning educational experiment that forms the background of Franny and Zooey, the eldest and brainiest of the siblings, Seymour and Buddy, force-feed the youngest, Zooey and Franny, on a steady diet of Buddhist and Christian mysticism from the time they’re small children. Their syllabus includes “the Upanishads and the Diamond Sutra and Eckhart,” “Jesus and Gautama and Lao-tse and Shankarachya and Hui-neng and Sri Ramakrishna.” (Moses, for his part, comes up exactly once, marshaled by Zooey as an example of a prophet who “was a nice man, and he kept in beautiful touch with his God, and all that,” but was no Jesus.)

The plan backfires: like many graduates of progressive schools, Franny and Zooey grow up to feel that their idealistic education has rendered them even less capable of interacting with the outside world than they would be otherwise. Each twist of the knot makes the siblings more dependent on each other, trapped in a dialectic of knowledge and “no-knowledge” that no one else understands. They spend the duration of the book sitting around their messy Upper West Side apartment (“Bessie’s kibbutz,” Buddy calls it) stroking their cat, Bloomberg, and arguing about how to get out of the metaphysical mess they’ve gotten themselves into. Other than in relation to their heritage, no one ever explicitly mentions Jewishness, but the whole thing is so Jewish it makes you wonder if, by contrast, Alex Portnoy could just as well have been Armenian.

The tragedy of Salinger’s career, as many critics have noted, is that he seems to have been, ultimately, unable to get out of the intellectual trap he so brilliantly described his characters being stuck in. It’s hard not to wonder whether they—and he—might have been able to pry themselves loose if they had had a slightly less dismal view of sex. There’s virtually no sex, at least in any conventional sense of the word, in any of the Glass family stories. (There’s an implication in “Franny” that the young woman and her boyfriend have slept together, and some even read the story as implying that she’s pregnant.) The only way it even comes up, for the most part, is in abstracted form as “desire” or “attachment,” which the Buddhist-influenced siblings believe ought to be avoided; or, even more abstractly, as the cure for malaise recommended by psychoanalysis, for which they have unanimous contempt. This is, in fact, where Salinger diverges most sharply from Bellow, Mailer, and Roth, all of whom were profoundly influenced by psychoanalytic thought and whose explicit writing about sex changed the way sex was written about—and perhaps even how it was performed.

It’s quite possible that Salinger would have had a longer career if he had allowed his characters more plot-motivating desires (carnal or otherwise), but it’s just as likely that the very good work of his that we do have has been underappreciated because we just don’t know what to do with his lack of what, in Franny and Zooey, he derisively calls “testicularity.” Or, to be more precise, critics don’t know what to do with him. Fiction writers seem to, though. Mailer, Bellow, and company are hardly dusty, and Roth, for all we know, may have his best years still ahead of him—but it’s Salinger’s presence, more than any of theirs, that can be seen in much of the fiction currently being produced by young writers, including his lack of engagement with sex. Last month, cultural critic Katie Roiphe lamented in a New York Times Book Review essay that “young male writers who, in the scope of their ambition, would appear to be the heirs apparent” to Roth, Mailer, Bellow, and Updike, have “repudiated the virility of their predecessors.” She blames a censorious brand of feminism for the alleged generational shift toward “passivity, a paralyzed sweetness, a deep ambivalence about sexual appetite.” To whatever extent she’s right about the phenomenon, she’s wrong about the cause. Possibly one or two of the young male writers she accuses of prudery have read Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. Every one of them has read Salinger.

Until close to the end of the book that bears her name, Franny remains inconsolable, reciting the Jesus Prayer and refusing to eat. Finally, through a theatrical bit of trickery, Zooey gets her attention. “How in hell,” he asks her, “are you going to recognize a legitimate holy man when you see one if you don’t even know a cup of consecrated chicken soup when it’s right in front of your nose?” Compared with what Alex Portnoy might do with a cup of chicken soup, there’s nothing remotely shocking about this moment. But on its own terms, it’s radical. Chicken soup and the mothers who proffer it, here, have lost the power they have elsewhere to keep a young American in a Jewish ghetto. Instead, in this brief moment when Buddhist thought and Jewish family life are reconciled, chicken soup becomes an object of transcendence, a communion wafer or an om—and the mother who bears it just might be Buddha, or Christ, in disguise.

Print Email
Earl Ganz says:

Marissa,

You make the point that Salinger’s characters try to protect innocence, their own and the people they love. He wrote in a time when innocents had recently been slaughtered, a time of concentration camp ovens and Hiroshima adn Nagasaki. Vonnegut wrote about the same thing. He had witnessed the fire-storming of Dresden and in his work he seems to blame masculinity itself. The other Jewish writers you mention, Roth. Bellow, Mailer, wrote as conquerors. They’d won their war. What’s happening with the young writers today is that they have witnessed a new slaughter of innocents. They have seen the 43 year long slaughter in Palestine, the 9/11 slaughter, the ‘shock and awe’ slaughter. It’s not the feminist who are frightening the new writers. It’s the world. The new writers have come out on the side of innocence.

Susan Gordon says:

I would add one more devastating source of slaughter of innocents to Earl Ganz’s list above: AIDS. The Jewish writers of the 50s and 60s were exploring a new sexual freedom. The young Jewish writers of today approach sex with ambivalence because it can kill you if you’re not careful.

Wendy Bader says:

As a Jewish mother who’s children have reached the age of adolescence, a “former” intellectual who simply doesn’t have the time to ponder the great truths of life and, instead, must deal with the challenges of bringing up thoughtful, decent human beings in a time of growing devisiness, I still can’t get over the way this group of American-Jewish writers chose to portray the matriarchs of their literary families. Furthermore, I find many of their autobiographical protagonists whiny and narcissistic. Their “mothers” are the stuff that female Jewish characters in literature and film have been based for the last fifty years. I continue to be perplexed how writers that are held in such high esteem have never been held to task for the shallow, almost clown-like characters they’ve penned. Perhaps emerging generations of writers and critics, both masculine and feminine, Jew and Gentile, can examine how this crop of New York Jewish intellectuals could be so dismissive. Why didn’t Roth, Bellow, Salinger turn their profoundly keen, insightful eye, and pen, to examine these women rather than use and abuse them as comic and intellectual relief in their novels? Instead they made them into the butt of jokes of filmmakers such as Woody Allen, an endless line-up of Borscht Belt comedians, and later generations of writers trying to attain the celebrity of the Post WWII crop of writers. By the way, how many times is Roth going to re-use the framework of an aging, Jewish intellectual who can’t perform sexually due to the physical and spiritual side effects of prostate cancer? If I was his bubbe, I’d tell him to get over it! Ultimately, Salinger was able to live a very full and long life dictated on his own terms. How many people can boast this kind of freedom?

Marissa. Your essay is excellent. Brava!

Shalom Freedman says:

I disagree with the idea that the Glass family is a ‘Jewish family’. It is a half- – Jewish family and one which takes no interest in the Jewish religious or spiritual tradition. One of the interesting biographical questions about Salinger is why he so strongly turned away from whatever Judaism, however small it may have been, he learned.
Salinger like the principal Jewish- American writers Bellow, Malamud, Roth was far more an American writer than a Jewish one.
Salinger engaged apparently throughout his life in an intense spiritual quest in which Zen and Advaita Vedanta and Christian science and Reich’s orgone box and other various forms of ‘spirituality’ had a part. He apparently never looked closely at Jewish spirituality even though it took a new turn in the sixties with the appearance on the scene of the Carlebach world.
All of this is I believe outside those things, including the remarkable dialogue and use of language, which we most value Salinger for. And however interest many of us are in appropriating ‘Jews of achievement’ to our collective self- image it is important too to fairly judge and understand the true, and not always positive relation of these “Jews of accomplishment’ to the Jewish tradition.
I wonder for instance where Salinger was on June 5, 1967, and what his thoughts were in the Six Days that followed.

Neil Levy says:

Notice how “Earl Ganz” (comment no. 1) slipped in “the 43 year long slaughter in Palestine”? “Slaughter?” As in shooting 8 month old babies point blank? Oh, gee, that doesn’t count because Palestinians have justifiable reason to be vicious. So it’s come to this: no nuance, no perception of legitimate defense, certainly no acknowledgment of Arab attacks and antisemitic cries of decimation; no, it’s the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. As if, prior to 1967, it was salaam aleikum, my brother, sit down in my tent and let’s break pita together. Oh, the myths being created to cast the Jews – oops, no, the Israelis – as the absolute colonialist aggressors and the Palestinians as pastoral natives who just want to live in global harmony.

Wendy Bader says:

No response is necessary for Ganz’ ill-informed and obnoxious remark. Unfortunately, a group of seemingly educated people have decided to completely ignore many facts and challenges of an extremely complex issue. Mr. Ganz is a putz.

Hey my name is Robert From Armenian Wedding Directory, My site has very similar information like yours, our main goal is to make ones Armenian Wedding the most memorable day of their life. We can achive this by opening a door to over 1000+ Armenian Wedding Listings to our members. If our services may be useful to anyone please join our website its free!

If you guys would like a free pr3+ backlink please email me!

Nice article Marissa. My feeling is that, in embracing Zen, Salinger wasn’t really engaging in any quarrel with jewishness, so as turning his attention entirely elsewhere. Zen is interested in what our identity may be on a cosmic level, and hence utterly disinterested in the various factions of religious life.

I have come back to your website numerous times. The added commentaries are incredibly fascinating and note worthy. I had to signup for your rss feed, so I can keep up to date of your new articles.

WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. …

Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really know what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Please also visit my site =). We could have a link exchange contract between us!

I’ve said that least 2995468 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

Thanks so much for this. I thought I found loads of beneficial stuff here yesterday after spending all day going through this private area.

Great blog here! Additionally your site quite a bit up fast! What host are you the usage of? Can I am getting your affiliate link for your host? I wish my website loaded up as fast as yours lol.

Very interesting points you have remarked, thank you for posting.

Η Design Parke ιδρύθηκε το 1980 από τον Γιάννη Τραχανά και τον Δημήτρη Μαυρίκο, δύο ανθρώπους με πλούσια δραστηριότητα και εμπειρία στην τοποθέτηση, επισκευή, συντήρηση, γυάλισμα, βερνίκωμα ξύλινων δαπέδων, ξύλινων πατωμάτων, laminate…

Η επιχείρησή μας δραστηριοποιείται στην τοποθέτηση ξύλινων πατωμάτων μασίφ, τοποθέτηση ξύλινων δαπέδων, laminate, ντεκ, σκαλών επί μπετόν και ειδικών κατασκευών σε επίπεδο ιδιωτικών και μεγάλων κατασκευαστικών έργων. Το γεγονός αυτό, σε συνδυασμό με την εμπειρία και την τεχνογνωσία, δημιουργεί λύσεις οι οποίες καλύπτουν οποιαδήποτε επαγγελματική ανάγκη, τηρώντας πάντα το υψηλό επίπεδο ποιότητας και εξυπηρέτησης με χαμηλό κόστος.

Με βάση τα ανωτέρω, η Design Parke επεδίωξε και πέτυχε την συνεργασία με μεγάλες εταιρείες παραγωγής σχετικών προϊόντων καλύπτοντας μια ευρεία γκάμα αναγκών των πελατών της.

Με εκτίμηση,
Τραχανάς Γιάννης και Δημήτρης Μαυρίκος
Τηλέφωνο: 2117055676 – 2102132103 (απογευματινές ώρες)
Κινητό: 6949479965 – 6934266789 – 6974349208 (όλο το 24ωρο)

| τοποθέτηση,συντήρηση,επισκευή,βερνίκωμα,γυάλισμα,ξύλινων δαπέδων,ξύλινων πατωμάτων,laminate |

Thank you, I’ve just been searching for info approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I have came upon till now. But, what in regards to the conclusion? Are you certain about the supply?

It’s always pleasant whenever you read a document which is not just informative but additionally fun. I’ve got to book mark Portnoy’s Complaint, Zooey’s Remedy – by Marissa Brostoff – Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life in my personal pc. I have already been hunting for more knowledge about this subject matter for days and this is the best May possibly proudly located. I liked your current blog post.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Portnoy’s Complaint, Zooey’s Remedy

Salinger may have predated Roth, but he was also a step ahead

More on Tablet:

How To Make Gefilte Fish That Your Guests Will Actually Want To Eat

By Joan Nathan — Video: Throw away your jars of gray fish patties. This Rosh Hashanah, make a terrine that’ll have doubters asking for seconds.