Adult Atmosphere

When reading J.D. Salinger’s Nine Stories, I noticed a striking similarity between The Laughing Man and its successor, Down at the Dinghy. In both stories, the key point of contention is young children bumping up against adult realities. The Comanches of The Laughing Man learn, through Mary Hudson’s presence, that the Chief is not the happy, flawless, predictable man they make him out to be. Similarly, in Down at the Dinghy, four-year-old Lionel hears his maid Sandra call his father “a big-sloppy-kike” and he has to learn how to react to this (86). Both stories address young children accidentally entering the adult sphere.

At the beginning of The Laughing Man, The Chief is described as being secure, predictable, and having “many achievements and virtues” (57). The narrator describes: “Every one of us, from the smallest hoodlum to the biggest, loved and respected him” (57). To the Comanches, the Chief is a perfect, larger-than-life figure. However, Mary Hudson’s entrance into the story changes this perspective. The boys see the Chief as “very nervous” and anxious when he waits for her (64). Then, when Mary Hudson wants to play ball, the Chief swears at the boys for the first time; “I said I didn’t need a center fielder. The Chief asked me what the hell did I mean I didn’t need a center fielder. I was shocked. It was the first time I had heard the Chief swear” (65). When Mary Jane and the Chief get in a fight, the Chief is upset and snaps at the kids. The Chief ends The Laughing Man story by killing off the main character, effectively devastating the Comanches.

Similarly, in Down at the Dinghy, Lionel hears his maid Sandra call his Jewish father “a big-sloppy-kike” (86). Although Lionel doesn’t know what “kike” means, he recognizes it as an insult and it upsets him. The crux of the story is about an adult insult that leads to Lionel running away to the dinghy. Kids, such as the narrator of The Laughing Man and Lionel, live innocent lives in a child’s world. However, there are instances where they accidentally enter the adult world of relationship issues, prejudices, and insults. These moments have drastic effects on the young children.

Suspicious Seymour

After reading J.D. Salinger’s short story A Perfect Day for Bananafish, we had a discussion in class on if Seymour was creepy or predatory in his relationship with Sybil. Personally, I see his relationship with Sybil as inappropriate and a bit scary. I completely understand that Seymour is lonely and seeking a simple, fun relationship, which Sybil is able to provide. However, I think his interactions with the three year old girl are a bit disturbing and hair-raising.

First, Seymour Glass is a young man (assumably in his 20s) while Sybil is a three year old girl. This is not an age and gender relationship that you see often, so it raises some eyebrows right away. In Seymour’s language, I can definitely see a teasing tone that one would often use with small children. However, I don’t think his predatory-seeming lines should be excused just for this reason. Seymour’s language and actions take a few steps past a “normal” playful relationship with a three year old.

Once Sybil arrives where Seymour is lying on the beach, he says, “I was waiting for you,” which is a creepy phrase for a grown man to say (11). He has a beautiful wife back at the hotel, yet Seymour has been waiting to play with this innocent three year old. Seymour proceeds to call Sybil “baby” and “my love,” (later) which are creepy and inappropriate phrases (11, 16). He remarks on her bikini, telling her to “come a little closer” so that he can see what color it truly is (12). Even if he has a playful, childish tone while saying these words, the language itself is predatory and concerning. Additionally, the fact that the innocent three year old obeys his commands worries me. It seems that Seymour has a great deal of power in this relationship, and like a normal three year old, Sybil agrees with anything an adult says. Seymour then remarks on Sybil’s looks again, saying “you’re looking fine” (12). Then, in the conversation about Sybil’s jealousy of Sharon Lipschutz, both of their language implies an unconventional relationship. Sharon sat on Seymour’s lap while he was playing piano, and Seymour says he “pretended she was [Sybil]”(13). This is an extremely odd and inappropriate thing to say about having a three year old sit on your lap. Then, he says Sharon mixes “memory and desire” (13). The kind of “desire” Seymour references is unclear, but totally unacceptable to say about a toddler.

Seymour barely knows Sybil; it seems that he has never met her mom or dad. I think his actions inappropriate considering the apparent depth of his relationship with the toddler. Examining his physical actions, things take a turn for the worse. Throughout the story, Seymour is very physical and touches Sybil various places on her body: he grabs her ankles three times, holds her hand, picks her up, lays her down on her stomach, and kisses the bottom of her foot. These touches are inappropriate. Personally, I work a great deal with children doing regular babysitting, working at my church nursery, and as a swim instructor. I have children that I know very well and I know their parents, too. I love these kids! But there is a certain line with children that you should not cross, and I think Seymour definitely does this when he kisses Sybil’s foot. I think Sybil knows that there is something wrong with this, too, when she responds with “hey!,” but she is too young to fully understand or process Seymour’s actions. Additionally and significantly, Seymour’s many physical gestures toward Sybil are never returned. For example, at one point, Sybil “stopped walking and yanked her hand away from him.”

In no way am I trying to say that Seymour is a serious child predator or threat to Sybil’s life. However, below the surface, I think his language and actions suggest some sort of romantic or sexual desire that is inappropriate in a relationship with a three year old (especially with one who he barely knows). Also, Seymour is a war veteran with some sort of psychological issues, which is significant in possibly explaining some of his actions. There are definitely two ways to read Seymour’s actions, and I just thought I would explain my perspective. Sorry for the long post!