*I wrote this before I read “Zooey” at all.
“Franny” by J.D. Salinger, 1955
Here’s this. I’m not going to read the book but there is some extra bits not covered in “Franny”.
So why not do Franny and Zooey as the pair they are presented as in book form? Cover both stories together? “Franny” and “Zooey” were published originally separately and years apart and are just as much meant to be read apart as together and they both have things to say on their own as well as together. So, cover the monologues and then do the dialogues, 1 before 2, y’know.
So what do I think “Franny” is doing? It is as much about Franny’s soul/spirit/what-have-you in conversation with her physical being as it is the conversation between herself and Lane. The outward reaction to an inner change that is about to begin. The conversation between herself and Lane is banal an idea that seems to slip in and out of her notice. Her pondering on “The Way of the Pilgrim”, while interesting and the most exacting or on-the-nose acknowledgement of the spiritual change she is undergoing, is banal itself because it is so lost on Lane. The discourse becomes meaningless and worthless. Which may be the other point. That most real discourse is pointless when compared to the inner politics of ones self. Because this transformation just beginning is happening unconsciously (the best way for this to happen? Maybe the truest if you compare it to a self-imposed change base on perceived inner conflict.) There has to be a reaction to such a change, a manifestation of form or something. It’s not mental, its physical. Her body is shutting itself down automatically to be rebooted in a form that is ready for the mantra of God (“rebooted” for lack of a better 1955 centric term.)
-Daniel Von Egidy, 2011