Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ 2016 Appropriating the Pen: J.D. Salinger’s “Franny” Chaney Hill Texas Lutheran University Texas Alpha Delta Chapter Vol. 1(1), 2016 Article Title: Appropriating the Pen: J.D. Salinger’s “Franny” DOI: 10.21081/ax0032 ISSN: 2381-800X Key Words: J.D. Salinger, Feminist Theory, Feminist Monster This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Author contact information is available from the Editor at [email protected]. Aletheia—The Alpha Chi Journal of Undergraduate Scholarship • This publication is an online, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary undergraduate journal, whose mission is to promote high quality research and scholarship among undergraduates by showcasing exemplary work. • Submissions can be in any basic or applied field of study, including the physical and life sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, education, engineering, and the arts. • Publication in Aletheia will recognize students who excel academically and foster mentor/mentee relationships between faculty and students. • In keeping with the strong tradition of student involvement in all levels of Alpha Chi, the journal will also provide a forum for students to become actively involved in the writing, peer review, and publication process. • More information and instructions for authors is available under the publications tab at www.AlphaChiHonor.org. Questions to the editor may be directed to [email protected]. Alpha Chi is a national college honor society that admits students from all academic disciplines, with membership limited to the top 10 percent of an institution’s juniors, seniors, and graduate students. Invitation to membership comes only through an institutional chapter. A college seeking a chapter must grant baccalaureate degrees and be regionally accredited. Some 300 chapters, located in almost every state, induct approximately 12,000 members annually. Alpha Chi members have been “making scholarship effective for good” since 1922. 2016 2 Volume 1 │ Issue 1 │ Spring 2016 Article Title: Appropriating the Pen: J.D. Salinger’s “Franny” DOI: 10.21081/ax0032 ISSN: 2381-800X This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Appropriating the Pen: J.D. Salinger’s “Franny” Chaney Hill Texas Lutheran University Texas Alpha Delta Chapter Abstract Franny and Zooey is part of the Glass family saga created by J.D. Salinger. Originally published sep- arately (“Franny” in 1955, “Zooey” in 1957), the two novellas are now published as one text. In “Franny,” Franny attempts to appropriate the power of the metaphorical pen so that she can write her own story in order to break the silence enforced upon women. Critics have overlooked the precise nature of Franny’s crisis; furthermore, Salinger’s “Zooey” undermines a critical perspective of Franny’s autonomy. Key words: J.D. Salinger, Feminist Theory, Feminist Monster Franny and Zooey is part of J.D. Salinger’s Glass Critical interpretations rarely discuss Franny as family saga. Originally published separately (“Franny”1 an independent individual2. Many critics discuss Fran- in 1955, “Zooey” in 1957), the two novellas are now ny in terms of her biology as woman or in relation to published as one text. Franny attempts to appropriate her existence in the larger Glass family tree (David D. the power of the metaphorical pen so that she can write Galloway, Warren French, Arthur Mizener, Alfred Kaz- her own story in order to break the silence enforced in, John Updike, Paul Levine3). What has been written upon women. She tries to create for herself a measure about Franny and Zooey has been relatively narrow in of power through her interest in Sappho, the taking of a scope; most of the criticism discusses the way the two testicular olive, and reciting the “Jesus Prayer.” Her pil- youngest members of the Glass family handle phoniness grimage to find herself, however, is in exclusion of the and love towards others. However, Franny Glass can be men around her, which contributes to her struggle. This seen as an early feminist character, and the crisis that she struggle is largely overlooked in the existing literature. Nevertheless, to reclaim Franny as a feminist character 2 No further historical contextualization will be given is to give voice to her in particular and to silenced wom- about these critics because it would only detract from en in general. the larger argument that this essay explores. 3 Several of the critics talked about Franny and Zooey 1 In this paper “Franny” refers to the novella “Franny” in terms of the phoniness the characters experience in Franny and Zooey. Franny without quotations refers from the world around them, the coming of age story of to the character Franny. This also extends to Zooey and Zooey Glass, or the way that Salinger dearly loved his “Zooey.” Glass family creation. 2016 Aletheia—The Alpha Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research 3 experiences is not exclusively linked to her perception Even those critics who do not reference Franny in of a phony world, but is also linked to her lost feminine connection to her ability to procreate or have pre-marital identity. This lost identity is due in part to Franny being sex only talk about Franny in relation to males—namely, one of two female siblings in the Glass family, neither of Seymour, Zooey, and Lane. French even goes so far as whom are given very extensive character development to advocate, “‘Franny’ is incomplete without ‘Zooey’” in comparison to their brothers. Franny is largely over- (“Search for the Seer” 142). This statement insinuates looked by her own family and critics alike. that Franny is merely a springboard for Zooey’s success, Critical interpretations of “Franny” do exist, sparse and furthermore, that neither Franny the character, nor as they may be. Updike, Mizener and French, in “Search “Franny” the novella, could stand alone without “Zooey.” for the Seer” and “The House of Glass,” bring attention However, since “Franny” was published originally on to the fact that much of the initial reading of “Franny” its own in 1955, it can clearly be read and interpreted focuses on her possible pregnancy. Mizener states that as its own story. It is completely reasonable to look at many readers are confused as to what Franny’s crisis ac- “Franny” in isolation and treat the character of Franny tually revolved around: “Some of them…. seem to have Glass as a character who is going through a crisis that is thought…the heroine of ‘Franny’ (1955) was so badly not necessarily related to any biological performance of upset during her football weekend with Lane Coutell her sex, such as being pregnant. not because she was in a spiritual crisis but because she Sadly, the patriarchal culture finds it more plausible was pregnant” (209). French also states in “The House to see Franny as pregnant than to see her as a character of Glass” that readers were shocked that Salinger wrote having an intellectual breakdown. To diminish the im- about “a distraught college girl who was experienc- portance of Franny’s crisis by basing it on other charac- ing a bout of morning sickness while visiting during a ters (Zooey, Seymour, and Lane) and readers’ perception football weekend” (90). French then asserts that it took of her possible pregnancy suggests that Franny is a pa- about two and a half years before “[i]t was also made per-thin character incapable of having a true, possibly clear that this Franny Glass was not pregnant,” which intellectual, crisis that requires her to venture forth to coincidentally coincides with the publication of “Zooey” overcome an obstacle, and is simply a step in other char- (90). acters’ journeys toward overcoming their own obstacles. While a few critics eventually admit to the impos- Problematically, the academic world widely holds sibility of Franny being pregnant, this belief posited by that Salinger published “Zooey” to clarify his intentions the critics is only grounded in one of two lines of reason- with “Franny.” Critics believe that Salinger would not ing: one, that Salinger would never have let a member have wanted the brilliant Franny Glass to be seen as of his beloved Glass family be pregnant out of wedlock; pregnant, but rather wanted Franny to be seen as having and two, that “Zooey” proves that Franny was not preg- an existential breakdown. This assumption creates some nant in “Franny.” Within the scope of this research, there underlying issues in the critique of this novella, insinu- is not a single critic who argues that Franny’s crisis is ating the incompleteness of “Franny” both as a novella based on anything other than her possible pregnancy or and as a character. Because many Salinger critics and any argument that suggests her crisis can be of a more casual readers believe that “Zooey” was written only as intellectual nature while also looking only at Franny. an extension or a clarification of “Franny,” the reader is Critics believe her incapable of a different kind of cri- given a reason to disengage from interpreting “Franny” sis. Rather than further evaluating “Franny,” critics lost on its own. Such an approach implies that there is no interest in her crisis once they came to the conclusion way to understand “Franny” without also reading “Zoo- that she was not pregnant. Relating to Franny through ey.” her biology is problematic in that it fails to tackle the Alternatively, if it is widely assumed that Salinger character herself. It is not unreasonable to believe that wrote “Zooey” as a way to clarify “Franny” and that as- Franny could be pregnant, but to believe that the only sumption is seen as fact, then there is another possibility possible cause for Franny’s distress is a pregnancy over- as to why Salinger wrote the former.