From what I have heard and read
in class discussions and on the blogs, I think most of us agree that Teddy did
in fact die at the end of the story. Obviously there is a lot of evidence that
points to this conclusion within the story. However I think that it is possible
to make an argument using Teddy’s own ideas that Teddy did not die. I’m not
trying to say that I believe this, but rather I bring this up merely as an
interesting debate topic. I (like everyone else) agree that Teddy did die. But
if Teddy himself were to read this story, I think that he might come to a
different conclusion than what most of us did.
Recall Teddy talking about the
orange peels early on in the story. Teddy was very intrigued by the orange
peels and the fact that if he hadn’t seen them, he wouldn’t know about them,
which means he wouldn’t be able to say that they even exist. He also says later
on that when he leaves this room, he may only exist in the minds of his
acquaintances. The idea that Teddy brings up here is similar to that of the
falling tree in the forest: If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one
there to hear it, does it still make a sound? This philosophical question
essentially strikes at whether or not reality requires perception. If no one
was able to witness an event, did it actually, in fact, occur? Let’s go back to
Teddy’s “death” scene. We never see Teddy die and neither does Bob Nicholson.
The only person that we know of that could have seen Teddy die was the owner of
the screaming voice. But we can’t say that for sure either. So the question is
this: If reality is dependent on perception, then since nobody witnessed
Teddy’s death, did Teddy really die? Or even if someone else perceived Teddy’s
death, is his death then only real in the sense that the one who sees this
perceives it to be real? Remember Teddy’s story of Sven and his dog. Teddy said
that if Sven dreams that his dog died, then the death would not be real when he
woke up. But if Sven’s dog died in real life, then it would only be real to
Sven until he dies. Sven’s dog’s death is only reality while Sven, living,
thinks that it is real. If this is true, then even if Booper or other
spectators perceived Teddy’s death, it would only be real as long as any living
witnesses thought it to be real.
I’m not sure if my argument made
sense to you guys, but what I was trying to convey was this: Maybe Salinger was
trying to get us to draw a connection between Teddy’s death and the orange
peels that were mentioned earlier. Perhaps Salinger purposefully prevented his
audience from perceiving Teddy’s death so that no matter how much evidence they
had of Teddy’s death, it may still be left in ambiguity. If you believe that
reality is dependent on perception, then Teddy’s death would not be true for
you, since you as the audience never perceived his death. However if you
believe that reality is independent of perception, then you could safely
conclude, based on the evidence from the story, that Teddy did, in fact, die.
I think this is an interesting perspective. It's almost the opposite of 'if a tree falls in a forest' idea. We heard him, but have no evidence that he's dead, or that it was him who died. Maybe his sister fell and when he was talking to Nicholson he was talking about her? A bit morbid, but worth bringing up.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post -- I like how you draw on Teddy's way of thinking, and what he would say about the story if he were in our position. Could it also be said that Teddy will never truly die because he exists within the pages of a book, and in the minds of readers? It reminds me of Tim O'Brien, and the idea that the act of telling a story can bring dead people temporarily back to life. Aside from that, and whether or not Salinger intended for us to draw that connection about reality being dependent on perception, I think that the ending worked perfectly, without the readers witnessing Teddy die, but leaving us pretty convinced nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about the situation that would ensue if Teddy was not the person who had died at the swimming pool. If the person who died was Teddy's sister, I think that while Teddy's parents were mourning, Teddy would be trying to argue that her death is inconsequential. Teddy's perspective on death would probably create a large rift between him and his parents in addition to their already strained relationship. I think in eventuality Teddy may even be blamed for the death of his sister, which may cause even more trouble.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer totally depends on how you define death. The scientific definition of death is that death occurs when all vital systems stop working. The heart stops beating, the brain ceases activity, etc. Similarly if you define sound as a compression wave, then the tree in the forest certainly makes sound. I think that Teddy did die in the scientific sense of the word, though I found your exploration of this very intriguing and am now uncertain whether or not salinger considered him to have died at the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMinwoo, you brought up a really interesting point! This is another great example of Salinger's work/style, leaving us to think about what really happened at the end of the story, or what the meaning of the ending is (like we say in Banafish).I feel like this is a common theme for most good short stories, having us think beyond what happens in the book -- we see this in Heminway, O'Brien, and Baldwin -- they all give us things to think of after the book, whether it's the morality of war, the brutality of racism, or the dynamics between man and wife in his time. As for whether I think that Teddy did die or not, I'm not feeling that skeptical today, so I'll go ahead and believe that Teddy did die (assuming so would also leave me with a peace of mind).
ReplyDeleteMinwoo, you brought up a really interesting point! This is another great example of Salinger's work/style, leaving us to think about what really happened at the end of the story, or what the meaning of the ending is (like we say in Banafish).I feel like this is a common theme for most good short stories, having us think beyond what happens in the book -- we see this in Heminway, O'Brien, and Baldwin -- they all give us things to think of after the book, whether it's the morality of war, the brutality of racism, or the dynamics between man and wife in his time. As for whether I think that Teddy did die or not, I'm not feeling that skeptical today, so I'll go ahead and believe that Teddy did die (assuming so would also leave me with a peace of mind).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about that Teddy's death may or may not have happened both in a literal and philosophical sense. Philosophically though I think Teddy's ideas are both right and wrong at the same time. On the one hand his death is only "real" if there is someone to perceive it as real. However, I feel like if a child prodigy of his intelligence died, it might never be forgotten, as someone would probably write about him. And in this way his death would be permanently made real. Even if death itself isn't "real".
ReplyDeleteHats off-- all this time while I was wondering how did Teddy die, I had never considered if he died. Regarding the last point, I think that if reality is dependent on perception, we are given the freedom of choosing whether Teddy lived or died, rather than being able to conclude that he lived. But the message of "Teddy" that's being pushed the entire time is that reality is independent of perception, so I've been pushed into Teddy dies camp.
ReplyDeleteI like this way of reading the story a lot, and the connection between the orange peels and Sven's dog and the way Salinger leaves the "death scene" offstage really drives home the point. It's not really an empirical question of "did Teddy die or not?" but maybe rather a question of how death is defined and understood. Teddy works throughout the story to get us to see the transience and inherently temporary nature of consciousness, and to think about existence itself as something like a "dream," a collective mental state rather than an objective empirical reality. In this way of reading the story, Salinger challenges us to think of Teddy's "death" in a new way--as he himself insists to Bob, not using logic or reason to "make sense" of the story.
ReplyDelete