Talk:Franny and Zooey

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 31 May 2013. Further details are available here.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2 April 2012. Further details are available here.

Publication date of stories

The article states that the stories are from 1961, yet my copy of Franny and Zooey states that "Franny" was published in January 1955 in the New Yorker, and Zooey was published May 1957 in the same, before being released in book form in 1961. So then - what's the proper way to date "Franny and Zooey?"

Bigtrick (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- date of novel is in lead paragraph; original NYer publication at bottom of article. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franny

The time of Franny is mentioned in the first sentence: "Though brilliantly sunny, Saturday morning was...". THe time of Zooey is mentioned in the first sentence after the narrator's introduction: "Ten-thirty on a Monday morning in November...". Both stories are contained in one day. Jason Quinn 16:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry sir, but I believe you are mistaken. The stories are contained in the same weekend. "Zooey" takes place the following Monday.

Merge

Merge - this is a no brainer - just needs someone to do the work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got on and did it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Removed pronounciation...no citation, and my lit professor pronounces it Zoe-ee.

It's kind of endlessly argued about, but zoo-ee is the most common pronunciation. It's hard to settle; Salinger has been kind of quiet on the topic. Sighrik 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most common according to who? You? Methinks you'll have to do a little better than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.235.243 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V, there needs to be a reliable source to include any information. Croctotheface 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total re-write

This whole article has the tone of an over-eager salivating Salinger fan. The bit about Zooey being the "perfect follow up" to Franny due to their similar nature or something?

Err on the safe side and NPOV, por favor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lepetiterobot (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Jesus Prayer

How about you give a citation for The "Jesus Prayer," as it is known, involves internalizing the prayer to a point where, in a manner similar to a Zen koan? And especially about the connection with Zen.Ma2000 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Frannyzoey.jpg

Image:Frannyzoey.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Franny" and "Zooey" vs. "Franny and Zooey"

The story/stories was/were published in a single volume under the latter title, and is/are most commonly found that way. I vote the latter. Anyone disagree?

69.112.164.135 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book is published as a novel, not as two short stories. The title on the book's cover is "Franny and Zooey" not "Franny and Zooey". Couldn't be any clearer than that. The original two short stories no longer exist as separate entities, and are never published or anthologized one without the other -- only as a novel. This is and remains the case no matter how Salinger originally serialized the two parts. Anyway, I've fixed it. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Softlander, Franny and Zooey is NOT a novel.--NewChampion (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked at the cover of the "novel," as you call it? The "and" is in a smaller type than either name, each of which is the title of a shorter work. "Franny" and "Zooey" are no more woven into a single "novel" than are "Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters" and "Seymour: An Introduction." Anyone who says otherwise has some 'splainin' to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.198.86 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was most surprised to find F&Z listed here as a novel. Rothorpe (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Any serious Salinger fan knows that he published only ONE novel "The Catcher in the Rye." Franney and Zooey, is meerly a collection of two companion novellas. This is apparant in the fact that one does not need to read "Franny" to understand "Zooey" or vice-versa. Whereas one could never just read the last half of ANY novel and have it totally make sense. This should be changed. --NewChampion (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.9.68 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I don't know who changed this but thanks!--NewChampion (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of respect for Bessie?

"During the conversation, Zooey's lack of respect for his mother is frequently shown."

There's no way to prove this. Every Glass calls Les and Bessie "Les and Bessie," so the first name thing is no good. It's also mentioned & shown throughout that Zooey acts like this toward everybody. This part of the article needs to be seriously reconsidered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleedingcherub (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been fixed. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference to New Haven

I removed the reference to Franny taking place in New Haven. Franny takes place in a town that is revving up "for the big weekend—the weekend of the Yale game." Seems pretty clear that it's taking place in a college town that is hosting Yale's football team that weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.17.164 (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes place in New Haven. Other than explicitly referring to Yale and other references that Lane attends an Ivy League school, it mentions steak houses in New Haven (of which as far as I can tell Mory's is the only one still there).68.48.210.11 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franny and continuity?

In the "Major themes" section, "...(here taking the interpretation that Franny in the short story is the same character as Franny Glass in the novella..." Is there any other interpretation than this one? I didn't know it was disputed by anyone. If it's not, this sentence should be omitted.Matttoothman (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's silly. Rothorpe (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out. Matttoothman (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matttoothman: Please read the Updike review. He points out the seeming dissimilarities between the two Frannys. So, yes, a reputable author and critic has raised this point. While on the subject of Updike: when he says the Glasses "melt indistinguishably together in an impossible radiance of personal beauty and intelligence" it is not "praise" (as stated in the Wikipedia article); rather, he is saying, in a tongue-in-cheek way, that they are more than a wee bit precious. Also, when Updike talks of a "correctly unctuous and apprehensive tone," he is speaking of his own tone, not Salinger's. Relgif (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited out a mistake from the reviews section

The bit about "greeted with unhappy, even embarrassed silence" from the Malcolm article referred to Hapworth, not F&Z. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.77.90 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]