Talk:For Esmé—with Love and Squalor

Story

for esme with love and sqalor is a story about the problems of post war generation.they seek peace life in love;however,their ancesters sought it in war. Zabihollah Eslami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.102.49 (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2006‎ (UTC)

Was Charles autistic? -WalterJid — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJid (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 September 2006‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure, and I don't see any evidence for or against it in the text, though it is possible. Thunk 06:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Textual references needed for literature analysis?

There are those two "[citation needed]" subscripts regarding the interpretation of Sergeant X possibly being Seymour Glass or Buddy Glass. These are valid interpretations that anyone can make. Unless we actually have them, do we really need to cite sources from a famous literature critic? My point is, we will most likely never know if these analyses are correct, but they are certainly valid, and we shouldn't need someone "with a name" to verify it. Let's not mimic politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slythfox (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said below, Seymour was dead by the time this story took place. Unless Salinger moved around dates for some reason, it can't be Seymour. - Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.46.139 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"...It is more widely accepted that Sergeant X and Seymour Glass are the same person"

Does the Sergeant have to be either? He receives a letter from an *older* brother in Albany - Buddy did live in upstate New York (c.f. 'Franny and Zooey') but was Seymour's younger brother. Also the implication of crassness in the letter detracts from the idea that it is Buddy, and Buddy did not seem to have any children in his 1951 letter in 'Zooey'. The fact that Buddy was not married subtracts from his being the narrator (who is married, c.1949-50, in 'For Esme') either.81.98.43.135 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddy Glass and Sergeant X have nothing alike. I don't remember anything about Buddy being in the war, but he might have been. And I don't think Sergeant X and Seymour could be the same because Sergeant X begins to recover, whereas Seymour doesn't and commits suicide. There are similarities between the two (i.e. shell shock, love of children) but I think the themes and growth of the two characters do not match up. Caesar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.124.144 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2006‎ (UTC)

It can't be Seymour Glass. This story takes place in 1950, Seymour committed suicide in 1948. -Brandon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.196.50 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2007‎ (UTC)

X is a personification of Salinger's own experience with the war?

I just noticed tonight that Salinger himself had fought in the war, and Sergeant X seems similar to him. They both were occupying Germany after the war itself, and both arrested minor female Nazi officials but didn't really hate them, and Salinger himself was said to have been a bit shellshocked by the war, especially when he helped liberate a concentration camp. I just thought, tonight, that this story might be a telling of his own story. (With a few embellishments and differences, of course.) What thoughts do you people have on this? Thunk 06:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same when I first read it, but I don't think there is enough evidence to really say either way. 165.123.164.232 07:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Endure the squalor of war?

He Sargent X certainly did not endure it too well. This synopsis seems pretty lacking. I think this story is more about the need for meaningful human connections and the difficulty of maintaining these connections in the chaos of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulrhoades (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

French female name

Shouldn't it be "Esmée," instead of "Esmé"?Lestrade (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

We can only repeat what Salinger himself wrote, and that is how he spelled it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

I don't recall ever seeing this title with an em dash, and the pictured cover shows it with a hyphen-sized one. Is there consensus for this move? Rothorpe (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a consensus for either style. It seems that more modern reprints are using an em dash instead of a hyphen. It makes sense from a grammatical point of view anyways. See this result in Google Books for example: the title still uses a hyphen, but the titles in the reviews use em dashes. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense from a grammatical point of view? How? Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about this move, as well, and cannot see the justification for it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't think anyone would object to a move like this one. Regardless of the move, what is your justification for using the previous title? There was no prior consensus for the original title, and there is no consensus on any of the titles, so the previous title had no justification for its use. The story was published online on New Yorker with a hyphen or hyphen-minus and spaces, yet the original version in the archives looks like a dash and doesn't use spaces in the title. If you want to use arbitrary examples as justification, then the copy of Nine Stories I have right now uses the em dash, not a hyphen or en dash. The screenshot used in the article shows a dash, but do we not update article titles to whichever one is the present "official" title? The publishers published the newer editions with em dashes, and I'd imagine that they had to get the edition reviewed by Salinger before being published. In addition, the spacing is different depending on the font used, and an em dash may appear to be a dash, or a dash may appear to be a hyphen.

So, does this single change do anything or cause something to break? What is your justification for using the previous title? Why are you challenging the move? It may have been used before this move, but that doesn't mean that the title was correct. Also, Google treats en and em dashes as the same, so there is no way to determine which one is more common through searches. I wouldn't waste more time moving it back to the other title, which by no means is the common title. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)