I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor. You're a born
one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely you and Franny are the only
beauties in the family. But where will you act? Have you thought about it? The movies?
If so, I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as the next
young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and
mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest.
Will you be content with that standard box-office schmalz?

J. D Salinger
Franny and Zooey p. 60

This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it is not even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is supposed to be flawless.

I have a problem with:

I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as the next
young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and
mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest.
/ a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?
/ b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of all the characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each of which has two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the amalgam a movie that has those pairs?
If we don't have a single amalgam, but more, shouldn't it be 'amalgams'?

--
Gratefully.
Navi
Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in strange structures and sentences
Obsessed with ambiguity

Remember Wednesday, when navi asked plaintively:
> I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor. You're a
> born one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely you and Franny
> are the only beauties in the family. But where will you act? Have you thought
> about it? The movies? If so, I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any
> weight you'll be as victimized as the next young actor into contributing to
> the reliable Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and mystic, gunman and
> underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest. Will you
> be content with that standard box-office schmalz?
>
>
> J. D Salinger
> Franny and Zooey p. 60
>
> This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it is not
> even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is supposed to be
> flawless.
>
> I have a problem with:
>
> I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as
> the next young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of
> prizefighter and mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's
> Conscience, and the rest. /

> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?

Since I've not been drawn to this book (it was controversial when I wa
reaching high school, and it didn't have any rockets or even jets), I'm
not authoritative, but almost certainly getting the body to fill out.
given the list that follows, the addressed person is male and skinny,
but it's also given that someone will correct me.

/
> b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of all the
> characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each of which has
> two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the amalgam a movie that has
> those pairs? If we don't have a single amalgam, but more, shouldn't it be
> 'amalgams'?

A single amalgram, I imagine, some sort of malleable role player that
can take on any of these attributes, perhaps several at the same time.
The book is from about the same time as James Dean was filming, and the
young Marlon Brando, but the hero cowboy who maybe was a mysterious
stranger was still a common theme.

/dps

--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

Le 07/03/2024 à 05:10, navi a écrit :
>
> I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor.
> You're a born one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely you
> and Franny are the only beauties in the family. But where will you act?
> Have you thought about it? The movies? If so, I'm scared stiff that if
> ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as the next young actor
> into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and
> mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience,
> and the rest. Will you be content with that standard box-office schmalz?
>
> J. D Salinger
> Franny and Zooey p. 60
>
> This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it is
> not even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is supposed to
> be flawless.
>
> I have a problem with:
>
> I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as
> victimized as the next young actor into contributing to the reliable
> Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and mystic, gunman and underprivileged
> child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest. /
> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?

Importance, I think, in this context.

> b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of all
> the characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each of
> which has two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the amalgam a
> movie that has those pairs? If we don't have a single amalgam, but more,
> shouldn't it be 'amalgams'?

My guess would be a series of formulaic characters, each with two sides,
the hard man with the soft centre etc., designed after studying
'Scriptwriting for Beginners' Chapter 3.

Le 07/03/2024 à 06:38, Hibou a écrit :
> Le 07/03/2024 à 05:10, navi a écrit :
>>
>> I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor.
>> You're a born one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely
>> you and Franny are the only beauties in the family. But where will you
>> act? Have you thought about it? The movies? If so, I'm scared stiff
>> that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as the next
>> young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of
>> prizefighter and mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and
>> Man's Conscience, and the rest. Will you be content with that standard
>> box-office schmalz?
>>
>> J. D Salinger
>> Franny and Zooey p. 60
>>
>> This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it
>> is not even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is
>> supposed to be flawless.
>>
>> I have a problem with:
>>
>> I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as
>> victimized as the next young actor into contributing to the reliable
>> Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and mystic, gunman and
>> underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest. /
>> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?
>
> Importance, I think, in this context.
>
>> b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of
>> all the characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each
>> of which has two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the
>> amalgam a movie that has those pairs? If we don't have a single
>> amalgam, but more, shouldn't it be 'amalgams'?
>
> My guess would be a series of formulaic characters, each with two sides,
> the hard man with the soft centre etc., designed after studying
> 'Scriptwriting for Beginners' Chapter 3.

(I had to look up schmalz - I'd heard it, of course, but wasn't sure of
the sense - even my spelling checker knew it not. If I joked « Pour moi,
c'était de l'hébreu », that would not, alas, be quite right.)

Hibou wrote:

> (I had to look up schmalz - I'd heard it, of course, but wasn't sure of
> the sense - even my spelling checker knew it not.

Maybe it knows "schmaltz"?

--
Bertel, Denmark

Le 07/03/2024 à 08:25, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> (I had to look up schmalz - I'd heard it, of course, but wasn't sure of
>> the sense - even my spelling checker knew it not.
>
> Maybe it knows "schmaltz"?

With a t, it (Thunderbird) knows it in AmE, without it, it doesn't. It
knows neither in BrE.

Hibou hat am 07.03.2024 um 09:36 geschrieben:
> Le 07/03/2024 à 08:25, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>> Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> (I had to look up schmalz - I'd heard it, of course, but wasn't sure of
>>> the sense - even my spelling checker knew it not.
>>
>> Maybe it knows "schmaltz"?
>
> With a t, it (Thunderbird) knows it in AmE, without it, it doesn't. It
> knows neither in BrE.

And without a t, as you can imagine, every programme with a German spell
checker knows it. I have some in my fridge.

On 07/03/24 18:03, Hibou wrote:

> (I had to look up schmalz - I'd heard it, of course, but wasn't sure
> of the sense - even my spelling checker knew it not. If I joked «
> Pour moi, c'était de l'hébreu », that would not, alas, be quite
> right.)

I knew the word, but wouldn't expect to see it in Australian writing.

American English has adopted a lot of Yiddish words. Surprisingly, those
don't seem to be exported to other Englishes.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Thank you all very much,

I myself thought we had a series of two-sided characters as well, but wouldn't we have to have amalgams then? We are not talking about a single amalgam.

Incidentally, 'a damn sight better' is spelt 'a damn site better' in the text, but as I said that part is a letter written by a character, and in those days spelling checkers did not exist.

Gratefully,
Navi

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:23:23 +0000, arthurvarr@gmail.com (navi) wrote:

>Thank you all very much,
>
>I myself thought we had a series of two-sided characters as well, but wouldn't we have to have amalgams then? We are not talking about a single amalgam.

The stereotyping of actors into roles? I think 'single amalgam'
is appropriate. If he puts on some pounds, he will fit those
roles because of his looks.

>
>Incidentally, 'a damn sight better' is spelt 'a damn site better' in the text, but as I said that part is a letter written by a character, and in those days spelling checkers did not exist.
>

--
Rich Ulrich

Snidely wrote:

> Remember Wednesday, when navi asked plaintively:
>> I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor. You're a
>> born one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely you and Franny
>> are the only beauties in the family. But where will you act? Have you thought
>> about it? The movies? If so, I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any
>> weight you'll be as victimized as the next young actor into contributing to
>> the reliable Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and mystic, gunman and
>> underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest. Will you
>> be content with that standard box-office schmalz?
>>
>>
>> J. D Salinger
>> Franny and Zooey p. 60
>>
>> This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it is not
>> even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is supposed to be
>> flawless.
>>
>> I have a problem with:
>>
>> I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as
>> the next young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of
>> prizefighter and mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's
>> Conscience, and the rest. /

>> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?

> Since I've not been drawn to this book (it was controversial when I wa
> reaching high school, and it didn't have any rockets or even jets), I'm
> not authoritative, but almost certainly getting the body to fill out.
> given the list that follows, the addressed person is male and skinny,
> but it's also given that someone will correct me.

> /
>> b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of all the
>> characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each of which has
>> two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the amalgam a movie that has
>> those pairs? If we don't have a single amalgam, but more, shouldn't it be
>> 'amalgams'?

> A single amalgram, I imagine, some sort of malleable role player that
> can take on any of these attributes, perhaps several at the same time.
> The book is from about the same time as James Dean was filming, and the
> young Marlon Brando, but the hero cowboy who maybe was a mysterious
> stranger was still a common theme.

Sorry, I agree with you on both. If we want to get technical about singular
"amalgam", I think we could understand it as the same amalgam with different
proportions for different movies. The emphasis is on Hollywood's formula for
male leads.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2024-03-07 00:38, Hibou wrote:
> Le 07/03/2024 à 05:10, navi a écrit :
>>
>> I wish to God I had some idea what will happen to you as an actor.
>> You're a born one, certainly. Even our Bessie knows that. And surely
>> you and Franny are the only beauties in the family. But where will you
>> act? Have you thought about it? The movies? If so, I'm scared stiff
>> that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as victimized as the next
>> young actor into contributing to the reliable Hollywood amalgam of
>> prizefighter and mystic, gunman and underprivileged child, cowhand and
>> Man's Conscience, and the rest. Will you be content with that standard
>> box-office schmalz?
>>
>> J. D Salinger
>> Franny and Zooey p. 60
>>
>> This passage is from a letter written by one of the characters, so it
>> is not even by the narrator. We can't assume that the prose is
>> supposed to be flawless.
>>
>> I have a problem with:
>>
>> I'm scared stiff that if ever you gain any weight you'll be as
>> victimized as the next young actor into contributing to the reliable
>> Hollywood amalgam of prizefighter and mystic, gunman and
>> underprivileged child, cowhand and Man's Conscience, and the rest. /
>> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?
>
> Importance, I think, in this context.

I would think he meant literal weight, as in body mass. Consider the roles.

How often have you see a skinny prizefighter, gunman, or cowhand?

>> b) what does he mean by that amalgam? Is it a character composed of
>> all the characters he lists? Or do we have a series of characters each
>> of which has two sides (prizefighter and mystic, etc.)? Or is the
>> amalgam a movie that has those pairs? If we don't have a single
>> amalgam, but more, shouldn't it be 'amalgams'?
>
> My guess would be a series of formulaic characters, each with two sides,
> the hard man with the soft centre etc., designed after studying
> 'Scriptwriting for Beginners' Chapter 3.

--
Department of Redundancy Department.
How may I help and assist you?

Le 07/03/2024 à 16:58, lar3ryca a écrit :
> On 2024-03-07 00:38, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 07/03/2024 à 05:10, navi a écrit :
>>>
>>> a) What does he mean by 'weight'? Real weight or importance as an actor?
>>
>> Importance, I think, in this context.
>
> I would think he meant literal weight, as in body mass. Consider the roles.
>
> How often have you see a skinny prizefighter, gunman, or cowhand?

Fair enough.

Growing a heart of gold is bound to put on weight anyway. Heavy stuff, gold.

Thank you all very much,

I guess it is probably an amalgam of pairs, but it is still a bit problematic. Why 'contributing to'? I guess he'll become another embodiment of that amalgam, i.e. another actor who plays those roles (each role having two sides).

Maybe I am overthinking it, but it is a weird sentence.

I reread the part that preceded that passage. Zooey, the addressee of the letter, is indeed skinny,
"To start with, he was a small young man, and extremely slight of body. From the rear—
particularly where his vertebrae were visible—he might almost have passed for one of
those needy metropolitan children who are sent out every summer to endowed camps to
be fattened and sunned. Close up, either full-face or in profile, he was surpassingly
handsome, even spectacularly so. "

So 'weight' is definitely heaviness.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Rich Ulrich hat am 07.03.2024 um 15:44 geschrieben:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:23:23 +0000, arthurvarr@gmail.com (navi) wrote:
>
>> Thank you all very much,
>>
>> I myself thought we had a series of two-sided characters as well, but wouldn't we have to have amalgams then? We are not talking about a single amalgam.
>
> The stereotyping of actors into roles? I think 'single amalgam'
> is appropriate. If he puts on some pounds, he will fit those
> roles because of his looks.
>
>>
>> Incidentally, 'a damn sight better' is spelt 'a damn site better' in the text, but as I said that part is a letter written by a character, and in those days spelling checkers did not exist.

Ehm, it looks like a direct answer to me. WTF happened here?

Let me quote what I wrote. Then everyone is free to enlighten me about
the connection between what I wrote and what Rich wrote. I may be too
stupid, but I don't get it.

Hibou had written about schmaltz: "With a t, it (Thunderbird) knows it
in AmE, without it, it doesn't. It knows neither in BrE."

I answered: "And without a t, as you can imagine, every programme with
a German spell
checker knows it. I have some in my fridge."

Silvano wrote:

> Ehm, it looks like a direct answer to me. WTF happened here?

If you mean Rich Ulrich's message (which you answered), then it is an
answer to navi, and the message is perfectly normal and has the correct
reference list in the headers.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 10.03.2024 um 23:18 geschrieben:
> Silvano wrote:
>
>> Ehm, it looks like a direct answer to me. WTF happened here?
>
> If you mean Rich Ulrich's message (which you answered), then it is an
> answer to navi, and the message is perfectly normal and has the correct
> reference list in the headers.

My mistake, sorry. What happened? Rich Ulrich's message has nothng to do
with my previous one, apart from the subject line, but it looked to me
like a direct answer to me, because it appears as the next one in my
Thunderbird.