Detachment and Death: Eastern Religious Ideas in J.D. Salinger’s “Teddy”

A literary analysis of one of my favorite short stories.

When approaching the topics of death and dying from a Western perspective, it quickly becomes evident that emotion plays an important, if not central, role. The emotion of fear largely contributes to what Catherine Doughty calls a “culture of death denial.”[1] The emotion of grief, as the film The Undertaking suggests, is a central concern in American funeral rituals.[2] Emotional responses to end of life issues play critical roles in determining legal outcomes in the US, as Ann Neumann suggests.[3] These examples indicate that emotion is deeply embedded in the way death is confronted in the West. However, some would argue that some of the emotional responses to death in the West are connected to both an unrealistic expectation that our physical lives are eternal, and an attachment to the idea of the self as a permanent unchanging being. Is it possible that emotional attachment impedes our ability to see the world as it really is? Is it possible that death is not a termination, but a transition?

American author J.D. Salinger addresses these questions in the short story “Teddy,” which was originally published in 1953 and is now included as the final story in the collected works Nine Stories.[4] Though a brief insight into the life of a ten-year-old child-genius named Theodore McArdle, who is presented as the reincarnation of a wise spiritual man nearing enlightenment, Salinger introduces a mostly Western audience to concepts of Eastern religious philosophy, mostly drawing on ideas from Zen Buddhism.[5] Death is a central theme throughout the work, as Salinger describes, through the character of Teddy, how having a worldview that emphasizes a constantly changing nature of reality can shape one’s approach to death. Three evident concepts, the ubiquity of impermanence, the role of emotional detachment, and the cultivation of a non-dualistic worldview, each contribute to the final scene of the story, in which death is abruptly and ambiguously confronted.

The setting of “Teddy” is a luxury cruise ship travelling across the Atlantic Ocean. Teddy and his family are returning to the United States after a trip to Europe, during which Teddy was interviewed by professors of religion and philosophy for his claims of advanced spiritual enlightenment.[6] As the story opens, young Teddy is looking out the porthole window, and soon begins to make some insightful observations that are ignored by his parents, but indicate a deep understanding of the concept of impermanence. As Teddy observes the sinking of orange peels that were dumped from the cruise ship into the ocean, he reflects both on the illusions of physical existence and the impermanent, unstable nature of his own life, observing aloud:

Some of [the orange peels] are starting to sink now. In a few minutes, the only place they’ll still be floating will be inside my mind. That’s quite interesting because if you look at it in a certain way, that’s where they started floating in the first place… After I go out this door, I may only exist in the minds of all my acquaintances. I may be an orange peel (173-175). [7]

Author Csapó Csaba argues that Teddy’s orange peel reflection challenges the traditionally Western notion that objects and phenomena that are experienced have a permanent independent essence. Instead, Csaba writes that Teddy’s observations reflect a key Buddhist principal, that “all phenomena are temporary occurrences, elements in an existence that is in continuous change.”[8] Teddy seems to have a deep grasp of this idea, and extends it, not only to the orange peels, but to his own life as well. He seems to understand the Buddhist idea that, just as there is no permanent unchanging essence in objects, there is no permanent unchanging essence in himself.[9] Salinger, through Teddy’s reflections, allows his audience to confront the possibility that the concept of the self as an independent, permanent, unchanging being is just an illusion. [10]

The reality of impermanence, from this perspective, naturally seems to lead into the idea of detachment. In an essay about Buddhist perspectives on death, Lesley Kawamura argues that if life is impermanent and constantly in flux, the practical implication is not to attach to things that will bring about pain when they inevitably pass away. This detachment applies not just to physical objects, but also to ideas and emotions.[11] Teddy exemplifies his detachment to physical objects throughout the short story, and his character is contrasted with that of his parents, who represent the ego and materialism of Western culture. [12] Teddy’s father, early in the story, is attached to his expensive luggage and his camera, always referring to both by their brand name and scolding Teddy for not being careful with them.[13] Teddy, on the other hand, is indifferent to his father’s concerns and does not seem to have any attachment to physical objects. He also is critical of the emotional attachment to the idea of the self. Throughout the story, Teddy, through his dialogue with other characters, is critical of emotional attachment and the central role it plays in American life, arguing that this attachment is always certain to lead to suffering, allowing people to become stuck in the cyclical nature of birth and rebirth.[14]

Much of the dialogue in the short story occurs between Teddy and a man named Bob Nicholson, a passenger on the ship who recognizes Teddy and asks him questions. During this conversation, the two discuss the topic and death and emotional attachment.[15] In one exchange, Teddy asks Nicholson to consider the possibility of him dying in a tragic accident on the ship (a consideration which many critics argue is a forecast of Teddy’s own death).[16] Teddy asks Nicholson what would be so tragic about his death, if death is something that will inevitably happen to everyone. Nicholson responds by saying Teddy’s death would certainly be sad for his family, and asks if Teddy has ever considered this. Teddy responds with: “Yes, of course I have. But that’s only because they have names and emotions for everything that happens” (194).[17]

James Bryan argues that the implications of Teddy’s comments on emotional detachment are related to Teddy’s overall attitudes towards death. By his comments, Teddy seems to imply that his parents, likely so many others, feel the intense emotion of grief and pain related to death because they have formed such deep emotional attachments to that which will inevitably pass away. From Teddy’s perspective, this emotional attachment leads not only to pain and grief at the passing of others, but also to a fear of one’s own death.[18] Death, as Teddy describes to Nicholson, is not something that should be feared, but rather, accepted as a reality of life that allows the continuously evolving consciousness to transition to a new form. Fear comes when death is seen as a permanent cessation, and Teddy seems to argue that people see death in this way because they forget that their true nature as constantly evolving through death and transition.[19] Teddy discusses the fear of death in some of the intellectuals who interviewed him in Europe by saying:

Even though they teach religion and philosophy and all, they’re still pretty afraid to die…It’s so silly. All you do is get the heck out of your body when you die. My gosh, everybody’s done it thousands and thousands of times. Just because they don’t remember it doesn’t mean they haven’t done it. It’s so silly (194)[20]

Bryan discusses how the concept of reincarnation in Zen Buddhism challenges the dualistic thinking on life and death that is evident in Western cultures. The distinctions between life and death are part of the illusions of separation and must be overcome through meditative practices. Teddy’s emphasis on non-dualistic thinking is also evident through his criticism of logic and reason for their tendency to cloud human’s ability to see things as they really are. Logic and reason cause us to create categories and labels for experiences, and these labels can become illusions that hide the complexly connected nature of reality.[21] Once we adopt a non-dualistic worldview, we will begin to stop, as Teddy says, “seeing things stopping off all the time”(119).[22] Rather,

This approach related to death because, rather than seeing life stop off at death, it opens the possibly that death is a transition into the continuation of life in a new form. It also opens the possibility that reality is more than what we can empirically observe through our senses.[23] After thoughtfully examining the concept of impermanence, detachment, and non-dualism through his conversation with Nicholson, Teddy leaves for his swimming lesson, and the story ends, but not before a surprising crash and scream, which many critics interpret as signaling of Teddy’s death.[24] The dramatic but unclear confrontation with death at the end of the story o

The end of the story is shocking, confusing, and sad for the reader, as any attachment or affinity the reader forms throughout the story for this exceptional child are severed by his sudden death. However, with the themes of impermanence and detachment in mind, Salinger seems to urge readers to confront their emotional responses to death and examine what seems to be at the root—an unrealistic expectation that the lives and the lives of those we love are stable and permanent. Eastern religious ideas, as reflected throughout “Teddy,” point to a reality that is constantly changing. The wise ten-year-old Teddy may advise Western minds to fully embrace and accept this reality, especially when faced with death. Letting go of our emotional attachments, even partly and gradually, and embracing the necessary chaos of life, may be a way to cope with the emotional burden of death.

[1] Caitlyn Doughty, Smoke Gets in Your Eyes & Other Lessons from the Crematory (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2014), 64-65.

[2] The Undertaking. Produced by Miri Navasky and Karen O’Connor. 2007. Boston: Frontline.

[3] Ann Neumann, The Good Death: An Exploration of Dying in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 2016), 103-133.

[4] J.D. Salinger, “Teddy,” in Nine Stories (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1953), 166-198.

[5] Eberhard Alsen, “Nine Stories,” in A Reader’s Guide to J.D. Salinger, (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2002), 79-104.

[6] Eberhard Alsen, “Nine Stories,” 79-104.

[7] Salinger, “Teddy,” 174-175.

[8] Csapó Csaba, “The Ideas of Zen Buddhism in ‘Teddy’ by J.D. Salinger” Academia.edu, 1-12, accessed May 1, 2018.

[9] Lesley Kawamura, “Facing Life and Death: A Buddhist’s Understanding of Palliative Care and Bereavement,” in Death and Bereavement Around the World, ed. John D. Morgan and Pittu Laungani, (Amityville: Baywood Publishing Company, 2002), 39-56.

[10] Csaba, “The Ideas of Zen Buddhism in “Teddy” by J.D. Salinger”

[11] Kawamura, “Facing Life and Death,” 39-56.

[12] Eberhard Alsen, “Nine Stories,” 79-104.

[13] Salinger, “Teddy,” 193.

[14] Salinger, “Teddy,” 194.

[15] Salinger, “Teddy,” 183-198.

[16] James Bryan, "A Reading of Salinger’s ‘Teddy,’" Duke University Press 40, no. 3 (Nov., 1968): 16, accessed May 1, 2018, Mercyhurst University JSTOR.

[17] Salinger, “Teddy,” 194.

[18] James Bryan, "A Reading of Salinger’s ‘Teddy,’" 252-369.

[19] Salinger, “Teddy,” 192-194.

[20] Salinger, “Teddy,” 194.

[21] James Bryan, "A Reading of Salinger’s ‘Teddy,’" 252-369.

[22] Salinger, “Teddy,” 194.

[23] Csaba, “The Ideas of Zen Buddhism in “Teddy” by J.D. Salinger”

[24] James Bryan, "A Reading of Salinger’s ‘Teddy,’" 252-369.