I've been reading about how the protagonist in Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caufield, is seen as a romantic, mislead, confused kid who is going through a phase. The understanding being "we've all been there and will eventually out grow it." A rebel without a cause.
I don't get the sense from him. While I can see that angle, Holden wasn't completely depraved socially as he did sympathize in spots, for the most part I saw him as a dick. If you're 17 and acting that way, you're likely to exhibit similar traits, albeit probably more restrained and refined, into adulthood. You're born with a specific character trait I believe and not much can be done with it. So it is with Holden.
In a previous post, I saw a little Holden in the film Rushmore with Max Fischer. Fischer at one point was just a prick. But he was 15 and clearly wasn't in control of his emotions, mostly driven by love, seeing he was mature beyond his years. He just couldn't marriage his actual age with his mental age. Yet, he was very much 15. Follow?
Holden speaks of some girls fondly and seems to have an issue with loss innocence, but even then, can a guy like that at that point really fall in love or was he confusing the idea of being in love? Similarly, Fischer was in love with someone too old for him; it was the idea of being with someone mature that drove him. He was unrealistic.
By the end of the film, Max seemed to have found his place and footing. I don't see that in Holden. I saw a guy well on his way to being a recluse. An anti-social person with little regard or care for the world. Every once in a while he peeks his head into the social fish bowl, he did exhibit nostalgic feelings, to remind himself of what he's missing - or not - and hide right back again into a shell like a turtle.
About nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a tricky thing. It can mean merely looking back and finding comfort in something because you don't like what you see in the present and are afraid to move forward or it can be you have a genuine love of the past; of where you've been by tracing back your steps to see how far you've come.
It's up to Holden to decide if he wants to be in or out...of life.
What does 'Holden is a prick' mean? Of course he was a prick, that is called adolescence, wait till your daughter becomes one.
ReplyDeleteSalinger's genius was in my view:
1) he created a very lively portrait of a terribly difficult teenager, possibly among the best in world literature
2) his slang is so textured a guy from an alien world like me got it shot in his veins forever (of course I was a teen when I read it, maybe now ...)
3) the book is only apparently spontaneous: it is instead artfully structured like a small Dante’s comedy, it’s profound, philosophic, amazingly layered to the extent you can always squeeze new ideas from it without ever getting tired.
Of course Salinger strongly criticized 40s-50s America, which you probably see as very positive model. Nothing wrong in that, I also liked most of it and I too think Salinger was excessive in his judgement. Nonetheless being ideologically dissimilar vs a work must not impede us to appreciate true literary value.
I am far from Dante’s (or Tolstoy’s) deep souls, but I can appreciate them. Worth is worth.
My tome wasn't against the book; which is great.
ReplyDeleteMy curiosity rests in Holden's ability to outgrow his "prickness." I know the consensus is he'll "outgrow" it but I'm not so sure.
Well, me and my wife weren't "prickly" teenagers so we're hoping the little one will follow in our footsteps!
My curiosity rests in Holden's ability to outgrow his "prickness"
ReplyDeleteYou are right. I was too quick to comment. I’d tend to agree tho the question I now see it more complicated as I grow older.
Some reply could be found in Salinger's life itself, since Holden and Salinger are almost the same person. But this life, people know little about, and the tiny info is biased - her daughter? her ex wife? I forgot.
My opinion he kinda remained an adolescent all his life. Which can have pros and cons, but especially cons, teenagers being too fragile. This is one limit of Salinger, possibly. The educational model in the West (from the Greco-Romans on) is the adult, not the boy or teen and we are told to ‘grow up’ or we are like a Peter Pan and similar.
Nonetheless deep (and brother) cultures like the Indian say: perfection for each individual is to be at the same time: 1) man, 2) woman, and 3) boy (or girl, according to gender).
Now a boy (or a girl) is much better and stable than a teen, and equally – possibly more - creative. The reason this formula intrigues me is I realised I am num 1 and num 3. It was formulated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian great philosopher and ex President of India. No bum or hippie. Which, as far as I’m concerned, requires reflection.
Interesting take on the Indian philosopher. Not sure I follow it - I think I get the gist of it.
ReplyDeleteIt was odd how Salinger basically removed himself from the public. I don't profess to know what was in his mind. He did exhibit an "anti-social" mindset.
His choice. His life. How close to Holden he was is a debate that will last I reckon.