Annalisa asked: > 1. What do you think of Holden's brachilogic syntax? Um, sorry, but I don't have a linguistics textbook handy. Could you define your term, please? Mucho appreciado. > 2. Why does he make so large use of the word "old": old Phoebe, old > Maurice, old cap and the like? Well, I think Salinger was trying to capture the authentic sound of a disaffected American teen in the 1940s, so I would assume that was a typical figure of speech. It seems Holden uses it in different ways at different times: sometimes it's positive, as in "comfortingly familiar," and sometimes it's negative, probably meaning something like "tired" or "outdated." It's interesting that for all of Holden's misgivings about modernity, he doesn't display particular affection for tradition of any kind. What do we make of this? Is it a gloomy existentialist statement on Salinger's part? > 3. What is his epistemic position in general? Well, I've never tried to determine anyone's epistemic position before, so I'm not sure what kind of an answer you're looking for. If you mean, "How much does Holden know?" I take him as a fairly reliable narrator. I don't think he has a very broad perspective on things, but isn't that the potentially tragic situation of most adolescents, which the book is meant to dramatize? Philosophically, I'd say that although Holden doesn't realize it, he places himself squarely in Plato's camp with his overriding concern about "phoniness." Plato's thought is grounded in his concept of "Truth," which he sees as transcendent, universal, and singular. Every time Holden identifies something as "phony," he implies that a choice is being made: a choice to deny or obscure an identifiable Truth of some kind. At the same time, Holden himself can be very untruthful, so maybe we could identify something he values more than Truth. Or maybe we could say he comes to understand that phoniness is the price of living in the adult world, and that's why he doesn't want to. Another major epistemological issue for Holden is knowledge v. innocence. He comes down on the side of innocence every time -- at least for children younger than himself. Though he realizes it's not possible, he wishes he could erase every "Fuck You" on every school wall. He wishes his little sister could stay little. Apparently knowledge is a dangerous thing, to Holden. It might be interesting to trace the shift in epistemological implications of Salinger's fictions through time. I wonder, for example, if the Vedantic beliefs behind Teddy's and Buddy's critiques of Western pedagogy (i.e. educational theory) are also at play in Holden's preference for innocence over knowledge. Or perhaps Holden embodies the intellectual crisis which led Salinger to Eastern thought in the first place. Has anyone seen a good timeline that shows when the various stories were written in relation to his religious evolution? Jon