Re: second opinion
Tiril Broch Aakre (Tiril.Aakre@student.uib.no)
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:07:52 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Win Boogie wrote:
> In a message dated 98-04-29 01:39:16 EDT, you write:
>
> <<
> '...The book I think should most bear a warning label would
> be JD Salinger's _A Catcher in the Rye_. I read this for
> the first time when I was twelve and I thought Holden Caulfield
> was a prat. As this is the favourite novel of so many of my
> friends, I read it at least four more times over the years and
> my opinion has changed: I later thought him a git and now
> I believe him to be a wanker. This character is worse than
> Fanny Price [of Mansfiedl Park] in his holy innoscence and
> wisdom act, at least Fanny WONDERS if she could possibly
> be acting wrongly and Holden never does...'
>
> What do you think of that, then ?
> >>
> I think I largely agree. I am deathly afraid of young people carrying around
> dogeared copies of Catcher in the Rye in their back pockets. My allegiances to
> JDS lay almost solely with the charming little Glass family.
> In regards to last week's string about Catcher being the superior work to
> Franny and Zooey, I couldn't disagree more. I had intentions of responding but
> never got the time. Brendan also posted something a while ago about Teddy and
> Seymour being whiners or pessimists or something concerning their respective
> deaths (suicides). (I just can't remember right now, I don't have the post.
> I'm not trying to belittle your opinion Brendan.) Perhaps in the next few days
> I can get the post from the archive.
> Basically, my problem with Holden is that it's too negaitive, there are
> no answers offered. It's just a big long rant on everything. Franny is clearly
> out of line, but Zooey spends most of his screen time letting her know that.
> We get glimpses of Seymour's journal that tell us he is struggling. I don't
> get a tremendous sense of self-righteousness from Seymour at all. He may have
> acheived some degree of Awareness, but he can't rectify that with the real
> world. We're shown that in several places. Holden just runs around pointing
> his finger a lot, and he's right about nearly everything he condemns, but it's
> killing him. There is no answer offered to Holden. I think people who read
> Catcher who view Holden as the answer are a little bit misguided. In my view,
> that is.
> It is also my understanding that Jerome David himself felt the Glass
> family more worthy of his time and effort. We know that he had devoted himself
> to them entirely. I just wonder (pure speculation on my part) if JD, after the
> cultural phenomenon of Catcher, didn't feel that Holden was a little
> irresponsible of him. Then set upon offering more of a "guide" with the Glass
> stories.
> Okay, that's all for now. Take care all.
> Robert
>
>
I want to respond to Robert's comments on Catcher in the rye and
Holden being too negative and that there aren't any answers offered. I
don't think the book primarily has a negative, destructive drive.No
answers, what do you mean about that? I think
it contains lots of"answers", hope, ducks and sisters and nuns, little
things that are truly nice.
Not to forget THE HEALING POWER OF NARRATIVE (you better believe it!).
I certainly felt like a
better person
after having read the book (I only read it last year) . I even felt
better after having heard about the catcher-motive for the first time
several years ago. Wanting to catch, to hold on to something, I would say
that that's a positive and meaningful motivation.The best reading
experience for me is when, as Peter Hoeg so brilliantly has put it,
you read something someone has written and, even though you never have met
them, it's
like they reach out a friendly hand and says "You are not
alone".That's a special quality with Catcher in the rye, and Holden even
says something similar to this himself about great litterature.
These are my first
thoughts about the matter, but I would like to continue this discussion
after having thought more about it.
Tiril