Re: Catcher Paper

Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:52:00 +1100 

Jim wrote
> I don't think Holden would be staying with DB, that seemed impossible to
> me,

Well, that's kind of the point I was making. Not that it's impossible - but
what stops it from being Holden talking to some out-of-work actress? A bum
on the street? The paramedic who's just found him lying on the pavement
after jumping out of a twelve storey building? Why aren't any of these any
more or less likely than the analyst explanation? The way I see it -
Holden's talking to ME. The way he talks to me makes me feel flattered that
he has seemingly chosen me to confide in. And that's all that matters.

I concede that Holden's parents were more than likely denizens of Spock -
but why TB? If you want to pursue that `why does the guy in Kafka turn into
a cockroach' type reasoning - cancer seems to be a much more likely
suspect. Holden's already mentioned that his mother is still very
protective after Allie died. Holden's read an article which convinces him
he has cancer. Put Protective Mother A together with Overreacting Child B
and you have your reason for Holden being in any kind of treatment. But
this still doesn't make sense - why is it in any way likely that Holden
would be telling all this to his doctor, be it for cancer or TB? Does he
believe he hasn't long to live?

> Regarding non-rationality and anti-intellectualism -- I don't think this
> stands in opposition to the use of intelligence.  Remember Salinger's
> study of Eastern philosophies is broader than Zen.  In the Bhagavad Gita
> and (I think) at least some of the principle Upanishads intelligence is
> touted as a necessary quality for spiritual development.

`Intelligence' and `Intellectualism' are two totally different things.
Intelligent people are intelligent, but intellectuals aren't necessarily
intelligent (and vice versa). Salinger seems to not only mistrust the
intelligensia as having pretentions towards intelligence (and especially,
seeing it as superior to spiritual gain) but seems to see the cult of the
intellectual as threatening and phony. This has very little to do with
actual `intelligence'.  To me `intelligent' implies something not
consciously attainable - more like `wise'. `Wise' is a concept that
Salinger seems to see as infinitely superior to the more literally cerebral
`intellectual' ... why ... `it's a Wise Child'! (: So no, I agree - section
manism *isn't* about intelligence. It's about intellectualism, which is
different and always falls prey to .

> cleverness being paraded around to elevate the self

I too have long wished to have a look at the role of acting - when you
think about it very closely allied with the idea of `phony' - in Salinger.
Even the little man in RHTRBC I've always thought of in terms of a mime
artist. Having just read `Slight Rebellion Off Madison' for the first time
I realised how different the use of the third person makes Holden seem -
from the outside, he is a total phoney. It's something that comes across a
little in the book, but overwhelmingly so in the short story. 

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest