Re: Focus Question #1 What does phony really mean? (fwd)
Mattis Fishman (mattis@argos.argoscomp.com)
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:52:21 -0500 (EST)
One of Will's worthy colleagues sent along:
>From: me <ho3318ni@uscolo.edu>
>Subject: Focus Question #1 What does phony really mean? (fwd)
> Hey All! Will wanted me to forward my ideas on phoniness and the Catcher
>In the Rye so here it is:)
Hey Me!
I am not exactly what Dr. Hoffman had up his sleeve when he
suggested forwarding your thoughts, but I was able to glean a
few ideas from your essay.
First, the focus question itself is rather leading, isn't it?
I mean if you ask what something "really" means, then you imply
that its patent, most obvious, meaning is incorrect. The simple
meaning of phony is false or artificial, and in many situations, this
meaning certainly suffices. Stradlater's neatness is a disingenuous
posture which contradicts his secret slovenliness, the headmaster's
courtesy to rich parents, which really is only self-serving
social climbing or "gold digging". In short, I believe one
can understand the epithet phony as meaning, pretending to be
something which one is not.
If we understand phony in this way, then Holden emerges a noble,
if somewhat quixotic, figure, whose strong aversion to falsehood
alienates him from a deceptive world.
However to ask what phony "really" means, seems to imply that
Holden has his own hidden inability to relate to the world, which
he attributes to its phoniness. As though, for instance, having
failed in a particular field such as academics or athletics he
would seek to denigrate anyone who succeeds in that field as a
phony, since a "real" person, such as himself, would have nothing
to do with it. In such a case, we might say that Holden was
labeling a particular person or behavior with the word "phony",
while actually meaning to say "unappealing", "incomprehensible"
or some other adjective that would place the cause of his reaction
at least partially on his own shoulders. If we say this, it would
seem natural to assume that Holden was unaware of this misplaced
antipathy, which would in turn make him a true "phony" - saying
one thing and meaning another.
Personally, I object to the question and its implications (or
perhaps just to my own inferences). I believe that the phoniness which
Holden describes is "genuine phoniness" (oxymoron alert!), that
people an life are full of posturing, pretending and self-deception.
As I cited above, Stradlater, school, and countless other episodes
in The Catcher in the Rye, demonstrate hypocrisy and artificiality.
What Holden lacks, is not the ability to be honest with himself
and recognize his own failings as a source of discontent with
the world (which, according to the second approach he mistakenly
attributes to the world's phoniness), but the ability to reconcile
his own sense of right and honesty with the actual failings which
he is helpless to ignore.
What he needs is an Esme, to help him get his you-know-whats intact,
which is what he finds in Phoebe. He needs to shift his attention
from the external and its inevitable failings. I believe they call
this getting well adjusted. Of course, when I read this book,
and many other stories such as "A Perfect Day for Bananafish"
I often can't decide if it's better to be the flawed hero and stick
with one's own sensibilities and sensitivities, or to tone oneself
down for the sake of little mental stability. Of course, it does not
necessarily have to be a choice between only these two options,
but enlightenment does not come easily.
all the best,
Mattis