Catcher in the Rye

[Anonymous No.15792266]

Anyone else feel "this is literally me" when you read it?

[Anonymous No.15792273]

When I was 15.

[Anonymous No.15792282]

>>15792273
I'm 18 so I relate to holden a lot

[Anonymous No.15792283]

>>15792273
This, but I still can strongly empathise with Holden nonetheless

[Anonymous No.15792303]

Never read it in high school or college. Read it and all of Salinger's published work as a 24 year old last year.

I think there's something both admirable and something to be hated in Holden. I think it's admirable at first that Holden/Salinger want to preserve the innocence of Phoebe/America, but at the end he learns to let go:

:"Then the carousel started, and I watched her go round and round...all the kids tried to grab for the gold ring, and so was old Phoebe, and I was sort of afraid she’d fall off the goddam horse, but I didn’t say or do anything. The thing with kids is, if they want to grab for the gold ring, you have to let them do it, and not say anything, if they fall off, they fall off, but it is bad to say anything to them.”

Holden learns to let go of this idealism about innocence, and he shows real growth along the way, but the problem is is he's such a shit about it. It really made me look back on my teenage years and how most teens don't have a shred of empathy or maturity.

[Anonymous No.15792306]

>>15792282
you're actually 16 aren't you

[Anonymous No.15792312]

I hated this book when I first read it, but I think I would be able to empathize with Holden a lot more if I gave it another shot

[Anonymous No.15792325]

>“Let me repeat. I have not read all the work of this present generation of writing. I have not had time yet. So I must speak only of the ones I do know. I am thinking now of what I rate the best one, Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, perhaps because this one expresses so completely what I have tried to say. A youth, father to what will—must—someday be a man, more intelligent than some and more sensitive than most, who—he would not even have called it by instinct because he did not know he possessed it because God perhaps had put it there, loved man and wished to be a part of mankind, humanity, who tried to join the human race and failed. To me, his tragedy was not that he was, as he perhaps thought, not tough enough or brave enough or deserving enough to be accepted into humanity. His tragedy was that when he attempted to enter the human race, there was no human race there. There was nothing for him to do save buzz, frantic and inviolate, inside the glass wall of his tumbler, until he either gave up or was himself, by himself, by his own frantic buzzing, destroyed.”
>― William Faulkner

who was in the right here?

[Anonymous No.15792328]

>>15792306
No
born in 2001 turned 18 in december

[Anonymous No.15792329]

>>15792266
Yes, I too am a pedophile.

[Anonymous No.15792335]

>>15792329
holden isn't a pedo

[Anonymous No.15792341]

>>15792335
Yes he is.m, if you count raping your ten-year old sister repeatedly as pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.15792344]

>>15792325
>who was in the right here?
What do you mean? from what I get Faulkner liked the book and just interpreted it in his own way.

[Anonymous No.15792351]

>>15792341
literally schizophrenic if you think that's what happened

[Anonymous No.15792354]

>>15792303
>how most teens don't have a shred of empathy or maturity.
This is most people. I went into the world thinking that the average person was a caring, empathetic decent person, who would help someone weaker and more helpless than themselves if there were no risks. The more I observe people around me, however, the more I see the true nature of people. They are very selective with their empathy, sparing their precious reservoir of empathy for the most "desirable" or "attractive" people, whatever that entails. Maybe it's just an American thing, maybe it's just me being cynical. But honestly the same people who absolutely hate Holden and his behavior are also the ones who emulate it, albeit in a more nuanced manner.

[Anonymous No.15792365]

>>15792329
>>15792341
do you at least have an excerpt to support this? Even a retarded fan theory screenshot will do

[Anonymous No.15792370]

>>15792351
Read the Freudian slips. They're pretty blatant if you aggressively read Holden as an unreliable narrator.

Is Holden in a TB ward? Bullshit, he's in a fucking mental asylum. Also he's probably finger fucking her when he invades his parents house at night when they're out at the party: its obvious because he tries to ring up an "easy" girl to give the time to before he gives the time to Phoebe.

Probably feels guilty he wouldn't let his brother rape her.

You just missed this glaring feature of the text, probably because you don’t read a text on its own terms.

[Anonymous No.15792380]

>>15792365
Repeated freudian slips
* A sexualised date with his sister that includes severe lacunae
* Flashbacks combined with elisions on sexual themes, that match his past interactions with Phoebe
* Continuous latent pedophile threats projected from Holden
* Catch her body in the rye (read the original poem vs. Holden’s recitation).
* The guilt from the brother being related to not letting the brother participate in an activity
* And most obviously, supporting the above, the unreliable narrator set in an asylum and Holden repeatedly providing psychological clues in his unreliable narration

[Anonymous No.15792385]

>>15792380
>>15792370
based schizo projecting his own fantasies

[Anonymous No.15792386]

>>15792365
it’s in the fucking title

[Anonymous No.15792401]

Was Salinger right? Is the loss of innocence and a focus on materialistic living creating a shallow American culture?

[Anonymous No.15792404]

>>15792385
You realize Salinger was a confirmed pedo right? Like you’re so close you don’t know how dumb you sound. Of course it’s projection. You don’t think a working writer in the 40s and 50s didnt have an intimate understanding of Freudianisn, let alone one writing for an elite audience?

[Anonymous No.15792414]

>>15792404
It's a funny meme and I've taken part of it but that's really it. You're tying two granny knots with a loop if you actually believe this shit.

[Anonymous No.15792416]

>>15792385
>critical reading accumen
>schizo
Man, they really don’t teach basic New Criticism in schools anymore, do they? How do you think people found out about the wraith in IJ or Torquato Tasso in Crying of Lot 49? These books are well-springs and their authors are playing a much higher game than you realize, though the irony here is Salinger is rather generous in the text. Like have you stopped to think about the Great Gatsby reference for more than two seconds or do they not teach allusion in school as well?

[Anonymous No.15792426]

>>15792414
I am reading with the text. You are moving your eyes across the page. If you really think this is far fetched for a man notorious for sleeping with rich 14 year olds and publishing completely unambiguous pedo in the New Yorker than you’re either deluded or just lazy.

[Anonymous No.15792442]

>>15792426
>I am reading with the text.
>talks about the author's personal life
anon pls remain calm

[Anonymous No.15792470]

>>15792442
I gave you ample evidence within the text. Of course the biographical scaffolding helps. Why do you think English critics (read: good critics) always accounted for the author’s life and/or artistic interests prior to a few opportunistic academics suggesting we could do otherwise? With a weakwater theory that is mostly rejected now anyways. But stay mad that you read about as actively as a middle aged woman on the beach.

[Anonymous No.15792477]

>>15792470
I am a 'well-preserved' woman at a beach, thank you very much, and there is nothing in the text that even vaguely suggests Holden abuses his sister.

[Anonymous No.15792494]

>>15792477
>gives evidence
>“you gave no evidence!”
Good talk anon.

[Anonymous No.15792504]

>>15792266
I didn't relate to it when I was forced to read it at 15 but I did sympathise with Holden then; I would say that I relate to him somewhat now but I'm honestly closer to The Underground Man than I am Caulfield.

[Anonymous No.15792507]

>>15792477
May I recommend another hobby? Maybe vidya or backgammon.

[Anonymous No.15792511]

>>15792470
biographical criticism is extremely limited in that it purports practically everything in the text to parallel or be metaphorical of some aspect in the author's life
Robert Frost is the perfect example. Here's a man whose life was so miserable and hate-filled, that by all accounts he should've offed himself. Yet he made art that was predominantly inspiring and redemptive. His art exists in total contrast to his biography. Biographical criticism can be useful, but it limits and distorts how a text can be read

[Anonymous No.15792527]

>>15792511
K but this says nothing about the textual examples I gave. Yes—the biographical criticism is epistemic window dressing, but cmon yall are acting like Salinger encoding pedo is as farfetched as Humbert totally not loving Lola.

[Anonymous No.15792530]

>>15792442
Hey, not even that anon, but you’re a pathetic fuckinf idiot; you should commit a quick suicide

[Anonymous No.15792538]

>>15792530
>;
I think you meant to put a comma here, how embarrassing for you

[Anonymous No.15792541]

>>15792266
Holden is a spaz with assburgers

[Anonymous No.15792542]

>>15792511
>biographical criticism is extremely limited in that it purports practically everything in the text to parallel or be metaphorical of some aspect in the author's life
pretty good strawman, desu

[Anonymous No.15792547]

I can't tell whether Catcher in the Rye threads are legitimate posts from children or some kind of next level trolling.

[Anonymous No.15792550]

>>15792541
Now this is projection

[Anonymous No.15792553]

>>15792538
>le typo/argument meemee
new here, or just looking for a way out?

[Anonymous No.15792563]

>>15792538
lol, no; do you not know how English works?

[Anonymous No.15792569]

I was reading the New Testament recently, and there were severe lacunae during the sermon on the mount. Do you think Jesus raped a child during the sermon? He even mentions at another time not to harm the little ones, this could be projection.

[Anonymous No.15792579]

>>15792569
Idk dude the rest of the text doesn’t suggest it but hey maybe one day you could work it out. Nice counterargument tho.

[Anonymous No.15792587]

>>15792569
But hey at least you’re not the first to suggest that Jewish heresiarchs and pharisees are pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.15792591]

>>15792579
He makes repeated Freudian innuendos, what do you think 'camel through the eye of a needle' means? He is talking about child abuse, you need to read the text more closely.

[Anonymous No.15792592]

>>15792569
And here’s a really shitty strawman
Considering the Bible is more of an ancient historical text than catcher, stands to reason it’d have some unintended lacunae

[Anonymous No.15792600]

>>15792550
>t. a spaz with assburgers

[Anonymous No.15792606]

>>15792591
Lol, look at this coping with his shattered worldview. It’s your fault for not learning more about an author you ostensibly like, poser bitch

[Anonymous No.15792608]

>>15792591
>you need to read the text more closely
Amen, anon. I’ll concede to that.

[Anonymous No.15792615]

>>15792600
>struck a chord
: (

[Anonymous No.15792630]

>>15792606
If we read the text of this post closely we can clearly discern that anon is a pederast
>shattered worldview
shattered nephew
>poser bitch
poke her itch

Note also the neurosis about 'fault' and and the hostile lashing out.

[Anonymous No.15792640]

>>15792542
>pretty good strawman, desu
except that is actually what the other poster was saying
drink clorox

[Anonymous No.15792642]

>>15792630
>larps as a critical reader
Oh the irony.

[Anonymous No.15792648]

>it’s another “I liked the book cause I don’t know shit about it” thread
giddy up

[Anonymous No.15792656]

>>15792640
it’s was literally a quote from you fucking braindead ass

[Anonymous No.15792696]

>>15792642
I haven't seen a schizo in a thread this bad since at least 2 weeks ago and I'm on this site 9 hrs a day.
>54 replies
>15 posters
half this thread is you auto updating on your shitty circumstantial evidence of Phoebe being sexually abused. I can see your argument but there is truly no basis for it. Nothing actually solid pointing to the fact that Holden did anything to his sister besides overly care for her. It's all baseless conjecture, but please let it be your headcanon. I'm sure you've deluded yourself into finding out the mystery of the novel that has eluded the thousands of critics and half of the American population for decades.

[Anonymous No.15792731]

>>15792696
They’re not all me anon. Nothing else for me to say. I guess I could do the screenshot thing if you wanted but what’s the point? I’ve given evidence, you’re obviously not about to reread the book off my suggestion that your first reading was bad. It’s not baseless, hence the textual evidence. And I’m not the first critic to suggest this, though do I really have to remind you how dull most American critics are or how their motivations almost always are not to engage with the text but to fit a word count? If you cared, you’d investigate for yourself. But obviously you’re more interested in shitposting contrarianism than you are critically reading/thinking.

What blows me away is the kind of people willing to type out posts like this are the same people who lament the state of /lit/. You’re presented with an alternative reading and you just go into meme mode because, at the end of the day, you don’t read. You come here to shitpost.

[Anonymous No.15792739]

>>15792504
same ):

[Anonymous No.15792740]

>>15792696
But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Reread when Holden goes over to Phoebe's place, drunk. Holden first calls up other easy girls for sex, fails, wants to call up Phoebe at exactly the same moment in his evening he got a hooker the night before, goes over, and there are gaps in the conversation where other things should have taken place. The conversation is halting, as if Holden has deleted portions of what happened from the dialogue and narrative.

Holden has censored that incident, and you can tell, from the gaps in the record.

Does nobody teach aggressive or even hostile reading as an approach to unreliable narration? Shit, Salinger is repeatedly prompting you to aggressively read Holden by having Holden repeatedly indicate that he is unreliable.

[Anonymous No.15792749]

>>15792696
I don't know if you're ignorant about mid twentieth century US slang, but in the novel Holden already indicates that "giving a girl the time" is to fuck them, and Holden rings up girls late at night to give them the time.

There's also the 20 disturbing sexual incidents Holden discusses.

[Anonymous No.15792756]

>>15792328
>born in 2001 turned 18 in december

[Anonymous No.15792761]

>>15792696
Holden raping his sister explains his self-loathing, it explains the double meaning of catcher in the rye, it explains his guilt over his brother's death, it explains his inability to complete sex with women his own age, it explains his fear of older male sexual interest, it also explains why a bourgeois family that could have sent him to military college chose instead to psychiatrically hospitalise him.

It explains why Holden wants to know off adult males where the ducks go in winter.

It has powerful explanatory meaning. It also acts as a deep irony given the number of sentimental adolescent bourgeois and professional-managerial class who empathise with Holden as if they were in his position, rather than understanding him and reviling him: that such adolescents are unwilling to engage in a deep reading of a complex text because at the heart of their nice suburban Lawyer Lifestyle like Holden's own, are socially unacceptable actions: thus "phonies."

[Anonymous No.15792776]

>>15792696
Textual citations incoming:

THE GREAT GATSBY REFERENCE
"I was crazy about The Great Gatsby. Old Gatsby. Old sport. That killed me."

Who else does Holden call in this manner? Old Phoebe. Any of you guys remember that scene where Nick and Gatsby both wake up in their underwear?

FREUDIAN SLIPS

"I couldn't wait to get to the park to see if old Phoebe was around so that I could give it to her."

In the middle of a scene otherwise completely unrelated to Phoebe "I started thinking how old Phoebe would feel if I got pneumonia and died. It was a childish way to think, but I couldn't stop myself. She'd feel pretty bad if something like that happened. SHE LIKES ME A LOT. I MEAN SHE'S QUITE FOND OF ME. SHE REALLY IS Anyway, I couldn't get that off my mind, so finally what I figured I'd do, I figured I'd better sneak home and see her, in case I died and all." By this time, Holden asserts he isn't even drunk or tired before, but this is some frighteningly drunken/tired logic he's displaying, unless, of course, he had other reasons for going to see Phoebe. (emphasis mine)

"...I figured that if I didn't bump smack into my parents and all I'd be able to SAY HELLO TO OLD PHOEBE AND THEN BEAT IT and nobody'd even know I'd been around."

"She says she likes to spread out. That kills me. What'd old Phoebe got to spread out? Nothing." You should all know, being literate, that "nothing" is Shakespearean slang for vagina. This would be a stretch unless there was a previous Shakespeare reference in the book... remember the nuns? Even if you don't want to accept that, these sentences still have some blatantly suggestive overtones.

"I mean Phoebe always has some dress on that can kill you."

"She's very affectionate. I mean she's quite affectionate, for a child. Sometimes she's even -too- affectionate."

"I noticed she had this big hunk of adhesive tape on her elbow. The reason I noticed it, her pajamas didn't have any sleeves." Seems like some unnecessary detail.

"Then, just for the hell of it, I gave her a pinch on the behind. It was sticking way out in the breeze, the way she was laying on her side. She has hardly any behind. I didn't do it hard, but she tried to hit my hand anyway. She missed. Then all of a sudden, she said, 'Oh, why did you -do- it?' She meant why did I get the ax again. It made me sort of sad, the way she said it."

There's more, of course, but this seems enough.

FREUDIAN SLIPS THAT SHOW EVIDENCE OF HOLDEN PREVIOUSLY BEING MOLESTED

"...my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They're quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They're -nice- and all -- I'm not saying that -- but they're also touchy as hell."

"Now he's out in Hollywood, D.B., being a prostitute."

"When something perverty like that happens, I start sweating like a bastard. That kind of stuff's happened to me about twenty times since I was a kid. I can't stand it."

[Anonymous No.15792795]

>>15792776
How do you read any of that as being about abuse? It is literally just a brother talking about/to his sister

[Anonymous No.15792801]

>>15792696
With all that being said, take it or leave it. Have a good night children.

[Anonymous No.15792809]

>>15792795
What’s he giving to Phoebe anon? Are you just trolling now because I gave you more than you need to figure it out yourself? And yet you still resent.

[Anonymous No.15792814]

>>15792809
Im pretty sure he had a record he wanted to give her

[Anonymous No.15792844]

>>15792814
>what is subtext
>what is repetition
>what is slang
What do you gain from literally reading a book that pulls and screams to do otherwise, right from the first page? Please enlighten me. There’s nothing based or redpilled about being as literate and critically aware as, again, a Koontz-reading beach mom.

[Anonymous No.15792857]

>>15792795
>literally just a brother talking about/to his sister
No it’s not. It’s about a brother WHO TELLS US FROM THE FUCKING BEGINNING IS UNWELL AND OUT OF COMMISSION on the run and sneaking around interacting with his kid sister, who just so happens to have symbolic import from the title. But no let’s just ignore every other detail other than that it’s a brother and a sister interacting. Bravo Mr. Critical.

[Anonymous No.15792896]

>>15792266
No. He seemed like an insufferable faggot when I first read it at age 15, seemed like an insufferable faggot when I read it at age 25.

[Anonymous No.15792910]

>>15792857
>just so happens to have symbolic import from the title
I know I've read something about the title in a previous thread but can you explain the double meaning of the title again?

[Anonymous No.15792944]

>>15792776
based book reading anon
>>15792795
cringe petulance anon

[Anonymous No.15792960]

>>15792944
he's completely wrong

[Anonymous No.15792969]

>>15792960
if you’re the petulant one you’re fucking pathetic
you’ve spent half of this thread bitching about how you won’t dare consider something unless given explicit textual reference which, once you receive, is suddenly not enough. you’re a fuck, my dawg

[Anonymous No.15792975]

>>15792960
>>15792969
but just to be clear, if you’re the one who went to the length of justifying your belief through textual citations, good on you
if you’re the other one, piss off

[Anonymous No.15792976]

>>15792910
“Catcher in the Rye,” (or, y’know, “Catch Her in the Rye”) he gets wrong from the folk song titled “Comin' Thro' the Rye" (I’m sure Salinger contemplated leaving “comin’” as the title but then again I’m sure he was paranoid enough about being so explicit) but protests he's saying it correctly. Likewise, he insists that the song includes “if a body catch a body” (oh, look here, who are we catching again? Catch her body) as opposed to “if a body meet a body,” which may be a little more sane view of sexual intercourse, of course, if one hasn’t already experienced sexual trauma, feels guilty about their own renewed pathology, and relates sexually as a catching rather than a meeting.

tl;dr it’s just another Freudian slip. You can read whatever into it you want if you tar a deep dive on Robert Burns.

[Anonymous No.15792986]

>>15792969
because it's not explicit textual reference lol, he's insane

[Anonymous No.15792993]

>>15792986
Idk how you read literature (i.e., poetic language, full of devices and affects beyond literal speech) and complain about “explicitness.” The only thing explicit here is willful ignorance because you’re realizing just how bad your first reading was.

[Anonymous No.15792996]

>>15792993
Your retarded. I'm literally smirking right now.

[Anonymous No.15793000]

>>15792976
Cool
Thanks, anon

[Anonymous No.15793005]

>>15792993
A double meaning of phrases like 'give it to her' is not enough to claim he raped his fucking sister you autist

[Anonymous No.15793007]

>>15792986
>”no no no the point of literature totally is to just drop meaning in front of your face rather than artfully craft the language toward multiple interpretive possibilities”
Again, on a literature board, guys

[Anonymous No.15793011]

>>15792266
A lot of people feel that way when reading it. That's why it's such a popular book.

[Anonymous No.15793017]

>>15793005
read nine stories

[Anonymous No.15793027]

>>15793005
Okay, but let’s talk about how it is a good reason given all the other evidence I’ve provided, or perhaps we can discuss the value of devising explanatory theories that simultaneously unify and illuminate the interpretive power of the text. In other words,
>what is reading critically

[Anonymous No.15793035]

>>15792328
When is hiroshimoot gonna change the rules to "must be older than 9/11 to post here"? It's the only way to make me feel comfortable, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.15793038]

>>15793027
the other pieces of 'evidence' you've provided are similarly inane stretches

[Anonymous No.15793040]

>>15792266
>literally me
Are you a highly intelligent, resentful, sexually repressed homosexual teenager?
If so I can supply you with some notes.

[Anonymous No.15793046]

>>15793027
Of course, the author is aware of all this while he is crafting. Really, it’s telling how little faith you have in Salinger to harness both whatever marketed nostalgia that made you fond of this book in the first place (at least fond enough to be so hardset in your willingness to change view about it) as well as a complex metaphor between adolescent angst and and the marginalization and psycopathy of pedophilia.

[Anonymous No.15793049]

>>15793038
How so? I’m beginning to realize “schizo” and “insane” and “stretches” really just mean “critically aware” for you guys. Shows just how far you have to go.

[Anonymous No.15793060]

>>15793038
My bad I read “inane” as “insane.” Funny you’re calling me inane when you can’t think your way out of a YA novel.

[Anonymous No.15793062]

>>15792325
Faulkner was always clear about how a true writer would spend more time writing than reading. A writer never had time to read what his contemporaries were doing.

[Anonymous No.15793065]

>>15793060
Your too stupid to argue with.

[Anonymous No.15793066]

>>15793062
>who was William Shakespeare
I guess all that porch whiskey really caught up with old Bill.

[Anonymous No.15793072]

>>15793065
>Your
:( slander isn’t nice anon. I’m sorry I pointed out how bad of a reader you are. May I suggest another hobby?

[Anonymous No.15793115]

>>15793065
>Your stupid
fuuuggg XDDD

[Anonymous No.15793156]

>agree with my vague interpretation of the text or your a pseud

The thread.

It's an alright interpretation, I don't see it as any more supported than Holden being an angsty kid facing down manhood. Why is this book even popular? Required reading? I never understood it.

[Anonymous No.15793195]

>>15793156
What about my interpretation is “vague” anon? You know the meaning of words, right? Also you missed the point dum dum. Holden IS an angsty kid facing down manhood, superficially. His experience of that overlaps with his psychopathy. Salinger pulls you into empathizing with a pedophile on grounds that you didn’t expect but intimately understand. A pretty predictable route for a guy who also was a pedophile, along with being hyper articulate, introspective, etc. “People will never understand my Holden!” You people really have an underdeveloped sense of pathology, ironically.

[Anonymous No.15793219]

Are there articles or websites that go deeper into this interpretation? This was an interesting read.

[Anonymous No.15793236]

>>15793195
My man, it's just like conspiracy theories, the only way I'll be on board is if it has more explanatory power than the alternatives. In your case, I don't see it, but thank you for sharing it. If we start reading our own framework into the gaps then any other interpretation is equally valid. Interpretations are nice but what makes one more valid than another?

[Anonymous No.15793287]

>>15793156
>what is arrested development

>the only way I'll be on board is if it has more explanatory power than the alternatives
I have demonstrated this. The dissent that he’s just angsty is a confusion about the interpretive capacity of the book to hold both meanings (it does). My view helps cover the LITERAL gaps, which Salinger pretty much beats you over the head with from page one.

>I don't see it
Hey that’s cool but clearly you don’t see a lot so we won’t bother too much about that.

>If we start reading our own framework
Ah, yes, quintessential Freudian subtext for a New York novel centered around adolescent maturity is really my framework.

>into the gaps then any other interpretation is equally valid
How did you come to that conclusion? That’s incorrect prima facie. See: basic speech act theory.

>Interpretations are nice but what makes one more valid than another?
Viability, explanatory power, cohesion with the text bound by a thorough understanding of the potential meanings of the language involved, accordance with artistic vision, etc.

[Anonymous No.15793301]

>>15793236
>it's just like conspiracy theories
Artistic practice IS a conspiracy theory. Look at Joyce’s charts.

[Anonymous No.15793304]

>>15792354
Which makes a lot of sense, hate is a really strong feeling that is more often than not related to projections of your own personal struggles. If you have to ask yourself why something bothers you so much while it doesn't other people you just have to look at yourself. Hate for a fictional character that can do you no wrong doesn't come out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.15793366]

>>15793287
You are either pulling a practical joke or you are the victim of someone else who is pulling one on you

[Anonymous No.15793396]

>>15793366
Nice argument

[Anonymous No.15793450]

>>15792306
Your obsession with calling others underage only makes you look like the child
You have to be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.15793470]

>>15792416
based buttmad schizo

[Anonymous No.15793535]

>>15792266
>the virgin "literally holden" vs the chad "literally the underground man"
i unironically recommend reddit

[Anonymous No.15793644]

>>15792857
>>15792844
He's an unreliable narrator but not a pedophile. He says stuff like that because he's angsty and anxious

[Anonymous No.15794377]

>>15792547
By all accounts those are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15794404]

>>15792776
At first I thought 'bollocks' but then I remembered the same guy wrote Bananafish.

[Anonymous No.15795268]

>>15792401
Of course he was right. Look at the state of the things right now

[Anonymous No.15795375]

>>15792266
Holden had several gfs and almost had sex

[Anonymous No.15795448]

>>15793287
Freudian theory is unprovable in itself so you cant use it to prove Holden is a pedophile.

[Anonymous No.15795459]

>>15795448
Thank you
Finally someone who realizes Freud's BS

[Anonymous No.15795462]

>>15792266
This book is shit and anyone who likes it has shit taste. Yes I know about the themes, yes I know that Holden is supposed to be insufferable, yes I know about the fucking ducks and how he fucks his sister, yes I know he's mentally ill, yes I know about all of the symbolism. The book is shit, it's written like shit, the theme isn't deep in any way and is literally 12 year old level "b-b-but people turn bad when they get older!" If you like this book you're a fucking retard with no critical thinking skills whatsoever and I hated it just as much as I did when I was 15 as I do now.

[Anonymous No.15795470]

16:
>this isn't me what the fuck what a cuck
22:
>this wasn't me what the fuck what a cuck
45:
>this was literally me

[Anonymous No.15795623]

Yes.
I remember I told my friends years ago back in highschool that I really enjoyed it and they called me a pseud lol

[Anonymous No.15795627]

I haven't read this in a while, but is the philosophy of Stoicism an analogue or an opposition to the philosophy of this novel?

[Anonymous No.15795860]

>>15792266
I've read it a few times, first when I was 15. I relate to him a lot even now, but as I grow older I interpret his behaviour as being a little immature and stupid rather than agreeing with it as I've matured. But I think Sallinger wanted this to be the case.

[Anonymous No.15795869]

>>15795860
Would lifting have saved him?

[Anonymous No.15795948]

>>15795869
Ironically since I started lifting my opinion of Holden changed. So probably, yes.

[Anonymous No.15795950]

>>15795948
Mine as well, since Holden was so blatant about how much of a beta he was when it came to confrontation

[Anonymous No.15795990]

>>15795950
That's somewhat the case, yes. I also feel like Holden likes to purposefully annoy people who 'get it' out of spite. An example would be Stradlater going on a date with Holden's friend. It's quite obvious he'd like to be going on a date with her and he's annoyed at the fact that she's fallen for someone 'like him'. I suppose at this point, Holden's opinion of girls is that they should be with nice guys like him and when this view is challenged, he snapped.

[Anonymous No.15797220]

Freud-anon isn't an older sibling so of course he's desperately trying to get people on board with his Freudian theory. He reminds me all the white girls at in my grad program at sfsu, every single one of them were BDSM whores that were obsessed with Freudian readings of everything. It didn't matter what it was, these dumb cunts always had rape and incest and murder on their mind. None of them ever had anything of value to say because they could never actually really prove anything other than that they were sexual deviants or sexually depraved.

Anyways, I dig Catcher in the Rye. Say what you want about it, but I can't think of a better/unique voice/personality than Holden's. Salinger captured something incredibly poetic that I just know he was scratching at some sort of ineffable truth

[Anonymous No.15797242]

>>15795990
You didn't understand what was going on in that part, or Holden's character for that matter, at all.

[Anonymous No.15797267]

>>15797220
It's a particularly disgusting theory because it distorts everything that the book exalts about the innocence of childhood.

[Anonymous No.15797293]

>>15795462
Okay dude

[Anonymous No.15797331]

A Perfect Day for Bananafish>Down at the Dinghy >Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut>For Esme - With Love and Squalor>>>Just Before the War with the Eskimo>Teddy>>>The Laughing Man>Pretty Mouth and Green My Eyes>>>De Daumier-Smith’s Blue Period

[Anonymous No.15797350]

>>15792325
interesting take. thanks for posting anon-san.

[Anonymous No.15797374]

>>15792325
Beautiful. Almost exactly the way I feel, but I don't think I could have ever described it as concisely or astutely.

[Anonymous No.15797389]

>>15792404
>You realize Salinger was a confirmed pedo right
You're talking complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15797430]

>>15792325
>>15797374
I don't really think that's what Catcher is about. It's about the death of innocence inherent in growing up. That's the entire "catcher in the rye" thing is, the innocent children playing and then going off a cliff (growing up, i.e. dying). Holden is conscious of it because he was traumatized by the death of his little brother. He's not playing with the children, but on the outside as a protector because he himself is corrupted by aging -- he has sexual desires (though he can't bring himself to have sex), he often does exactly the things he accuses phony people of doing, etc. Like take a look at what this anon said here >>15795990. He's completely wrong, because Holden's view of her is that of a child. He's concerned with how she plays chess and things like that, and Stradlater's interest in her is the sexual desire of an adult. I feel like Faulkner's view is just kind of taking Holden's criticisms of people at face value and not understanding how they reflect his inner, suicidal psychological turmoil.

[Anonymous No.15797432]

>>15792404
Mid-century American writer, like Salinger, William Styron, Richard Yates, Sloan Wilson all seemed to mostly buy the stereotypes (or maybe back then it actually was closer to reality) that psychiatry was all about telling you that you were probably guilty over the possibility you might be a homo, or that you want to fuck your mother

[Anonymous No.15797436]

>>15797430
>chess
Meant checkers of course.

[Anonymous No.15797464]

>>15793005
this guy is literally insane. half of his examples rely on slang that may not have even had their sexual meanings in the 1950s. dude's a crank.

[Anonymous No.15797468]

>>15797430
Yeah I think you’re right. And it’s a view that’s validated by practically everything else the author ever wrote and the fact that he seems to be pretty obsessed with it as a theme.
One of the reasons Down at the Dinghy is one of my favorite short stories of his is that it takes the major theme of the entire early part of his career and boils it down to a few pages.

[Anonymous No.15797490]

>>15797430
I don't see any contradiction between Faulker's take and your take.

[Anonymous No.15797510]

>>15797490
There's quite clearly a real humanity in Catcher, and it's found in children. Holden crying while watching Phoebe on the carousel is clearest representation of it. That's the thing he wants to preserve.

[Anonymous No.15797533]

>>15792266
My grandpa. When he was 14. And still got titillated by "bad words".

Salinger's contribution to 20th Century literature cannot be understated.

[Anonymous No.15797595]

>>15797389
He literally courted 14 year olds. I bet you think Bananafish is about innocence as well.

[Anonymous No.15797610]

>>15797464
the difference is they did have sexual meanings. look it up.

>>15797220
I am an older sibling, actually. And that’s a cute dissent that doesn’t engage with my evidence at all. You can deny Freudian theory as a whole, sure, but to deny its influence and use on the arts (especially art in the 40s and 50s among the American elite) is to be historically illiterate.

[Anonymous No.15797621]

>>15795448
Yes, we’re really trying to “prove” something when we use certain devices to craft texts. Big brain anon.

>>15795459
Likewise, this has nothing to do with whether or not you like Freud but if the use of his theories are evident in the text. I’ve demonstrated how they are.

[Anonymous No.15797631]

>>15797595
Would the beginning of Bananfish be creepy in the 1950’s?
I kinda got creeped out by it until he went in a different direction, but I think that’s just modern conditioning by NBC

[Anonymous No.15797644]

>>15797621
And everyone else has demonstrated you’re wrong

[Anonymous No.15797689]

>>15792266
Not at all, I liked the book but found Holden insufferable. I identified much more with Native Son as a teenager.

[Anonymous No.15797708]

>>15797631
>Would the beginning of Bananfish be creepy in the 1950’s?
No

[Anonymous No.15797713]

>>15797610
Your """theory""" makes the entire book nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.15797756]

>>15797610
This kind of shit is present in Catcher in the Rye -- the words with double meanings, etc. Holden continually uses language relating to death (it killed me, I got the ax, etc.) which are normal phrases, but are also meant to convey his preoccupation with death and suicidal state of mind. But you're making it up where it isn't there, because none of what you're saying has any accord with the other information that we're presented with about his character and his psychology. You're taking some word snippets, reading your own theory into them, and then making them the magical interpretative key of the entire book (because this would require a forced reinterpretation of every single thing Holden says or does (I don't think this is reasonably possible, to be clear)), rather than starting from what we can actually glean about Holden from what he clearly tells us.

[Anonymous No.15797796]

At the beginning of the story Holden is literally forced to leave school, marking the symbolic and unavoidable end to his childhood and state of innocence. Later on in the novel, when confronted with the statues of the eskimos in the museum, symbolically frozen in time and presumably surrounded by fake snow just as Holden is surrounded by real snow in the form of a New York blizzard, we see that Holden is no longer viewing these figures from the perspective of his childhood self (he remembers visiting the museum as a child) but of his now-jaded adult self struggling to come to terms with what that means. Interestingly, Phoebe is also writing about the eskimos in her diary which Holden reads. Holden relates to and favours those who appear to exist in a state of innocence and tacit hostility towards the rather aggressive adult world, for example when he finds out his roomate is going on a date with a girl he knows he asks him to ask her if she still keeps her kings hidden behind her pawns or something, i.e. whether she is still defensive and innocent rather than aggressive and ambitious to become an adult (like his roommate). When he creates a snowball he refuses to throw it because the untouched perfection of the snow covering the cars etc appeals to him.

What Holden is coming to terms with is both an adult world he does not understand and also the fact that his own perception of himself as a blameless, innocent child no longer corresponds with reality. He uses curse words in front of the women at the hotel bar and complains when they find him offensive, yet himself becomes agitated when someone writes a curse word on the wall later on in the novel. He criticises the sports' fans unquestioning loyalty to their team, yet himself doesn't question his preferring innocence over experience.

[Anonymous No.15797804]

Holden wears a red hat because his dead brother had red hair.

[Anonymous No.15797893]

>>15797430
This is a good write up but as another anon said, it doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive to Faulkner's interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15798028]

>>15797621
It's still a big assumption that Salinger was purposefully using Freud to demonstrate that Holden was a pedophile. Yes maybe Freud was very influential in the time period, I'm not personally familiar with the history so yes maybe that is true. But saying that Salinger used Freud to demonstrate that Holden was a pedophile cannot be proven. Its nothing but that, an assumption. It's also pretty disastrous one at that considering is completely changes the narrative of the book.

[Anonymous No.15798482]

>>15797595
Proof?

[Anonymous No.15798534]

>>15797610
>the difference is they did have sexual meanings. look it up.
Maybe today. But not when Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye (1951). For example, I looked up the phrase "beat it", derivative of "beat the meat" and slang for masturbation. Earliest definition I could find was in 1962, more than a *decade* after Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye. That slang belongs to a world (1960s) that would have been fundamentally alien to the culture of the late 1940s.

That's just one word that I bothered to look up to see if there was any merit to what you said. Unfortunately, there isn't. You're just pulling everything out of your ass, not just that Salinger meant a few phrases as sexual innuendo (wasn't even linguistically possible), but that he was also a pedophile in his personal life (many claims, but not a single source in this entire thread). Stop talking bullshit.

>source:https://linguistics.ucla.edu/general/WorkingPapers/Occasional_Papers24_Slang6.pdf

[Anonymous No.15798557]

>>15797510
>There's quite clearly a real humanity in Catcher, and it's found in children.
That's just building on Faulker's analysis in defining what humanity "is" after demonstrating what humanity "isn't".

[Anonymous No.15798589]

>>15798557
Faulkner was a southerner who likely couldn’t stomach black people

[Anonymous No.15798642]

>>15798589
>who likely couldn’t stomach black people
most people who live in proximity to the groid can't stomach them

[Anonymous No.15798904]

>>15795470
too accurate

[Anonymous No.15798980]

>>15792731
Not that anon, but how can I learn to read critically? What books would you suggest to help me along the way?

[Anonymous No.15798995]

>>15798980
The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck

[Anonymous No.15799002]

>>15792761
I don't have a dog in this race, but how does it explain the ducks thing?

[Anonymous No.15799020]

>>15792776
Nick and Gatsby never wake up in their underwear. Nick is narrated talking to the photographer guy while they're both in their underwear. Homosex is implied, but not between Gatsby and Nick.

[Anonymous No.15799034]

>>15792344
Based groundedposter

[Anonymous No.15800394]

bump for autism