Re: holden caulfield vs therapist
James J Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:22:31 -0700 "m.e. pierce" <mepierce@sfasu.edu>
writes:
>
>
>James J Rovira wrote:
>
>> RE: Graham...
>>
>> But Holden speaking to "me"? Or to "his readers"? I don't think
>so. I
>> think Holden cares about Holden, for the most part, and I don't
>think he
>> cares at all about his readers as readers.
>> He's telling his story to serve his own purposes, not ours. -- Jim
>
>Right! But I still contend that his speaking to us. From the
>beginning,
>Holden makes clear the assumption that someone wants to listen--or
>perhaps he
>is hoping someone will want to listen: "The first thing, you'll
>probably
>want to know. . ." What would make Holden think anyone wants to know?
>Because he is so into himself, as you say, he thinks we all want to
>know. -- m.e.
Yeah, see, I used this point originally as the springboard for thinking
that Holden was writing his account "for the benefit of someone at the
sanitorium."
If you really want to know about it...within this context would refer to
a question asked by someone at the place he was staying. "What did you
do to wind up here?" would be one possible question...
Now, if you assume a priori that the question is irrelevant, then of
course you'd read it the way you've described. But this is a reading of
that text based upon your asssumption, and mine is an assumption as well.
We need to answer the question from other parts of Catcher.
Basically, the "you" in "if you really want to know about it" would be
singular in my reading and plural in yours. :) That's the only
difference.
>
>He doesn't tell his story because he cares for us. He tells the story
>because he is desperate to tell someone. Remember how he begs ol'
>Luce to
>just stay for one more drink so he will listen to his tale? He
>doesn't care
>for Luce. He doesn't even like Luce. He doesn't have to like us.
>Salinger
>doesn't particularly like his fans (he once asked his editor to burn
>all his
>fan mail). But Salinger wants his material published so that obviosly
>we
>will read it. He will talk to us. He must tell the tale--but care for
>us?
>No. The same could be said of Holden.
>
Interesting connection between Salinger and Holden and probably worth
some merit, but I'm more interested in reading literature than gossip
columns, so I don't look for the author in his work :)
However, whatever you believe it seems clear to me that Catcher "the
narrative written by Holden Caulfield" (within the world of the novel
Catcher was written by Holden Caulfield, in our real world it was written
by Salinger) was written some time "after" the events narrated in the
text. The text covers a period of about three or four days or so, about
events that took place "last winter." Holden may or may not be in the
same frame of mind in writing the text as he was during the events
narrated within the text. We'd have to examine the text with that
question in mind before knowing that...
worth considering :)
>We do agree that Holden has no intention of reaching out to us to
>establish
>identification. That just happens--I guess because those of us who
>love the
>book are NOT like Luce, for the most part. We do see ourselves in
>Holden,
>and we will stay and have that drink. We won't be friends--not
>really.
>Holden doesn't need that anyway. We will listen to him because we,
>like
>him,we are so into ourselves that we will realize his angst is also
>our
>angst. And he will speak to the end, as he does in the book and then
>walk
>away. Probably never give us a buzz again.
>
Yes, I agree that we do tend to identify with Holden because, well, he's
being totally honest about his feelings (or at least trying to most of
the time) and when someone does so it's easier for us to see where his
feelings are similar to our own.
Now, the "relevance" of this thread is questioned, I think, because it
doesn't directly address the appeal the book holds for most readers. We
do like Catcher because we identify with Holden. But if the "speaking to
a therapist in a sanitorium" reading is worthy of anything over 90% (or
70 or 80 degree for that matter, as if it could be quantified at all)
certainty, we have to ask what relevance it may have for the text simply
because it's in there...
If you want, I can post my reasons for reading Catcher the way I do...and
in the paper I wrote about it, I did confess a fair degree of section
manism myself :)
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.