The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Edward wrote: "The Orphan Conspiracies; 29 Conspiracy Theories ......" by James Morcan, a GR author. .."This is a great suggestion. James book deals with conspiracies that have been acknowledged by the government or could no longer remain just in the theory realm. They reflect how conspiracies evolve. They evolve from people questioning their blindness.
I believe you. And I'm not going to tell you to drink more often! Sorry for that assumption, it's just something I noticed. Compare and contrast;Edward drinking
Edward not drinking.
Gotta find the humor!! Apology accepted.
Monty J wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Prejudice is never funny."But, but..., she was the one making a big deal about..., nevermind. You are right. I apologize.
:)"
;>) Just keeping you honest...enough said. You are the person I thought you to be.
I was reading the Cather In the Rye and just thought I would share this quote with you. You might enjoy discussing his insight.He is talking to Sally...
"You ought to go to a boys' school sometime. Try it sometime," I said. "It's full of phonies, and all you do is study so that you can learn enough to be smart enough to be able to buy a goddam Cadillac some day, and you have to keep making believe you give a damn if the football team loses, and all you do is talk about girls and liquor and sex all day, and everybody sticks together in these dirty little goddam cliques. The guys that are on the basketball team stick together, the Catholics stick together, the goddam intellectuals stick together, the guys that play bridge stick together. Even the guys that belong to the goddam Book-of-the-Month Club stick together. If you try to have a little intelligent--"
Why do I get the feeling this thread has been hijacked by R.P. McMurphy's ghost?It feels less about literature and more about chains being yanked. Every time get off topic and actually talk about literature, McM-M-Murrrphy yanks us back to her preferred subject because nobody's visiting her topics.
I'm taking a break.
Stop it people. This so ceases to be about the book. There were actually some interesting opinions about the book itself at the beginning. Maybe start a new thread just about Catcher in the Rye and cut out all the abysmal, rude and silly barbs. We could make our own stand-up routine about MEEEEEEE with this thread.
Edward wrote: "I have to ask Michael two things. First; could you expand on the quote you took which said; "language determines reality." Please don't refer me to Mary's book, because that idea sounds so stupid that I'd never read it. Secondly; with your "re-creation of your own victimhood" observation you accurately re-counted the current outlook. I'm very old. Do you know that there once was a time when that would have been called "blaming the victim," and that your currently considered correct rationale was seen as a methodology to deny minority rights?"Edward:
Regarding Cosmic, I wrote:
"You may very well have been picked on and bullied in school. But here, it seems to me, you recreate your own victimhood. You push your own agenda in such a stubborn and provocative manner that others are bound to go on the attack, or at least be put off."
I don't believe that I was "blaming the victim." I was trying to point out what seemed to me a possible recreation by Cosmic of situations from her past. We all do this at times. Perhaps I should have been more explicit that I regard such reenactments as unconsciously based. We do not set out consciously to recreate patterns of interaction from our past history of relationships, so we cannot be judged or "blamed" for doing so. But once we become aware of the pattern we can attempt to engage with people differently.
Regarding your second question, concerning my earlier quote from Mary Kluges:
"Because all truths are relative, all supposedly ‘essential' constants are fluid, and language determines reality, there is no such thing as definitive meaning. There is only ambiguity, fluid meaning, and multiplicity of meaning, especially in a literary text."
The idea that language determines reality is a central tenet of poststructuralist and postmodern literary theory.
In the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
According to these theorists, the most important factor shaping our thinking and world view is language. Rather than language reflecting the 'real world,' they propose that language creates and structures everything we know or can know regarding 'reality.'
Modern physics also lends support to the view that the only thing solid about reality is our perception of it. The great Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, stated: “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” That is because atoms are entirely insubstantial, nonmaterial, and when they are not being observed by someone they become "fuzzy", nothing but probability-waves.
And in the words of Nobel Prize winning physicist Werner Heisenberg:
"What we are observing is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. And how do we question? All of our methods of interrogating nature depend on language—and it is the very nature of language to refer to things. We therefore think in terms of things. How can we possibly think of nonthings, nothings, nothing? In our very forms of thought we instinctively divide the world into subjects and objects, thinkers and things, mind and matter. This division seems so natural that it has been presumed a basic maxim of objective science."
That Heisenberg quote is eerily mind boggling.
Michael wrote: "Edward wrote: "I have to ask Michael two things. First; could you expand on the quote you took which said; "language determines reality." Please don't refer me to Mary's book, because that idea sou..."Love this! Great post, Michael! Michael has no problem inspiring interest :)
Cosmic wrote: "CJ wrote: "I wonder if people think these are overrated (well some of the books anyway) because of the volume they had to read for school. Having to read it or hearing of the themes over and over a..."As a literature major in college, I was required to read many books I thought ill of. Andre Breton's NADJA, Faulkner's SANCTUARY, Greene's THE POWER AND THE GLORY, Flaherty's THE INFORMER I found particularly objectionable for diverse reasons. Nadja was pretentious irrelevancy to the surrealist tradition, PATG reduced the protagonist to a stereotype, TI needed copious editing and S was a potboiler that F himself scorned, as did the critics.
Had I read these books on my own my aversion to them would be less than it is now, but the fact is that they were both books I found less than praiseworthy and I was mandated to read them. The double whammy did them in for me.
And yes, having read so much literature and a higher proportion than what I thought to be bad for a college program, my reading level during my 20's plummeted considerably. It took me at least a decade to get back in form.
Roland wrote: "Try Jonathon Livingston Seagull if you want to come down to earth with a bump and be shat on from on high at the same time. Never read such a pile of narcissistic, offensive shite. I read it 35 yea..."Brilliant! hahahahahahaha. My sentiments exactly.
Edward wrote: "Sincere thanks for the time it must have taken to make this post. I think it brilliant with one reservation. Isn't it likely that feeling or vision determines our concepts of reality more than words? Though it is not a direct corollary and despite Heisenberg, I think of DFW saying that the highest form of art is music (bass higher than treble or whatever else there is), painting (or physical depiction) second and writing third. I suppose a case can be perversely made for language in the sense that we live in the Tower of Babel, and none of us really have a good idea of what the other is talking about; hence the obvious confusion. "
You raise some interesting points, Edward.
In regard to vision, I'm not convinced that it is separate from thinking/language. Are we capable, except as young children or perhaps while on mind-altering drugs, of seeing a white puffy thing in the sky and not think "cloud"? Are we able to look around us and not see a bunch of things, which we have named?
The realm of feeling seems more complicated to me, and I'll have to think about that some more.
The passing of Robin Williams has left me thinking quite a bit about DFW (David Foster Wallace) who also took his own life. I'm not sure, though, that I agree with his hierarchy of the arts. While I love music and painting (and just finished watching the fabulous film adaptation of Irving Stone's Lust for Life), I feel that none of the other arts can explore so intimately what it's like to be human as literature.
Michael wrote: "Regarding your second question, concerning my earlier quote from Mary Kluges:"Because all truths are relative, all supposedly ‘essential' constants are fluid, and language determines reality, there is no such thing as definitive meaning. There is only ambiguity, fluid meaning, and multiplicity of meaning, especially in a literary text."
"
This is incredibly interesting. If I understand what you are saying, words create our reality.
I thought of a story we discussed in Psyc class eons ago. There was a study done with identical twins and one of the things they were targeting was the nature/nurture aspect of alcoholism. Identical male twins were raised in a family with a dysfunctional alcoholic father. One of the twins became an alcoholic and the other did not drink at all. When interviewed, they were asked the question, "Why do you believe you became an alcoholic/non alcoholic?" Interestingly, when interviewed separately they each had an identical response; "With a father like mine, what could you expect?"
It seems to me that these identical twins, with their genes in common, and being brought up in essentially the same environment, used identical language to express a radically different reality. I am guessing that as their lives unfolded, each interpreted the same series of events differently. It could have been a whole series of events, or just one truth. One man may have realized that there was a high probability that he would become an alcoholic, so he decided to never take a drink. The other assumed that there was no hope for him and didn't try to change his reaction to his father's drinking.
My thoughts drift off and wonder which of our great thinkers/writers could take this premise and turn it into literature. I think you would have to develop early incidents where there was the same reality, but the response was different. Then the ideas those incidents generated would branch off like a genealogical chart, with each "descendant" being an offshoot of an earlier premise all the while the boys were getting further and further apart. I'd love to read that book!
Anne, it has been widely accepted that alcoholism has a genetic component. I am one, have not drank for many years. My siblings are not.
Michael wrote: "Edward wrote: "Sincere thanks for the time it must have taken to make this post. I think it brilliant with one reservation. Isn't it likely that feeling or vision determines our concepts of reality..." Art is language is art (expression). Consider language (and art) from a perspective of sensory deprivation. Expression minus one or more of the senses. Is there a universal "default" method for identifying/naming/organizing expression?
Michael wrote: "We do not set out consciously to recreate patterns of interaction from our past history of relationships, so we cannot be judged or "blamed" for doing so."Indeed, we are hard-wired to NOT see our recreations. Even in the face of concrete evidence, some will deny what they are seeing with their own eyes. Our identities are shaped around how we have interpreted our history, and if that interpretation changes, who are we? A crisis erupts.
Anyone who's studied Primal Therapy knows this.
It can be terribly threatening, frightening, to view oneself honestly.
Monty J wrote: "Michael wrote: "We do not set out consciously to recreate patterns of interaction from our past history of relationships, so we cannot be judged or "blamed" for doing so."Indeed, we are hard-wire..."
We were just in the kitchen discussing this, Monty! How some will seek out and recreate the negative patterns in their relationships, and will even end a relationship that does not provide them with the very conflict they claim to dislike! When we encounter conflict, it is really generated, originating, from ourselves and our own process, and if we consider it vital to our reality, we perpetuate it.
I call it "comfort in discomfort"...we seek what we know even if it is unhealthy.
I call it "comfort in discomfort"...we seek what we know even if it is unhealthy.Not bad, not bad. As in: It feels safer to most definitely face the problem you know, rather than the potential problem that you don't know. Or something like that.
Paul Martin wrote: "I call it "comfort in discomfort"...we seek what we know even if it is unhealthy.Not bad, not bad. As in: It feels safer to most definitely face the problem you know, rather than the potential pr..."
Bingo! :D If all you do is fight, it is better to fight than to be ignored, or alone.
Everything boils down to fear. Fear is the common denominator. We play a game here, because when my psychologist friend told me every choice boils down to fear, I scoffed. But so far he's batting 1000.
Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely? "Indeed, ..."
Denial of Death by Earnest Becker
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...
Meeting the Shadow
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Yes, fear is central. As a friend stated last night: What we resist, persists.Anne: Very interesting! Especially to me, since I recently completed a novel that is all about twins and identical twins.
Leslie wrote; "call it "comfort in discomfort"...we seek what we know even if it is unhealthy."Because it is familiar, familiarity is viewed as safer than the unknown.
Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely?"Probably not. There is a very interesting literature on the evolutionary importance of deception in Nature, and of self-deception in humans.
I googled "fear is the common denominator" and this is what popped up at the top of the list: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ru...
Of course, we discuss how primitive/evolving-man fear of death can affect the most mundane of life choices, but the idea of the article is interesting too. Fear as entertainment.
Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely?"There are levels of self-knowledge At the deepest level, it would be highly unlikely, without highly trained help, and it would not likely happen overnight.
We all have our blind spots, and moments of awakening though.
As a senior in college in student government someone called me a bigot. I didn't even know what one was. It triggered a period of introspection that continues today.
"Never got into primal therapy..."
John Lennon did and many think it accounted for his radicalization and political activism. It woke him up.
I did something similar. It's a different and unpredictable world on the "Far Side" of self-awareness.
Some people go through a major change in outlook after a brush with death--car accident, heart surgery, loss of a loved one. Similar thing I think.
Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely?"There are levels of self-knowledge At the deepest level, it would be highly unlikely, without highly trained help, and it wou..."
One of my favorite articles/exercises on self and other kindness:
To know oneself is to forget oneself...
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php...
A lifelong, minute-by-minute, process, indeed!
Michael wrote: "Yes, fear is central. As a friend stated last night: What we resist, persists.Anne: Very interesting! Especially to me, since I recently completed a novel that is all about twins and identical tw..."
What was the novel? I have always been interested in twins, especially identical twins.
I wrote it. It's called Incognolio, and I'm climbing the walls because last week a literary agent said she loved it & will get back to me this week as to whether she'll represent me. The story is impossible to summarize; here's the best I've come up with:Determined to exorcise his inner demons via writing, Muldoon embarks on a novel by giving his subconscious mind free rein. Beginning with a title—Incognolio—he enters a bizarre fictional realm that embroils him in one adventure after another, plunging him ever deeper into an identity crisis of anguishing proportions. Soon he can’t tell whether he’s writing a story in which his stillborn twin sister has come to life, or he is the one who died at birth and it’s his sister who is writing the novel. As he blunders his way through the bewildering maze of a story that has long overflowed its narrative bounds, Muldoon must unravel the mystery of Incognolio, or die trying.
Leslie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely?"There are levels of self-knowledge At the deepest level, it would be highly unlikely, without highly trained ..."
Dogen Zen-ji said, "To know yourself is to forget yourself."
Thank you Monty, for reminding me of this. I quoted it below, husband calls it the path to enlightenment.
"We might think that knowing ourselves is a very ego-centered thing, but by beginning to look so clearly and so honestly at ourselves—at our emotions, at our thoughts, at who we really are—we begin to dissolve the walls that separate us from others. Somehow all of these walls, these ways of feeling separate from everything else and everyone else, are made up of opinions. They are made up of dogma; they are made of prejudice. These walls come from our fear of knowing parts of ourselves."
Karen wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "Is it possible to view one's self honestly-completely?"There are levels of self-knowledge At the deepest level, it would be highly unlikely, without ..."
Oh funny, Karen! I just posted that very same thing, article form ;) Great minds, yeah?
Karen wrote: "Dogen Zen-ji said, "To know yourself is to forget yourself."Exactly my experience.
The painful path to nirvana leads through True Self, obliterating the inauthentic reality we had so carefully nurtured as Self--that identity manufactured to please parents, to hide from harm, to frighten away goblins, to protect our mothers, to distract people with laughter so they won't feel the pain of living.
Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "Dogen Zen-ji said, "To know yourself is to forget yourself."Exactly my experience.
The painful path to nirvana leads through True Self, obliterating the inauthentic reality we had..."
What a helpful reminder from Dogen Zen-ji. Gurdjieff called that false personality. Trungpa is also good. There's so much striving needed to keep a mask in place.
Great posts, Karen and Monty, especially as that is something so difficult to put into words.
Michael wrote: "Soon he can’t tell whether he’s writing a story in which his stillborn twin sister has come to life, or he is the one who died at birth and it’s his sister who is writing the novel."Sounds intriguing.
The greatest hindrance to self knowledge is the fear of admitting to ourselves we don't conform to the ideal. It's what I call the angel complex, ie. our need to see ourselves as blessed beings worthy of god's love.
Leslie wrote;"Oh funny, Karen! I just posted that very same thing, article form ;) Great minds, yeah?"
Oh yes, our great minds. We were thinking alike. My great mind forgets everything unless I write it down. Then I forget to write it down or where I wrote it. I'm glad I have a small house, I forget where I put everything. But profound articles like the one Monty linked too are unforgetable!
Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Karen wrote: "Dogen Zen-ji said, "To know yourself is to forget yourself."Exactly my experience.
The painful path to nirvana leads through True Self, obliterating the inauthenti..."
It's a painful process, especially if you don't like yourself.
Kallie wrote: "What a helpful reminder from Dogen Zen-ji. Gurdjieff called that false personality. Trungpa is also good. There's so much striving needed to keep a mask in place"Yep- I have to wear that mask at work though, I think most people who work with others all day have to.
I've found the people I met who didn't like themselves were given that self-image by someone(s) who had a vested interest in keeping them under control. If you are self-aware enough to consciously disapprove of yourself, there's reason to re-evaluate, work on the things you don't like or examine them to see if they truly exist of if you've just been convinced of them. Or if there is nothing at all wrong with them, other than they don't serve someone else's interest.
The self-absorbed are rarely capable of consciously and genuinely disliking themselves. At least not without blaming someone else for it.
Monty J wrote: "The painful path to nirvana leads through True Self, obliterating the inauthentic reality we had so carefully nurtured as Self--that identity manufactured to please parents, to hide from harm, to frighten away goblins, to protect our mothers, to distract people with laughter so they won't feel the pain of living."Beautifully put, Monty. Alice Miller wrote insightfully about this false self in The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self, although I preferred her original title: Prisoners of Childhood. For that matter, so did Art Janov in The Primal Scream.
Michael wrote: "Alice Miller wrote insightfully about this false self in The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self, although I preferred her original title: Prisoners of Childhood. For that matter, so did Art Janov in The Primal Scream."(Thanks) You've been reading my library.
"We might think that knowing ourselves is a very ego-centered thing, but by beginning to look so clearly and so honestly at ourselves—at our emotions, at our thoughts, at who we really are—we begin to dissolve the walls that separate us from others. Somehow all of these walls, these ways of feeling separate from everything else and everyone else, are made up of opinions. They are made up of dogma; they are made of prejudice. These walls come from our fear of knowing parts of ourselves." That is probably a bit of the thing that Dostoyevsky was trying to get at with this quote: probably my favourite from The Brothers Karamazov:
“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
Paul Martin wrote; “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love"I like this quote above, it's true and wise. I'd like to read Crime and Punishment.
It's a fantastic book (feels wrong to even mention it here in the Overrated books thread). I read the Wordsworth Classics annotated edition translated by Constance Garnett. I don't speak a word Russian, but I though the English was very readable. That might not be that important for you though:)
Paul Martin wrote: "It's a fantastic book (feels wrong to even mention it here in the Overrated books thread). I read the Wordsworth Classics annotated edition translated by Constance Garnett. I don't speak a word Rus..."I know we have gotten way off topic here at times! A good translator is so important for a book like that. My grandmother could have read it in Russian- certainly not me.
Renee wrote: "I've found the people I met who didn't like themselves were given that self-image by someone(s) who had a vested interest in keeping them under control. If you are self-aware enough to consciousl..."
Good post Renee! And true.
Edward wrote: "I have to admit that you are well beyond me with that point. I usually forgive myself for that as women came first...."Most women would argue that point . . . not in a biblical reference . . . ya know? ;-)
If your experience is different . . . Good man!
Edward wrote: "Leslie wrote: "Michael wrote: "Edward wrote: "Sincere thanks for the time it must have taken to make this post. I think it brilliant with one reservation. Isn't it likely that feeling or vision det..."We discuss these things a lot around here, Edward. I have a bit of background, working in a medical language/research-type field plus creative expression side interests, and my friend/housepartner being a psychologist as well as an ASL interpreter and a writer, deals with sensory deprivation and expression/communication. So, you have the years but we have daily access and interest that just happens to center over this topic. ;)
Edward wrote: "...only capable of speaking to the few who are fluent in the language of art, and further, subject to interpretations the artist had no intention of suggesting."I would insert the word "conscious" between "no" and "intention." Stated or not, consciousness is implied by the word "intention," but it deserves emphasis.
The Freudian principle of unconscious influence on our thoughts and writing receives little recognition, but I believe it is pervasive and often invisible to the author.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
War and Peace (other topics)High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
"I really hope that nothing I have written can be construed as an insult to this group's intelligence. In fact, I know that I have been truthfully complementary on a few occasions. While I realize that my outlooks (biases) come from a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than a "beyond all reasonable doubt" perspective .......... Long story. I'm sure you know what I mean. What I have the most problem with is the insulting, vicious tone. I laugh at myself when I see this, as I have become something I never wanted to be; a commentator on manners; Mr. Mary speaks of the proper placement of knives and forks."
Edward you have also been rude, but you can change that. And don't drink so much when you type sometimes. What I was just going to post was meaner, and that's not what I want to do, so I deleted it.