The Catcher in the Rye
question
Narcissist or Codependent? Diagnose Yourself with Holden
Monty J
(last edited
Jun 11, 2014 06:21PM
)
Apr 01, 2014 12:56PM
Do you like Holden or think he's an idiot? And what does that say about you?
Framing The Catcher in the Rye through a psychological lens may help in understanding your reaction to this controversial classic.
Holden imagines himself in a field of rye where children are playing and feels an urge to protect them from falling over a cliff. Entertain for the moment that the field of rye represents Holden's feelings of codependency, an excessive preoccupation with the needs of others, as in the urge to protect the innocent and vulnerable.
Foreshadowed by his repeated concern for the ducks in Central Park--Holden announces to Phoebe that he wants to be a "catcher in the rye" and protect children from going over the cliff. Similar behavior reappears later when he's in tears while watching Phoebe ride the carousel with "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" playing in the background.
A narcissist could care less about protecting others, vulnerable or not. He/she is incapable of empathy. So a character like Holden would seem ridiculous, even repellent, whereas the narcissist might feel strongly attracted to Ayn Rand's John Gault.
I read somewhere that eighty percent of Americans have codependent tendencies. This could help to explain the vast popularity of the book while some readers are repelled by Holden's "whiny repetitiveness."
Here is an essay detailing the argument defining Holden as codependent: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...
(Lest I get torched for accusing people of being codependent or narcissistic, let it be clear that this is a mental exercise intended only to deepen our understanding of a book. Only you, or your therapist, know your behavioral tendencies.)
Framing The Catcher in the Rye through a psychological lens may help in understanding your reaction to this controversial classic.
Holden imagines himself in a field of rye where children are playing and feels an urge to protect them from falling over a cliff. Entertain for the moment that the field of rye represents Holden's feelings of codependency, an excessive preoccupation with the needs of others, as in the urge to protect the innocent and vulnerable.
Foreshadowed by his repeated concern for the ducks in Central Park--Holden announces to Phoebe that he wants to be a "catcher in the rye" and protect children from going over the cliff. Similar behavior reappears later when he's in tears while watching Phoebe ride the carousel with "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" playing in the background.
A narcissist could care less about protecting others, vulnerable or not. He/she is incapable of empathy. So a character like Holden would seem ridiculous, even repellent, whereas the narcissist might feel strongly attracted to Ayn Rand's John Gault.
I read somewhere that eighty percent of Americans have codependent tendencies. This could help to explain the vast popularity of the book while some readers are repelled by Holden's "whiny repetitiveness."
Here is an essay detailing the argument defining Holden as codependent: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...
(Lest I get torched for accusing people of being codependent or narcissistic, let it be clear that this is a mental exercise intended only to deepen our understanding of a book. Only you, or your therapist, know your behavioral tendencies.)
reply
flag
We all have narcissistic traits and codependent traits depending on the situation. They are not mutually exclusive. I had significant sympathy for Holden, of course, despite all his whining. Gault did not need anyone's sympathy---he took care of himself. Holden seemed like a real person, complete with flaws. Gault was almost a mythical creation and not very realistically rendered. Salinger used a first person narrator to bring us closer to Holden. Rand used third person omniscient and her characters were rather wooden. Who would I rather be? John Gault. But that's like asking if you'd rather be Superman or Clark Kent.
Childhood (or its state of innocence) is a developmental stage that nobody should be stuck in. When someone becomes stuck in the stage of childhood, they are unable to function in adult society, and are sent to "special needs" programs.
To "save" children by preventing them from maturing is to do them a great harm. Even the idea that one can "save" children by stunting their development is rather childish.
So even though Holden has excessive empathy, his concern for others is filtered by his own damaged psyche. He cannot cope with the increasingly complex adult world, and since he is powerless to save himself, he wants to save others. This is the same instinct that drives some of the most abused and traumatized people out there to become Psychology majors.
In a way, Holden becomes (or wishes to become) a well-meaning evildoer.
To "save" children by preventing them from maturing is to do them a great harm. Even the idea that one can "save" children by stunting their development is rather childish.
So even though Holden has excessive empathy, his concern for others is filtered by his own damaged psyche. He cannot cope with the increasingly complex adult world, and since he is powerless to save himself, he wants to save others. This is the same instinct that drives some of the most abused and traumatized people out there to become Psychology majors.
In a way, Holden becomes (or wishes to become) a well-meaning evildoer.
deleted member
Apr 19, 2014 01:51PM
0 votes
I found Holden to be a bit of an idiot. But I don't feel much attraction to John Galt either.
I would say, however, that I prefer Galt to Holden. And I would agree that I have more "narcissistic" traits than "codependent" traits, so I can see the logic behind your post.
I would say, however, that I prefer Galt to Holden. And I would agree that I have more "narcissistic" traits than "codependent" traits, so I can see the logic behind your post.
deleted member
Apr 19, 2014 03:03PM
0 votes
I adore Holden. I identify with him more than any other fictional character. So yes, I guess I'm codependent. :)
I like Holden -- I see him as a lovable and possibly misguided kid. I never saw Holden as a co-dependent. (When Catcher was written, was the word 'co-dependent' part of our cultural milieu? hmmm)
I always thought Holden had a pure desire to protect people from the phoniness of society. Which was a true aim, neither narcissistic nor co-dependent.
I always thought Holden had a pure desire to protect people from the phoniness of society. Which was a true aim, neither narcissistic nor co-dependent.
Theres a Holden Caulfield in all of us...we can't class his traits as completely good or bad. The way he is portrayed is definitely unique but when I read it i honestly thought of him as an intellectual who's finding his way in life. He is neither narcissistic nor codependent . In fact..i think he's somewhere in between .
I took your advice Monty. I'm rereading it right now, as an adult. The first time I read it I was a teenager. I identified with Holden. Now, reading it, I think Holden is an idiot,lol.
Monty J Heying
Here is a essay defining Holden as codependent: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...
...more
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
