The reason people don't get why Catcher in the Rye is important

[Petergiaquinta]

Hmmm...none of the wars fought by America in my lifetime have been to protect my way of life. I think there are other forces at work you may be missing.

[Beatriz]

Kallie wrote: "Yes, those of us who think there is much, much more to life than money must (without money) create a momentum that stops ruinous commercial exploitation of the world."

This obsession for money is directly linked to the world's obsession with the scientific method, which was so encouraged by Positivism in the 19th century. Mostly due to Comte's views on "the stages of evolution", people have been led to believe that the humanities (the metaphysical state he referred to) are not as "valuable" as the so called pure sciences, such as Physics and Biology, which also fit, rather coveniently, the practical needs of the industrial era.
Technology soon became the most important thing in the world- the future was everything, and the past didn't matter anymore. Now, I'm not saying technology was bad- I'm very fond of it. What I mean is, this fascination for what was practical, and mechanical, and concrete... This exerced such an influence over the population in the last few centuries that it spread to the way we saw (and, consequentely, taught) the humanities. The social sciences, which were created by Comte himself, are proof of that- he wanted an objetive study of human patterns. He wanted numbers. Not reflection- numbers. That's what they pay you to do.
Positivism recquired, after all, systematic organization. It required clear thoughts and answers. There was no room for wondering or reflecting on anything. We're supposed to be sure.
Holden collapses because he can't stand this phoney concepts and definitions of what he knows can't be defined. How can everyone be so sure of what they are? How can anything be whole, and true? Nothing can.
And there's more: in a world driven mad by its obsession with the future, these concepts, which in the past were supposed to be constant and represent the truth, change all the time: not only are people hypocrits, they're contradictory hypocrits. People are getting obsolete- Holden himself is getting obsolete. Hence his obsession with the past.

[Kallie]

Liv wrote: "You are so wrong. They go into combat to protect YOUR way of life. So that you have the OPTION of using fossil fuels! "

We have other less costly options, but they have been stifled because there is too much money at stake for oil companies to allow the development of alternative technologies.

[mkfs]

Kallie wrote: "Liv wrote: "You are so wrong. They go into combat to protect YOUR way of life. So that you have the OPTION of using fossil fuels! "

We have other less costly options..."

I'm still trying to puzzle out how MY way of life is so threatened that the military invasion of a sovereign nation is warranted.

The best defense is a good offense, I guess?

[[deleted user]]

My comment is toward people living in the US, or anyone who wishes they lived in the US. If you're happy living in another country, fine. My comment was more addressed to disgruntled Americans. And yes, the best defense is a good offense. Peace through strength.

[Petergiaquinta]

Wowza!

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Wowza!"

Lol, wowza

[[deleted user]]

Wowza indeed.

[Petergiaquinta]

Clearly, you can read so you can't be as dumb as you seem...but didn't Hitler express some similar sentiments about peace and strength?

[[deleted user]]

Haha. Yes I can read. Hitler was evil, but that doesn't mean he was dumb. Oh and strength doesn't always mean waging war on everyone.

[Petergiaquinta]

Not sure yet, but it just might be possible that you are evil and dumb...

[Karen]

Actually Hitler was dumb- he really thought the "Aryan" race was superior.

[Petergiaquinta]

Plus mass murder...not "smart" in my book!

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Plus mass murder...not "smart" in my book!"

A calculated dumb-ass zealot. Zealots are usually non-thinking people though.

[mkfs]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Clearly, you can read so you can't be as dumb as you seem...but didn't Hitler express some similar sentiments about peace and strength?"

You're thinking of Big Brother.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

Trying to keep it literary ;)

[mkfs]

Liv wrote: "My comment is toward people living in the US, or anyone who wishes they lived in the US."

Again, what is the alleged threat to the way of life of people living in the US?

If the threat is one of fossil fuel exhaustion (despite the huge strategic reserves), then (assuming foe the sake of argument that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are motivated entirely by oil interests) surely the way of life for the average American would be protected more by a policy of energy independence than by military aggression.

[Kallie]

Mkfs wrote: "I'm still trying to puzzle out how MY way of life is so threatened that the military invasion of a sovereign nation is warranted.

The best defense is a good offense, I guess?"

I don't think our way of life was threatened; some people in the world saw their wealth slightly threatened. And that just won't do, will it.

[Monty J]

deleted user wrote: "You are so wrong. They go into combat to protect YOUR way of life. So that you have the OPTION of using fossil fuels! "

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back Liv, fomerly Hateful Hannah, aka... (I forget the last alias she used here before deleting herself as she has just done once again.)

She must crave the attention she gets making troll-like insulting posts. Then when it heats up, she deletes, only to resurface under a new alias.

I'm wondering if she's off her meds or this is some paid occupation.

[mkfs]

Monty J wrote: "I'm wondering if she's off her meds or this is some paid occupation. "

She seems to have taken quite a shine to you, Monty.

Perhaps this is an elaborate courtship ritual? ;)

[Monty J]

Mkfs wrote: "Perhaps this is an elaborate courtship ritual? ;)"

Ack! Don't say that! I've been on stalkers' radar before!

[Karen]

Monty J wrote: "Mkfs wrote: "Perhaps this is an elaborate courtship ritual? ;)"

Ack! Don't say that! I've been on stalkers' radar before!"

Well maybe they like that picture of yourself!

[Lushr]

Bia, thanks that's interesting about Comte I'll have to read up on it.

How can people be so sure? I have another good bertrand russell quote for that:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell

Kenneth Bouldings 1968 article on 'The economics of the coming spaceship Earth' explains how we are still thinking, and using economics from a Cowboy perspective - just keep expanding to the new frontier and kill any pesky natives along the way. But in fact we have reached the limit, no more frontiers, Spaceship Earth is nearly full. No more Growth. We must now think like Astronauts. Who, in a tin can, floating in space must recycle everything, every drop of water is precious, every scrap of food. They wouldn't dream of exceeding their ration, because it might mean they all run out. Astronaut economics is what we face now, but the greed, the total isolation of those in power, the 1% means they cannot and will not see it. We have to turn this juggernaut spaceship earth, but our captain turned off the P.A. System and is gorging himself on the last of the Whiskey.

No wonder we are all going a little mad, no wonder we work harder to maintain our declining lifestyles. I wonder how much of this Salinger was aware of at the time?

I checked iBooks store and no Catcher! Atleast not in Australia's store... Lucky I have it on my shelf, a lovely 1962 British Penguin paperback.

[Kallie]

Bia wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Yes, those of us who think there is much, much more to life than money must (without money) create a momentum that stops ruinous commercial exploitation of the world."

This obsessio..."

I had vague ideas along these lines. Good points and very succinct. Thanks, Bia.

[mkfs]

Lushr wrote: "Astronaut economics is what we face now, but the greed, the total isolation of those in power, the 1% means they cannot and will not see it. We have to turn this juggernaut spaceship earth, but our captain turned off the P.A. System and is gorging himself on the last of the Whiskey."

I agree on the Cowboy vs Astronaut Economics situation, but I don't think this is something that you can blame on "the 1%".

Most people are creatures of habit (meaning they aren't going to try something new, like taking public transit) that stubbornly resist any call for self-sacrifice (such as paying more taxes to build and maintain infrastructure).

If it was simply a matter of changing the minds of 1% of the population, this would be a cakewalk. Instead, it's a matter of changing the minds of the 90% of the population who think along the line of "well, I was always able to do X, and it was always super cheap to do so, so therefore I'm entitled to do X for super cheap!"

[Kallie]

Mkfs wrote: "Lushr wrote: "Astronaut economics is what we face now, but the greed, the total isolation of those in power, the 1% means they cannot and will not see it. We have to turn this juggernaut spaceship ..."

So you don't see greed as part of the problem? I agree that all of us need to change, but I don't agree that you can talk greedy people out of being greedy. They feel entitled and disregard how their wealth is acquired on the backs of other people. NAFTA, for example, as destroyed the already weak Mexican economy and the lives of small farmers there. I'm sure little effect was felt by the ricos. Or certainly not by those in the U.S. who hold stock in the corporations reaping profits from cheap labor drive from countryside to city. Nor do they examine the source of their windfalls. But there has been a cascading effect, whether they know it or not, and passive income held by those who don't really work for a living has been part of the cause of Mexico's becoming a nearly failed country.

[mkfs]

Kallie wrote: "So you don't see greed as part of the problem? "

I see selfishness (or, perhaps, self-centeredness) as more of a problem than greed.

In a sense, greed is just selfishness taken to a pathological extreme, so it sounds like they're the same thing.

But you can change the behaviour of greedy people quite easily: just change provide a more profitable alternative.

Getting self-centered people to consider welfare beyond their own (or their immediate family's) is much more difficult.

This is all assuming we're still talking about energy dependence. There are a whole slew of other problems that are exacerbated by greed and "bottom-line thinking".

[Kallie]

I suppose being self-centered and/or ignorant of the plight of others plays a part too, and that's not greed so much as obliviousness.

[Amanda]

Monty J wrote: "I'd would love to teach Atlas Shrugged exposing it as a communist plot to destroy democracy. "

I'd like to hear that! By the way, I agree with everything you and Peter said.

[Lushr]

I can see what you're saying Mkfs, in fact I agreed with you until recently but as I've done more reading I've started to realise that change, such as climate awareness and changing the way we talk about the economy, these are things which most of us would happily acknowledge and make small changes towards, particularly the fallacy of "economic growth" but those with vested interests - did you know that 83% of the stock market is owned by the top 10% of America? These are the people benefitting from strip mining and pulling apart companies and selling them for scrap. Economic growth has done great for them, and nothing makes more money. Environmental and humane concerns cost money so they offshore those problems when they can (give Mexico all the crap polluting factories then tell the world the poor are filthy and have no environmental concerns to back their choice to continue these moves) and congratulate themselves on how clever they are. They market wasteful ways of life and make them significantly cheaper than healthy living with ridiculous subsidies like Coca cola getting pure spring water for $1 per million gallons while nearby farms pay comparatively astronomical prices for water from the local river.

The majority of decisions being made about our society are nothing to do with us, the majority of the damage is being done in the name of profit for a very select few.

If I had an awesome clean timely public transport I'd use it, I wouldn't sell my car, but I wouldn't need it every day. Remember that we the consumers are only about 1 billion people compared to the other 6 billion out there producing the crap we buy. Eventually our lifestyles will simply be out priced, we won't be able to afford meat on the table every night, or fuel to drive back from college to see the parents every weekend. That will solve a heap of problems in itself. But it's the 6 billion and their conditions, the environment they live in, the pollution etc - they are the ones whose lives can be significantly improved, and none of them have cars.
(There are only a billion or so cars and Europeans for example have more cars than people)

[mkfs]

Lushr wrote: "These are the people benefitting from strip mining and pulling apart companies and selling them for scrap. Economic growth has done great for them, and nothing makes more money"

That's an entirely different conversation (from the whole "invasion of sovereign nations is necessary to maintain our fossil fuel dependence"), but you are correct.

The market pretty much forces every company to have increasing profits (speculation, short selling, blame who you will), which is a destructive cycle. There are physical limits: no company can have ever-increasing growth.

That is what I meant by "bottom-line thinking": decisions are made, not with any 'global' interest in mind, or even with the interest of long-term shareholders, but only with the intent to attract short-term shareholders who will flip their investment once the stock goes up a point or two (often 0.1% or less -- we're talking institutional investors here).

The only way to fix this is to require accountability (for damage to the local economy, or environmental damage, or whatever is appropriate) -- but that is not going to happen, for reasons you (and others) put forth.

[Matthew]

I had no sympathy for the narrator who was quick to blame everyone else for all his problems, and showed no insight for the real cause of his problems-himself.
Everyone else was a "phony" because he didn't know how to read people. He simply lacked the interpersonal skills needed to function effectively and he wasn't willing to learn them. He even resented those who tried to help him.

[Petergiaquinta]

"Simply"? That's it?

You sound like you'd fit in well at Pencey Prep where they're busy "molding boys into clear-thinking young men." And since 1888, too! Oh boy!

That goddam Holden Caulfield! What a pussy, eh? Not willing to embrace those essential interpersonal skills that Pencey's so famous for!

[mkfs]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "That goddam Holden Caulfield! What a pussy, eh? Not willing to embrace those essential interpersonal skills that Pencey's so famous for! "

Like chowing down on vomlette?

[Petergiaquinta]

I'm not familiar with that term here in the Midwest, but I'll add it to my list of good portmanteau words...

[Kallie]

". . . the interpersonal skills needed to function effectively . . ." Ugh. Doesn't sound very genuine to me. No, Holden didn't know or want those skills.

[Matthew]

It wasn't just at his school, but everywhere else that he went. He had problems dealing with people from all ends of the spectrum. Like the episode in the hotel with the pimp and the prostitute.

[Matthew]

Petergiaquinta wrote: ""Simply"? That's it?

You sound like you'd fit in well at Pencey Prep where they're busy "molding boys into clear-thinking young men." And since 1888, too! Oh boy!

That goddam Holden Caulfield! Wh..."

What do you think they meant by "clear-thinking" young men?

As for interpersonal skills, that's not necessarily a part of his schooling at Pencey. Their bookish learning may or may not have prepared them well for the real world.

Even when he ventured out of the school, he seemed to take issue with the perceived character flaws of everyone he met. They did not view the world in the same way that he did, and he was unwilling to accept the differences in perspective from different viewpoints.

[Petergiaquinta]

Matthew wrote: "What do you think they meant by "clear-thinking" young men?"

A drone like Stradlater, no doubt...someone who gets another student to write his essay for him the night that student has been expelled, then criticizes the same guy for writing something brilliant because he can't appreciate it or even be grateful for the favor...the same kind of drone who uses his BMOC status to take advantage of young women in the back seat of a faculty member's car...I'm sure Stradlater would be a candidate for inclusion in the next edition of the Pencey Prep publicity rag.

Look, I'm not sure irony is your strong suit, but let's address what you say about Holden's taking issue with the "perceived character flaws of everyone he met." The flaws he takes issue with are the flaws that all good human beings should take issue with: cruelty, perversity, meanness, greed, hypocrisy, shallowness, and violence, for starters...and he doesn't take issue with everyone in the first place. Go back and re-read the book--consider the nun with the glasses carrying the basket; what about Allie or Phoebe or Jane? He's not even too hard on old Sunny, and she rips him off and gets him beat up.

There are a number of characters free from his criticism, and it has nothing to do with differences in viewpoint...Holden's not even Catholic ferchrissakes, and he gives the nun most of the money he has left. It has to do with empathy and compassion and sincerity...or the lack thereof.

[Matthew]

Petergiaquinta wrote:The flaws he takes issue with are the flaws that all good human beings should take issue with: cruelty, perversity, meanness, greed, hypocrisy, shallowness, and violence, for starters...and he doesn't take issue with everyone in the first place. "

Stradlater clear-thinking? Perhaps so in terms of how to manipulate people, but I doubt that those were the behaviors that the school condoned.

OK, so he didn't take issue with everyone, and some of his criticisms may have been justified, but he frequently ended up in situations for which he totally lacked insight. What life experiences did he have to make all of his self-assured judgments?

And regarding the episode with Sunny and her pimp, he should have known better than to argue with people like that. What was he thinking?

And about him taking issue with hypocrisy and shallowness, don't you find it ironic that Holden frequently lied to people?

[Matthew]

Monty J wrote: Holden thought he was being profound by calling out the "phoniness" around him, but he was simply ignorant of human nature. He hadn't lived long enough to understand what he didn't know, and demonstrated his immaturity in a profound way.


Agreed. Some of that "phoniness" is what others would call good manners or etiquette.

[Petergiaquinta]

Matthew wrote: "And about him taking issue with hypocrisy and shallowness, don't you find it ironic that Holden frequently lied to people? "

Certainly...isn't that the point here? If Holden were perfect, we wouldn't have much of a novel, would we? But he's the best character in the book despite his flaws. Again, take a look throughout the novel: does he ever lie to hurt anyone or even to help himself? Most of the lies he tells on his journey are for the benefit of others.

But what hypocrisy or shallowness do you find with Holden's character? He tells us upfront he's a liar, one of the biggest ones you'll ever find. He doesn't wave his morality around like a banner in front of everyone. His empathy and compassion are genuine.

Here's someone else perfectly aligned with the values taught at Pencey: Ossenburger. "Bookish learning" is the last thing Pencey Prep is about!

[Matthew]

Petergiaquinta wrote: But what hypocrisy or shallowness do you find with Holden's character? He tells us upfront he's a liar, one of the biggest ones you'll ever find. He doesn't wave his morality around like a banner in front of everyone.

He is a pathological liar, and yet he has the audacity to complain about the phoniness of others.

[Petergiaquinta]

Matthew wrote: "He is a pathological liar, and yet he has the audacity to complain about the phoniness of others. "

Hmmm...I'm not sure you understand what's going on with Holden Caulfield. Holden is a terrible liar, but he tells us as much on page 16. And if he acknowledges his lies, that puts him on a very different level from a Grade A phony like Ossenburger.

[Kallie]

I see Holden as one of our first cultural rebels, questioning the 'All-American' Dale Carnegie shtick, which urged people to win friends and influence people (make commodities of oneself and others, and sell, sell, sell). This trend has become ever more apparent, to such an extent that many accept consumerism and selling oneself as 'positive' and see questioning the value of this phony behavior as (God forbid) negative, non-smiley-face. Holden is a character who questions, and that is one reason why Catcher is important because a lot of what is socially accepted in our country should in fact be questioned.

[Matthew]

Kallie wrote: "I see Holden as one of our first cultural rebels, questioning the 'All-American' Dale Carnegie shtick, which urged people to win friends and influence people (make commodities of oneself and others..."

Being a cultural rebel is not necessarily a new thing. World literature for hundreds of years is full individuals who questioned the established norms. The difference is that Holden was very young and had limited life experiences to recognize the subtleties of the real world. He was therefore an ineffective rebel because he did not fully understand the nuances of society and dismissed everything as phony.
I agree that there is too much pressure on individuals to put on a smiley face, and not everyone can pull it off, but in certain lines of work it is a necessary attribute. It could be considered hypocrisy, but it can also be seen as making an effort to be agreeable.

[Kallie]

Matthew wrote: "Being a cultural rebel is not necessarily a new thing. "

I meant against the particular selling and consumer culture that I described. And usually, it has been the young who rebel. Being young does not invalidate one's perceptions and feelings. In that regard, knowledge can distance and discredit genuine feelings. People need to balance feeling with knowledge, obviously, but most inspiration for social change comes from the perception/feeling that social values have become distorted.

[Matthew]

Kallie wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Being a cultural rebel is not necessarily a new thing. "

I meant against the particular selling and consumer culture that I described. And usually, it has been the young who rebel..."


You're never too old to rebel, but I understand what you're saying in that frequently older people get into a routine and they don't want to disrupt the status quo.

Knowledge can actually help the rebellious spirit. The founding fathers fully understood the British System of Government and they went beyond that, drawing upon the ancient and contemporary thinkers to break away and build a new nation. George Washington had been in the British Military and he drew upon what he learned from them to eventually defeat them.

And getting back to Holden. He was such a malcontent, that I suspect if he were living today, he would be against all the current trends because they were not his ideas. In other words he would rebel against rebellion.

[Kallie]

Matthew wrote: "He was such a malcontent, that I suspect if he were living today, he would be against all the current trends because they were not his ideas. In other words he would rebel against rebellion. ..."

Since many current social 'trends' are more materialistic and celebratory of phoniness than ever, no doubt he would. And no one is saying that rebellion never includes phony elements. Holden had a discriminating s--t-detector. That is why Catcher is as important to read as ever.

[Monty J]

Matthew wrote: "You're never too old to rebel, but I understand what you're saying in that frequently older people get into a routine and they don't want to disrupt the status quo."

The Gray Panthers are alive and well in Berkeley, and I assume elsewhere. Some fierce rebels in this bunch. I attended one of their events.

My generation helped drive Nixon out of office, and we haven't forgotten what he stood for. We have witnessed the full impact of social deterioration since the '60s. Public schools used to be much better. A college education used to be affordable, cheap in some cases.

If anything, I think it's the younger generations that are politically inactive. How else could Rush Limbaugh and FOX "News" have such a following? Standing on the BART platform, they've all got their noses buried in cell phones. Ayn Rand has poisoned the minds of three generations.

I reach out to them by blogging, trying to share what I know about my political history. What's needed is a way of organizing so that what older generations learned doesn't get lost, drowned out by the propaganda machine of Christofascists camouflaged within the Religious Right.

I was talking to a Gen-Xer neighbor who hadn't even heard of the John Birch Society. Didn't know who Rupert Murdoch was and that he had immigrated from Australia in the early '80s and had built a media empire spewing Right-wing propaganda at the same time Reagan was weakening regulatory controls and shoveling money into the pockets of the wealthy.

My kids have heard of the JBS only because I rant about them, but they don't really get it that our way of life, our standard of living has for decades been under clandestine assault by a well-organized greedy semi-fascist movement, now imbeded within the GOP.

I could go on, but this isn't a political forum.

[Karen]

No it's not, and I stay away from politics in forums usually. But I will say that from the age of 52,(I am 56 now) I have been actively involved in Massachusetts state politics as a mental health advocate. I have testified in front of the senate and the house, and have spoken at a podium to 300 people. In fact, I'm going to the state house thursday to meet with legislators, as I do every year, taking time off from my job. It doesn't matter what party I belong to (I am an independent) legislators never ask. I have also written over 200 letters to these same legislators, and all my work has affected change. Oh, I didn't do all this myself :)