Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 13:44:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: Suzanne Morine 

Subject: Re: Why is Catcher in the Rye a war novel?



Mr. Punt,

Well, you asked for my opinion. Here it is..

I think you present your point of view clearly. But to me, this is not
illustrating a war, but a dichotomy.  To me, a war analogy must have
outright conflict. You do present the two sides as very different, but
it's overdrawn, in my opinion.

To say that only children care about meaning is to say all the
philosophers and nuns are (and were) immature. And to say that adults
only care about surface things while children only care about constancy
is rather broad-brushed. Childhood is full of wanting changes and
striving to grow up and be respected. Adults spend a lot of time
worrying about what the hell all their efforts are accomplishing and
what is the point of all of this.  I'm offended by what some adults are
like (as you describe) but by no means is being careless and superficial
the only thing characterizing adulthood. The disturbing thing, to me,
is you seem to agree with this value system (the last sentence seems to
come from you).

I think it's good that Holden looks at the world around him with a 
critical eye, with humor, and with love. I don't think that to stop doing
these things is to grow up. I don't think looking sharp and tough keeps
you from going crazy. Holden's greatest asset in dealing with the world
is probably his sharp humble sense of humor. Unlike you, I see a big
difference between him and Ackley, who has no sense of humor and seems
lazy and careless and sloppy.

I see Holden as invested in being in the world and making sense of it,
with the hope of finding a useful place for himself in it. I think he
has the sense by the end of the book to see you can't know all the
answers. As long as he realizes this from time to time, I think he will
not go crazy.

I think Holden has several trusted adults in his life and doesn't see
them as purely superficial. He was listening to Antolini and Mr. Spencer
and Carl Luce, but not disregarding his own perspective in the bargain,
either.

To me, a war analogy must have outright conflict. It can't be a war with
only Holden fighting it. But it could still be that Holden was fighting
like a resistance fighter and that the things that offended him were
deliberate and mean, people really trying to put childhood down: a *war*.
In some cases, like abusive people, it is a war for them, deliberate
meanness. Holden saw the towel-snapping guy as really trying to hurt people.

I think Jane kept her kings in the back row because she was in an abusive
home (with the booze hound), and rather helpless, and she saw the misuse
of power as the basic problem there. I think she liked the look of the 
powerful kings doing nothing. Clearly, that's just my impression, but I
was struck by how different yours was. Similarly, I don't see Jane as
a sexually active girl who wouldn't care if she slept with Stradlater
or not. I see her as a shy girl who made sure she checked in at nine o'clock,
possibly to get away from the shallow, big guy, Stradlater.

I just thought I'd share my opinion. It's always jarring to me when I see
just how differently some people see things and I like to think it 
can help us all to know what others think. Thanks for asking what I think.

(Based on our differences and on our divergent views on the general topic,
I think we probably have opposite, or nearly opposite, personality types.
I really appreciate Carl Jung's personality type theory and I find it
suggests things about life and philosophy. A thought: it could be very 
interesting to hear Stradlater's, Ackley's, Mr. Spencer's, etc.
stories told much like Holden told his. Very opinionated and one sided,
all about them, Holden only being a side character unless he meant a lot to
them personally - like Allie did to Holden.)

Thanks for writing.

Good day,
Suzanne

[inclusion of past email removed for brevity]

return to What Stradlater Did that Sunday
return to Exploring The Catcher in the Rye