Holden's Likability

From the beginning of the novel, Holden establishes himself as a trustworthy narrator. He addresses us like a friend - despite him consistently undercutting all the characters around him, he talks to us as if we'd understand him, unlike all the other phonies around us. Holden considers us to be on the same wavelength as him, and his friendliness and sense of humor made me - and a lot of other readers too, I think - like him very much after the first chapter. The direct contrast from Stephen to him made that considerably clearer too, as Stephen - even though I did like him as a character - was often overdramatic and serious in a way that could grate on a reader. He took himself far too seriously, leading us at times in class to describe him as having a superiority complex. Holden, on the other hand, is constantly undermining himself - calling himself yellow, or stupid, or crazy. Holden's witty and honest narration style that almost seems like he's talking to us is a fresh change of pace, and I found myself immediately drawn to him as a narrator.

However, as the book continued, it became clear that there was something deeper in Holden's insults towards himself, and it became quickly troubling. There was also his thoughts and descriptions of other people and things. Negativity is practically Holden Caufield's middle name, and he manages to insult and criticize almost everybody and everything. While at first it felt refreshing to see a teenager criticize adults and the system, it became much more tiring as the book went on. By the end, Phoebe's question of "don't you like anything?" seemed very poignant. Does Holden genuinely care for anybody or anything?

It may not seem so with a quick skim. There are a couple of people he describes as likable - such as his classmates' mother he met while leaving Pencey. But when he interacted with her, he told her outrageous lies about himself and her own son. And as for the majority of people, he constantly calls them "phonies" and criticizes them for their hypocrisy and inauthenticity of life. This is the same narrator who bragged in one of the very earliest chapter about being a wonderful liar. We often discussed his own hypocrisy in class - he's one of the very phonies in class he criticized so often. There is also the question of whether our lying protagonist is even a reliable narrator - the seeds of distrust.

On a similar note, we discussed if Holden could possibly have a sort of martyr syndrome. It is evident in the scene with the prostitute and Maurice that his refusal to give the money to them is not about the money but about the principle of things and Maurice's dishonesty. It's proven that it's not about money because in the very next chapter he gives the nuns twice the amount Maurice was insisting. To some of the readers, five dollars might seem like a ridiculous amount to get beat up over, but to Holden it was evidently important enough.

Throughout the book, my opinion on Holden was constantly changing. However, by the end, my thoughts on him as a person had solidified. I believe he is a deeply troubled character, with a lot of unaddressed grief. I think he is a very smart and honorable person, with a set of values and morals that have been shaped by his trauma and that are now being crushed by the passage of time. He cares deeply about his sister and his dead brother. I find him extremely sympathetic and am often concerned about him - and yes, I would say that in my opinion he's very likeable, and the sort of character that I would want to be friends with. However, I am sure it depends on the reader, and I can see why some readers would become incredibly frustrated with him.

The Birth of the Artist

Throughout the novel, a very particular idea of artistry develops. From the beginning, Stephen's always had a unique interest with certain words, phrases, and stories. He was never a part of the crowd, but always rather to the side, cast away with no friends and no parents around to comfort him, As I wrote about in his last blog post, I believe that's why he clung so tightly to the idea of being a dark romantic poet. He found comfort that he wasn't alone with his feelings, and wanted so badly to become the dark romantic poet. The things that mattered to him when he was a child - his family, his religion, his country - fizzled away the older he got, and the more time he spent in school.

Stephen's first attempt of writing a poem was still when he was young and still looked up to his family. He tried to write the poem about complex Irish politics but failed to even write a line. His second attempt was when he was more distant from his parents and the Church, and then he is much more successful, though his poem is very romanticized and not very good, judging by the fact that Joyce shows us little of it. His third poem (and final, from what we the readers see), however, is an extraordinary improvement, though still not quite fully developed as an artistic piece. At this point, Stephen looks down upon his parents, the Church, and his own country. However, he still lives with them. That's when Stephen develops his idea that he is not distant enough. For him to continue success and to truly become an artist, he has to "exile" himself from it all. It seems like a foregone conclusion to me that Stephen ends up believing as deeply as he does that this must be true for him to become the artist. His loneliness and his role as an "observer" was his introduction to art and therefore he must come full circle and become as lonely and observant to his old life as possible for him to become the artist.

The idea of what it means to be an artist that Joyce develops in the novel intrigues me. I've always been taught "write what you know" and encouraged to write about my own experiences that I can currently relate to. I think there is a semblance of truth and beauty to the idea that distance, however, can create the artist. It certainly worked for Joyce/Stephen -- he completely distanced himself from Ireland but wrote only about it, and reflected on his own life, family, experiences, and religion through his work in a way that is unparalleled to any other book I have read. Distance gave him the ability to be critical and ironic in a way that he wouldn't have able to been if he was still a part of the environment he wrote about, but he still did write what he had known, and he wrote it so well and so accurately because it had once been so dear to him. Despite how distant he was physically, it almost seems like his soul still remained in Ireland.