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.
Personally, I'm really curious how much of this likeability is the character/plot of Holden vs. Stephen and how much is Salinger vs Joyce style of writing. Remember we see in Stephens mind and not Holden's, so if we read a story in Holden's mind it might be less likeable and Stephen from a salinger style could be likeable.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think Holden's colloquialisms were a lot more likeable than Stephen's self-obsession. But I do think that besides the style of narration, they are very similar characters. I wonder if the narration were different, for example if the styles were switched, which book I would like better.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree that Holden is not a completely unlikable character, as he's very human. He isn't some pitch-perfect protagonist who has maybe a couple minor flaws, and having talked with a few others who read the book previously, they seemed to find that too frustrating to like him as a character. I, meanwhile, don't agree with everything he says, but it's clear he's a complex human who's trying to reason his way through a confusing time in his life along with past tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I like Holden so much was that he was incredibly raw and clear when he was talking to us, compared to Stephen who most of the time would just say stuff that made no sense. I like Holden because he's just talking to us, and there isn't a filter so we see more into who he is as a person, and that gives us an opportunity to understand and feel his grief, pain, and happiness.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely on-topic, but do you think Holden considers himself a phony? He calls himself yellow, stupid, thinks of himself as kind of a weasel I got the impression. He seems ready to admit this whereas Stephen oversells himself somewhat, and I think that's why Holden is so much more likable than Stephen.
ReplyDeleteI think that Holden's much more likeable than Stephen, even despite his own faults, just because of his relative casual-ness. Stephen takes everything really seriously, which makes him seem much less approachable. However, even when Holden's criticizing everyone, he does it sarcastically so it's mean, but it's also pretty funny. Furthermore, he's able to be self-deprecating at times and can recognize his own hypocrisy. Joyce recognizes Stephen's faults and demonstrates that through the detached irony, but Stephen himself doesn't.
ReplyDelete