Critical Review: The Catcher in the Rye
J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye has been the subject of much literary criticism, especially in the initial decades following its original publication in 1951. Clinton W. Trowbridgeprovides an example of this. His 1966 article presents a detailed critical analysis of Salinger’s piece, with intricate focus on how the use of symbols and images impact on Holden’s development as a character and the reasons for it; his use a theological interdisciplinary methodology is particularly pronounced and significant. Danielle M. Roemer, with a background of writing on folklore and literature connections,promises a more rare modern perspective, however much of her general perceptions are shared by Trowbridge; suggesting interpretations of The Catcher in the Rye have not, in general terms, changed significantly in the twenty-six years that separates these critiques. Therefore their articles, though from distinctly different time periods, interpret the crucial images and dissect the fascinating Holden Caulfield in a manner which is in many ways distinct;although, as withmost criticisms of the same text, similarities become almost unavoidable.
Being a monologue, it is impossible to consider or write on The Catcher in the Rye without an intense focus on its self-conscious narrator; Holden Caulfield. One key feature of Holden is how he addresses his contempt for the world around him and others’ attempts to deconstruct it. When Spencer suggests life is a gameHolden responds, albeit to himself, with “If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game... But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game.”(Salinger,page 7). This encapsulates Holden’s view of life, the theories of its intricacies and attempts to deconstruct it; leading to his efforts throughout the novel to reinvent himself. He doesn’t understand life but is aware of its deficiencies and complexities, meaning he becomes frustrated by simplifications, such as Spencer’s. Roemer remarks that “like most of us” Holden“reconstructs himself”, with the noteworthy factor being “the [vast] number of foci of the identities he attempts during only a few days”(Page 6). This reconstruction is a consequence of Holden’s idealism, with the quantity of reinventions owing to how his idealistic model is shattered throughout the narrative. To an extent, Trowbridge disagrees. He argues instead that Holden, rather than reconstruct himself, initially searches for a world he believes to be suited to his idealism until “attempts to escape into aseries of idealworlds, fails”(Trowbridge, page 683). Even then, rather than Roemer’s reconstruction theory(6), Trowbridge favours the idea that the novel’s resolution is Holden’s “realization of ahigher and moreimpersonalideal,that man and the world inspiteof alltheirimperfections,are to be loved.”(683). In that sense Trowbridge sees Holden recognising, inspired by how Phoebe “looked so damn nice” on the carousel “in her blue coat and all”(Salinger 191), the nuances that make life beautiful and people endearing. Whereas Roemer believes Salinger is attempting to display “the fictive status of identity”(10), or how Holden is able to adapt his personality until he finds a resolution. Therefore, these two writers’ point of disagreement is whether Holden undergoes a change in personality, a change he does attempt in many guises throughout the novel, or undergoes a realisation or epiphany which corrects his wrongs with the world. In truth, neither perception is wholly justifiable, though both make some valid points. Holden doesn’t, based on comments such as “how do you know what you’re going to do till you do it?”(192), lose the ironic tone that would justify an intrinsic change in character. He does, however, gain an appreciation of people beyond what would have previously seemed comprehendible; “I think I even miss that goddam Maurice”. Consequentially, he gains an understanding which is as powerful and significant as Trowbridge suggests(683), but without gaining the romantic ideals that language such as “in spite of all” and “loved”(Trowbridge 683) might imply.
A comparison can be drawn between these articles, as both see the ‘catcher’ image as relating to Holden’s opinions on childhood.Roemer places children in her “domain of the... innocents”(9), that Holden feels he must protect as the ‘catcher’. With the same general point, Trowbridge argues that “childhood is good, the only pure good, but it is surrounded by perils, the cliff of adolescence over which the children will plunge into the evil of adulthood unless stopped”(687), with Holden, as the ‘catcher’, desiring to do the stopping. Yet Trowbridge’s analysis goes further; drawing a comparison to Holden’s religious views in order to dissect the idea of the ‘catcher’ as a realistic image that can be applied to his own life(689). He sees the ‘catcher’ as an ideal, but an impossible one; and hence it depresses him that he cannot possibly escape what he deems the spuriousness of the adult or real world, into his idealistic parallel. Conversely, Roemer believes the image to be part of a “nostalgic reconstruction” and an attempt to “recontextualize memory”(8), as Holden looks back on what he has lost and idealises a self as which he could have been a saviour, in particular tohis brother. Therefore, in this context, Roemer misses the implications Holden’s desire to be “the catcher in the rye” has on his future; specifically how he wants to become the saviour of mankind. In this sense Trowbridge picks up on a level of religious perspective that Roemer negates, though referring to the role as “transcendent”(8). “Holden cannot live up to his Christ ideal”(Trowbridge 684), gives a theological context to Holden’s desire to be ‘catcher’- not for those he has lost, but for everyone. This lack of use of interdisciplinary methodology, through theology, is a limitation of Roemer’s piece; however Trowbridge does fail to deconstruct Holden’s desire to the extent of outing its motivation. This, Roemer does in her evaluation of the possibility of a want for “nostalgic reconstruction”(8), so much as she allows for the interpretation that Holden’s ‘catcher’ aspirations are interlinked with what has not been ‘caught’ in his past.
There also exists a difference in their interpretations of the role of Phoebe. For Trowbridge, she is the only person who “will not disappoint”(686) Holden; while for Roemer she is “the most commonsensical and emotionally honest”(9) critic of his views and stories. “Phoebe enjoys the presentness to the present”(9), thus acting as a contrast to Holden’s cynicism and contempt of the world around him. Trowbridge interprets the relationship as Holden being “at home in a world of innocence and integrity”(686) when with Phoebe, but this suggests a level of comfort which doesn’t seem to exist. Rather Holden’s meetings with Phoebe are more what Roemer infers to: a criticism, both consciously and subconsciously of his perspective which, though uncomfortable, provides a beneficial frankness and contrasts positively with other advice-giving figures in the novel. This suggestion of comfort could, however, merely be a form of intellectual continuity error, as Trowbridge attempts to capture the true essence of the siblings’ relationship by indicating how Phoebe “forces him [Holden] to make some sort of affirmation, to explain the sort of idealism that would justify so sad-making a picture of the world as it is”(687). This implication is far more accurate to the image that is conveyed through the relationship. It also highlights the limitations of analysis influenced too greatly by context, as Trowbridge’s first comment was clearly influenced by a perception that home and family are comforting; however for Holden Caulfield, this is not the case. The latter, more accurate analysis is an example of the benefit of practical criticism as it draws incite without the influence of context, which in this case is to its detriment. Phoebe saying, for example, “Don’t make me laugh. You can’t even ride a horse”(Salinger 150) depicts her encounters with Holden as a scenario which conflicts with the sociological notion that he might be happy and comforted, rather than have his views challenged and belittled, by the presence of his sister and his family home.
In conclusion, both articles present an accurate and articulate analysis of the main themes of The Catcher in the Rye. Generally, Roemer, with just over five pages, makes a far more concise argument; preferring a focus on key points to Trowbridge’s deconstruction of almost every event in Holden’s narrative. However, Trowbridge naturally covers more with greater detail in a far longer article, with their respective lengths an indication of how popularity and necessity for criticism of this piece has changed over time. Both articles do, nevertheless, suffer in their attempts to oversimplify the complicated and provide definitive answers to the abstract. Arguably, as academics, this is exactly what they are employed to do, though their analyses, especially concerning the novel’s ending and Holden’s change in the final chapter, do suffer as a consequence. Furthermore, Trowbridge could be justifiable criticised for his confused and inconsistent analysis of Holden’s relationship with Phoebe, as he initially suggests a point he does not seem to mean, going on to present a more logical argument. Beyond this, these two articles dissect a canonical novel in a perfectly acceptable manner, with Trowbridge’s delving into theological context providing a particularly fascinating insight into the mind of Holden Caulfield.
1