Skip to main content

The hypocritical Phoniness of Holden Caufield.

     Despite his frequent rants against the phoniness of everyone else Holden is at times a bit of a phony himself. While he is constantly telling the reader all of his thoughts and how he's upset that more people don't speak their minds, there are a few circumstances where he hides his true thoughts. 

One of the times when Holden is the most phony is when he is talking to Ernest Morrow's mother on the train to New York from Pencey. Holden harbors very negative feelings for Ernest and calls him "doubtless the biggest bastard that ever went to Pencey, in the whole crumby history of the school" but despite holding such disdain for Ernest he still cannot bring himself to talk bad about a child directly to his mother. In fact Holden goes further than just not talking bad about Ernest but actually reassuring Mrs. Morrow that her child was a great guy who everyone wanted to be class president. You could argue that Holden is playing the long con just to mess with Ernest, but it seems to me that he really just can't stand to see a sad mother.

    The opening of the book also features an excellent example of Holden being quite the phony when he is talking to Mr. Spencer about his failing his classes and being kicked out of Pencey. While Mr. Spencer is lecturing Holden about the way that he needs to live his life and how he should apply himself to his education, Holden is dissecting the lecture and explaining why its all wrong, but just to the reader. Holden doesn't voice his feelings on the contents of this lecture to Mr. Spencer, but rather just says the right things to keep the man happy. Withholding true feelings to keep people happy is one of Holden's primary issues with other people yet he can't help doing it himself. 

  

    


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sequels vs. Series Ft. Parasite Pig

            Sequels especially movie sequels often get a bad rep for being boring money makers and they never seem to live up to the original content. Some examples of these sequels are the ones that Disney makes for many of their franchises. But there are also sequels that aren't so bad, such as a book I recently read, Parasite Pig. So I wondered, what makes a sequel good, and what makes them bad?     I think first we need to take into consideration the difference between sequels and series. Sequels usually come after a story that was already wrapped up. The main plot was resolved and usually, nothing needs to be added. In the original content, there's not just story telling, but world building and character development. These things are usually lost in sequels because they are simply not needed, but without them, the story turns out to be rather lackluster. Also, in most cases, sequels just do not need to exist. The original story is f...
12 comments
Read more

The Two Forms of History Nonfiction

    History books are some of the most popular nonfiction books, and they are my favorite type of nonfiction books. The scope of these books can vary wildly, and they can focus on the most minute details of a historical event or they can give the entire story of a region, country, or period. The wide variety of topics covered in different history books means that there is a wide variety of writing styles, but I have separated these styles into two broad categories: Novels and Textbooks.     History books that I would call a novel are called that because of how the book is written as a story. Writing a historical book as a story mainly means that like a novel there is a setting, plot, and many times a few central people who are essential to the story and quoted frequently. These types of books are usually about a specific project or group of people, and are about more recent events (~1900-present) because the record keeping is better and more quotes are avai...
6 comments
Read more

Comparing the Book to the Movie: Why it's Stupid

By Walter Kraatz       The use of a book as the premise for a movie has happened since the beginning of film with early 20th  century adaptions of Frankenstein and Cinderella being prime examples. The comparison of a book and its movie is a popular point of discussion and contention between book nerds and film nerds. This comparison between a book and film, while fun, is inherently flawed because of the differences between the two mediums.     The most obvious and important difference between a book and a film is the visual element present in a film that is absent in a book. Even if a film is based on a comic book or graphical novel the amount of detail that can be shown in a film exceeds the book because of the movements and expressions of the actors and the detailed background images that can be limited by print quality in a comic book. Because of the lack of a visual element in a book the author must provide a description which can be interpreted b...
11 comments
Read more