By Keith Dromm, Heather Salter
Few novels have had extra impression on contributors and literary tradition than J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher within the Rye. released in 1951 and meant by way of Salinger for adults (early drafts have been released within the New Yorker and Colliers), the radical fast turned championed through formative years who pointed out with the awkwardness and alienation of the novel’s protagonist, Holden Caulfield. on the grounds that then the publication and its reclusive writer were furnishings of either renowned and literary tradition. Catcher is likely to be the one glossy novel that's respected both by way of the numerous american citizens whom Holden Caulfield helped via highschool and puberty and literary critics (such because the New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik who insisted as lately as 2010 that Catcher is a "perfect" twentieth-century novel).
One premise of The Catcher within the Rye and Philosophy is that the benefit and sincerity with which readers determine with Holden Caulfield rests on Salinger’s recognition to the nuances and traits of expertise within the smooth global. Coupled with Salinger’s deft subjective, first-person kind, Holden involves look extra genuine than any fictional personality may still. This and different paradoxes raised via the unconventional are handled via authors who locate solutions in philosophy, really in twentieth-century phenomenology and existentialism--areas of philosophy that proportion Salinger’s consciousness to lived, rather than theorized, adventure. Holden’s preoccupation with “phonies,” together with his consistent striving to interpret and choose the reasons and ideology of these round him, additionally faucets into modern curiosity in philosophical theories of justice and Harry Frankfurt’s lately celebrated research of "bullshit."
Per Salinger’s request, Catcher hasn't ever been made right into a motion picture. One degree of the devotion and fanatical curiosity Catcher keeps to motivate, even if, is concept in blogs and magazines approximately even if motion picture rights may well develop into to be had within the wake of Salinger’s dying in 2010. those articles stay only hypothetical, however the questions they inspire--Who might direct? And, particularly, Who might big name as Holden Caulfield?--are as brilliant and genuine as Holden himself.
Read or Download The Catcher in the Rye and Philosophy: A Book for Bastards, Morons, and Madmen (Popular Culture and Philosophy) PDF
Best Literary Studies books
This provocative booklet undertakes a brand new and hard studying of modern semiotic and structuralist thought, arguing that motion pictures, novels, and poems can't be studied in isolation from their audience and readers.
An highbrow who didn't like intellectuals, a socialist who didn't belief the nation, a author of the left who chanced on it more straightforward to forgive writers of the appropriate, a liberal who was once opposed to unfastened markets, a Protestant who believed in faith yet now not in God, a fierce opponent of nationalism who outlined Englishness for a new release.
Mr. Pink:"Why cannot we select our personal colour? "Joe:"I attempted that after, it do not paintings. You get 4 men scuffling with over who is gonna be Mr. Black. "—Quentin Tarantino, Reservoir DogsMen's outfits went black within the 19th century. Dickens, Ruskin and Baudelaire all requested why it used to be, in an age of preferrred wealth and tool, that males desired to costume as though going to a funeral.
For the 1st time seeing that 1695, a whole textual content of De Arte Graphica as Dryden himself wrote it truly is on hand to readers. In all, quantity XX provides six items written in the course of Dryden's ultimate decade, each one of them both asked via a pal or commissioned by way of a writer. are translations, 3 introduce translations made via others, and the 6th introduces an unique paintings by way of considered one of Dryden's neighbors.
Extra info for The Catcher in the Rye and Philosophy: A Book for Bastards, Morons, and Madmen (Popular Culture and Philosophy)
You'll not often inform which used to be the stupidest of the 3 of them” (10, p. 95). of the women have been ingesting Tom Collinses in December, which, it sounds as if, is a social pretend pas, yet Holden explains that, “They didn’t recognize any higher” (10, p. 97). the ladies additionally acted like bastards. they'd ordered beverages earlier than Holden confirmed up, yet they left him with the full tab. “I imagine they should’ve a minimum of provided to pay for the beverages that they had prior to I joined them. . . . ” (10, p. 98). Their now not providing isn't really only a contravention of a social norm; they incurred the price of their past beverages and Holden had no ethical legal responsibility to pay for them. In stiffing him for these beverages, they have been, in essence, stealing from him. yet rather than calling them bastards, Holden says, “I didn’t care a lot, notwithstanding. They have been so ignorant” (10, p. 98). the following, as with “phony,” the variation among being a bastard and being a moron, is intelligence. They couldn’t have recognized greater. Why may perhaps a person’s lack of know-how mitigate Holden’s judgment approximately her? there's a well-respected precept in ethical philosophy referred to as “ought implies can. ” the belief is that there will be no legal responsibility for you do anything that you simply can't do. for example, you couldn't have an ethical legal responsibility to leap over a construction or to fly by way of flapping your wings simply because, bodily, you can’t do both. equally, in the event you would not have the psychological skill for making ethical judgements, it'd be flawed to carry you chargeable for these judgements. This’s why we don't carry babies or individuals with serious psychological disabilities morally answerable for crimes—literally, they can now not comprehend any larger. Holden turns out to treat the women in Lavender Room as mentally incompetent to make knowledgeable ethical judgements. as a result, the phrases “phony” and “bastard” simply don’t follow. How should still we reply to “morons”? no longer with ethical blame; they don't have the intelligence required for figuring out such a lot ethical norms. in keeping with the “ought implies can” precept, Holden turns out to imagine the single valid reaction is to turn into “depressed” or to “feel sorry” for those humans. Holden turns out accountable Ernie the piano participant for being a snob Catcher 4th pages_HIP HOP & philosophy 8/13/12 10:06 AM web page ninety five Holden Onto What’s correct ninety five and a phony, yet looking back, he comes to a decision that Ernie will not be accountable for his phoniness (because he has been manipulated through the entire phonies within the crowd). After this, Holden simply “felt kind of sorry for him” (12, p. 110). The Catchers as well as phonies, bastards, and morons, Holden identifies one other kind of individual that is extra idealistic. those individuals are morally chargeable for their activities; they’re now not attempting to provoke a person, conflating social norms with ethical norms; they’re now not violating any ethical norms; and so they convey a few kind of ethical advantage. those are the “catchers” of the tale. Holden doesn’t really name someone a “catcher,” yet a “catcher within the rye,” someone conserving little ones from a metaphorical cliff, is his ethical excellent (22, p.