Ah yes -- Salinger. The Catcher in the Rye, the book that's supposed to change my life. Mr. Mitchell told me to put down that hype though, and I'm kinda glad he did. I'm sure I enjoyed (well am enjoying) the book much better than if I continued to have those high expectations for it.
By all means, I enjoy this book far more than The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I'm not saying I didn't like the "founding father" of coming of age novels (well I guess I kinda am) -- the style just isn't my thing. Salinger's -- or I guess Holden's -- voice as a narrator is much much more colloquial than Stephens, making it a lot easier to read. He's the type of narrator who'd appreciate a "suh dude" greeting.
He's quirky though -- like if I read it "out loud" in my head it makes sense, but if I read it while looking at the text as a whole it seems... weird. It's hard to explain, so I'll use an example. Remember in the beginning of the first chapter he talks about his brother, and how he wrote a short story called "The Secret Goldfish"? I'll reproduce it below to remind us all about the voice:
"He wrote this terrific book of short stories, The Secret Goldfish, in case you never heard of him. The best one in it was 'The Secret Goldfish.'" (3-4)
Reading this out loud, it's like "uhuh tell me more" or like "mhm keep it going", but like seeing it on paper its like "yea no sh*t the collection of stories is named after that what did you expect". Or like here's another example on the very next page:
"The reason I was standing way up on Thomsen Hill, instead of down at the game, was because I'd just got back from New York with the fencing team. I was the goddam manager of the fencing team. Very big deal. We'd going in New York that morning for this fencing meeting with McBurney School. Only, we didn't have the meet. I left all the foils and equipment and stuff on the goddam subway." (5)
Again, these few lines are very wordy. You "just got back from New York with the fencing team" so no sh*t you were "going in New York that morning for this fencing meeting". These lines could easily be shortened down to something like:
"I was on Thomsen Hill because I was away in New York for our fencing team's meet with McBurney, but I forgot the equipment on the subway so we didn't."
Or something like that. Yet Salinger purposefully makes him repeat himself, and in a way his mistakes puts us readers at ease, not to mention how he lets us in on his "gossip". Being let into his group feels like a privilege since he criticizes literally everyone else in the novel (including himself), but since he talks to us in such a "buddy buddy" tone it feels... warm.
And possible another reason Salinger's style of wordyness/repetition flows nicely the first read (but not the second) is because it feels exactly like we are in Holden's stream of consciousness. The pacing and timing of everything feels like he is narrating exactly what he is thinking at the time he is thinking it -- very relieving indeed after hearing explications and expansions of the tiniest of thoughts in Stephen's head coming to life in Joyce's elaborate, long, sentences!
ReplyDeleteYou're totally right in that the dialogue seems natural in your head. Like James said, we are reading Holden's stream of consciousness. I mean, if my head monologue was written down for everyone to read, I think it would have the same response: makes sense as a head though, but kind of looks odd written down... It's not really meant to be written down, right? kinda meant to be kept in your head. But since Holden's ideas are here for us to read, it seems familiar and right, but not if we look too closely. We have to remember that it is his stream of consciousness and it does seem very similar to what most people are thinking in their own heads. sort of.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this book is the kind that is better read as a conversation between you and Holden. Like you said, the sentences about his brother's book sound much better when you say them out loud, but sound sort of stupid on paper. If you read the book like it's a conversation it flows better and really does seem to feel warm.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the three previous comments. Holden is a vey conversational guy and if you just read without contemplating things it just keeps going and you sort of lose track. This is similar to talking to someone you are very fond of... However, I think the point that you make is an interesting one. As soon as you start to look deeper and get out of the quick paced reading you do in your head, you begin to see disconnects. These include things like the no shit moments.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I feel much closer and a more personal relationship with Holden. I feel like his stream of consciousness is more a regular person rather than Stephens insane stream of religious imagery and randomness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I much prefer Holden as a main character to Stephen. He's more relatable and interesting, and while he is brooding, he doesn't seem as into himself as Stephen is. In addition to that, Salinger writes Holden's thoughts and interactions in a way that is accessible to the reader, much unlike Joyce's writing style.
ReplyDeleteYeah I think you're right; the slight repetitiveness contributes to the overall conversational feel of the prose. It reminds me of transcribing interviews for Oral History subbie year. People talk way differently than they write, and I kept being shocked how often people say "and". It feels like that.
ReplyDelete