Some Fun Responses to "The Stranger: Part 2"

Right early on in the trial, the emphasis was shifted from an examination of the crime itself to a condemnation of Meursault’s personality and behavior. The trial that officially started on page eighty-five was officially switched to discussing his personality and Maman on page eighty-nine, after only a few questions on whether it was Meursault’s “intent to kill the Arab,” on the previous page. The number of times they even discussed Meursault in relation to the Arab in the trial (three times to be exact) can be counted on one of my hands!

The prosecutor seemed very much interested in Meursault’s personality rather than his crime, as he called all of Meursault’s “closest” friends in to speak and asked only one of them, Raymond, about the crime itself. With every other testimony, more information concerning Meursault’s behavior was deemed more important than his crime. The prosecutor (successfully) attempted to connect Meursault’s lack of emotion to the idea that his murder was premeditated, however this theory confused me because I don’t quite understand the correlation between “emotionless” and “pre-planning the plot of a murder.” I understand that Meursault helped Raymond write a letter to his mistress to make her feel guilty and to help Raymond get revenge, but from what we’re told in the book, there’s no mention in the letter of Meursault’s “premeditated”  intent of hurting and killing an Arab. And, despite the few times Meursault’s lawyer objected and interjected whether Meursault was on trial for murdering a man or burying his mother, the rest of the court and the jury seemed to be following the prosecutor’s exact train of thought. Or else they were in a state of confusion, like I am, and the prosecutor took it upon himself to pounce at that moment and convince the confused crowd that his behavior proved he planned the murder.

I honestly do not know whether justice is served by the verdict. I feel like Meursault almost has an unclear mental state, as he is always thinking about something else other than what is actually going on. Like when his lawyer was defending him, all he could think about was how hot and tired he was and how much he wanted to go back to his jail cell. There was just something about him that is unlike most other characters you read about in other books, even different from Holden in Catcher in the Rye. If death is the proper punishment for murder, then I believe yes, justice has been served. But if death isn’t the punishment or if his mental state can be credited with the incident, then I believe no, justice was not served and I believe it to be up to Meursault and Meursault’s lawyer for not finding a good way to combat the prosecutor’s argument.

Meursault, at the time and day that this trial took place, probably could not be given a fair trial. Meursault has a completely different mental capacity than anyone around him, including the caretaker at his mother’s home, the director of his mother’s home, Marie in her desire to marry him but his indifference, Salamano’s sadness about his dog. Meursault just does not care and that puts him so at odds with society and society’s conventions and morals. A man like Meursault cannot be given a fair trial, given the setting and his actions. He, like Holden, needs psychoanalyzed and probably needs some sort of a mental therapist to help just understand the whys behind his actions, his thoughts, his relationships with his friends, and et cetera.

I do not believe Meursault is truly judged by a jury of his peers. How can these people understand the way Meursault’s brain works if he is not defended or explained by his lawyer? How are these people expected to understand that something is potentially off balance in Meursault’s chemical makeup of his brain if Meursault’s own lawyer doesn’t see it? The people on the jury are not expected to know anything other than what the prosecutor has told them because they weren’t getting sufficient information from any other source.

“Nothing was more important than an execution.” Watching the specifics on how it goes down. Seeing the guillotine in action. Looking for the one case who was able to escape. Meursault’s mind starts to rake the possibilities of escape and avoidance and how he can potentially not get killed for his crime. He remembers the story his mother used to tell of his father, how he went to see an execution and threw up the rest of the morning because he was so disgusted with the entire thing. One of Meursault’s most fleeting emotions was wishing he could be in the angry crowd, watching the execution, then having the luxury of throwing up the entire morning afterwards. Not being the one executed. It relates to his present circumstance in almost an ironic way because he tends to feel more emotion about this than he does in any other situation in the book.

The chaplain does his best to sway Meursault to accept God in his heart but Meursault resists, like he does at the hearing and like he does to just about anyone else trying to persuade him something. The immensity of Meursault’s refusal was so much that it thoroughly angered the chaplain and successfully generated frustration within himself. Eventually, the calm appearance of the chaplain seemed to have a negative effect on Meursault and caused him to verbally lash out and attack the chaplain. Meursault’s words were so derogatory and his vehement disagreement in the idea of God was so immense that the chaplain was reduced to tears. Tears because he couldn’t change Meursault’s heart. Tears because he was thoroughly terrified of what went down. Tears because he felt that he knew Meursault’s fate awaited him in Hell.

I thought hard about this question when I read the last sentence of the book. Who wants an angry crowd anytime they’re put on the spot? It didn’t make sense to me at all and I completely had no ideas as to why Meursault would crave that, other than the fact that he’s just crazy. Maybe he feels like since so many people hate him for killing the Arab, he wants a whole bunch of people there so that they can see justice being served. Maybe Meursault wants all the people there in anger because, in a weird, sick way, he wants them all to see him when he’s dead, completely opposite Holden in Catcher in the Rye and his dislike of the “rubbernecks” who would look at him when he’s all gory. Maybe he just wants to feel an emotion. Maybe Meursault still feels nothing for his crime and for his lifestyle and he just wants the opportunity to feel regret or guilt or sadness for his mistakes in the past. And maybe for him an angry crowd at the time of his death would do it.

Camus’ discussion of these ideas seems to give off the belief that Meursault is an existentialist. He is living in an irrational world, trying to make rational decisions for himself. He needs to define his own meaning for his own life and, before his execution, he does that. On page 114, he more evidently discloses his ideas on the “everybody knew life is not worth living,” theory, claiming that, “Whether it was now or twenty years from now, [he] would still be the one dying.” Meursault took away all the meaning to life in general and all the meaning to his life specifically. He no longer, nor did he ever, put a strong definition on his own life. He is branded an existentialist in this regard, trying to define his life yet rendering it useless and unimportant. Camus presents this idea of existentialism through Meursault and draws attention to a belief that is conventionally untraditional from what most other people believe, also giving Meursault the power to decide his life isn’t worth anything.

Somethin' Strange

Despite alllllllllllll the Catcher in the Rye reading we’ve been doing up until this point, The Stranger was a nice but very different change in comparison. Meursault doesn’t seem to allude or give much to symbolize and the story as he continues to live seems clear cut. He introduces us to a lot of the characters so far and here’s what I think so far:

Meursault and Maman seemed to have a very interesting relationship. The only family they seemed to have was each other, yet Meursault had to check his mother into a nursing home. Her death within the first few pages of the book are so surreal to Meursault and make him feel almost as if he is caught in a fog. However, he details specific instances concerning her funeral but he never seems to face his emotions on Maman. He avoids seeing her, thinking about her, and discussing her to others, like when he replies with “No” everytime he is asked if he wants to see the casket. He couldn’t even remember his mother’s age. (pg. 25) This relationship is the most sad and simultaneously uninteresting one in the book.

Maman and Perez seemed to have the tightest relationship between the six brought up. They were “inseparable” (pg. 13) and they used to be teased before the death of Maman. Chants like “Perez has a fiancee,” (pg. 13) were common among the other residents. Perez was the only resident allowed to attend Maman’s funeral, which makes me believe that this relationship was most rooted in friendship and companionship. It’s interesting to think that within the few years Maman spent in the nursing home that she found another person who she just understands naturally, and that this man was more loyal to her than her own son had been. This was the most loyal relationship in the book so far.

Meursault and Marie may have the most sexual relationship in the book, given that he seemed to have an unwavering obsession with the woman’s breasts. He ran into her at the beach and continued to hang around with her the rest of his time at the beach. They proceeded to go to a movie that evening where he was still, “fondling her breasts.” (pg. 20) She came back to his apartment for the night and left the next morning. At a later date, he had plans set with her where he instantly thought of the “firm shape of her breasts,” (pg. 34) when she showed up in a dress. The duo does a lot more kissing than they do talking and I think that contributes to the strong sexual relationship between them. They definitely aren’t serious in Meursault’s eyes yet Marie keeps trying to push for more, asking about marriage, love, etc. Meursault doesn’t seem to really have emotions or reactions yet, which is an extremely odd character trait. I’d consider the play of events decently shallow for the moment, given that we have no prior understanding to his relationship to Marie other than the fact that they used to have “a thing.”

Salamano and his dog have what is seen to me as a unique relationship (however just after reading the bottom of page 26 I believed it to be the sweetest relationship because of all the time they spent together) (maybe that’s just because my heart melts a little at the thought of all dogs). However, Meursault goes further into detail then on how Salamano refers to his dog as a, “Filthy, stinking bastard!” (pg. 27) When asked what the dog did, Salamano states that he’s always there. A statement which really saddens me to hear because it proves that the eight years Salamano and his dog have spent together actually drew them apart rather than bringing them together.

Meursault seems to find Raymond very interesting. He doesn’t quite seek Raymond so as to spend time together, but he does enjoy when they are together. They have the most indifferent relationship, where it seems that Meursault would’ve had the same night whether Raymond stopped by or not. However, Raymond admits that he has a “short fuse,” (pg. 29) and tells a story about how he got in a fist fight on the side of the road. Raymond doesn’t appear to have many friends because no one is very interested to hear what he has to say, however Meursault finds himself time and time again extremely interested in what Raymond has to say, whether it is about his fight or his mistress. This relationship might be the most interesting, just because of how interested Meursault is the entire time the two men are together.

However Raymond and his mistress have by far the most interesting relationship. After small piece of evidence after small piece of evidence, Raymond decided that he had enough to believe that she was cheating on him. So he proceeded to yell at the woman, “You don’t see how good you have it with me,” (pg. 31) and battered her until she bled. It was honestly no surprise that the woman and him didn’t make it because he was a jerk. But Raymond was still bothered by her because he still had “sexual feelings” (pg. 31) for her. He has a nasty form of vengeance though, because he beats her again on page 37. I don’t believe that this relationship is attributed as most sexual because we aren’t give any good instances or recounts, there are no positive words exchanged. Only negative thoughts and reactions.

Now, that is only my first half understandings and a provincial view on the story and I am enjoying the book to an extent - - but I can tell it must require more of an acquired taste.

Seminar? Yes. Attendance? No.

November 10th, 2017. I woke up in a hotel room and changed into a pair of warmer clothes with running clothes underneath. Leaving the room, a venture began across the city for a place to eat breakfast. After settling down and eating, I met up with my coach and we practice ran the state cross country course in Tallahassee, Florida.

However, my morning differed than that of most of my classmates. Despite my lack of presence at the latest class Catcher in the Rye discussion, I have gathered some general insight on the seminar and the process.

One of the most prominent comments I heard about the seminar was Josiah talked. A lot. Which I can see in a positive light; he must’ve really had a lot of critical analysis, understanding, and passion about the book. Go you, Josiah, for being prepared to discuss! But on the other hand, I heard that some students didn’t feel always comfortable butting in and speaking when another student was in conversation. So I can understand if there was some frustration for quieter students concerning the talk time Josiah got.

Continuing on, I also heard word that the seminar was super uncomfortable. Students reported to me that they didn’t feel like they could be themselves exactly. But I understand why. Given that the seminar counted as a test grade, it was pretty important that rules were followed and processes were performed traditionally. And it’s only the first time we’e done a seminar. So, naturally, when everything is new and sometimes unclear and one discussion can change a student’s overall grade, it would lead to discomfort.

And, finally, I heard evidence from both sides that students were appreciative of the seminar and learned a lot from it and that students didn’t feel like they learned anything they didn’t already know. I’m not sure what I feel like I would’ve gotten out of it, but I do wish to be a part of an activity such as this sometime. From everything I heard, it sounded like everyone did a great job “policing” themselves and keeping a certain coolness to the seminar. No extreme battles were fought nor were voices raised in argument from my understanding.

Also PS huge shoutout to Caitlin, Mackenzie, Danya, Kayla, and Brenden for having blogs done by 10 PM so I could use your information in your post as reference!!!!!!!!

The LAST and BEST Holden blog (maybe)

Is Holden a static or dynamic character?

Yes.

But I know Scalia would never let me get away with a one-worded answer. So, before I perform a little character analysis of Holden Caulfield, I’ll define the question (and provide where I got the definition).

Static Character - a character that does not undergo inner changes or undergoes a little change. (From https://literarydevices.net/static-character/ )

Dynamic Character - a character that undergoes changes throughout the narrative due to conflicts he encounters on his journey. (From https://literarydevices.net/dynamic-character/ )

---

Starting way, way back, at the beginning of the book, Holden Caulfield introduces himself curtly and states he simply doesn’t, “feel like going into [where he was born, what his childhood was like, how his parents were occupied before they had him, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap], to tell you the truth.” He doesn’t feel like it so he starts with the day he leaves Pencey Prep. He starts his tale on a Saturday and all 234 pages of (my version) of the book takes place over a span of about two days. Saturday to Monday.

Now, in a way, this introduction to the book creates a static feel that is held throughout the rest of the book. He says he doesn’t want to go into it and he doesn’t; he holds firm to his two day story. He never fully retells another day with as much detail as he does that Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

However, in another way, this introduction creates a dynamic temptation, where the reader gets the feel that maybe they can prove the narrator wrong. He says he doesn’t want to go into it but my mind as a reader starting going to the idea of forcing him to go into detail in facts of his past without fully retelling a story. And Holden does. We learn more about Allie and his intelligence, his compassionate heart, and Holden’s huge admiration of him through his story about punching the windows in his garage after finding no inspiration for writing Stradlater’s composition for English. We learn more about Holden’s mother and her awful smoking habits and her weak emotional status when Holden goes home to wake Phoebe up late one night. We learn more about every person Holden claims he refuses to go into detail on, which shows a change in his telling of the story, agreeing with the idea that he is a dynamic character.

But despite Holden’s outlay of information he, as a narrator, isn’t certain that he’s doing it. J.D. Salinger, as an author, definitely knows he’s doing it -- the genius -- however, Holden Caulfield does not seem to understand that he is giving out the information he previously stated he didn’t feel like going into. Which restarts the loop that is continually traced in my mind, turns my brain to mush, and utterly leaves me confused when it comes to the idea that Holden is a static character. Or the idea that he is a dynamic one.

Throughout this book, Holden essentially remains the same. The first page of the book claims he only feels like telling one story and the last page of the book touches upon that ideal again, bringing up the fact that he doesn’t want to say anymore. And, throughout Holden’s thought processes, many things remain the same. His initial opinion on any one topic usually stays the same after he analyzes it. Like on page 214, Holden is sleeping in a train station, but tells the reader not to ever try it because, “It’ll depress you,” yet he continues through the next paragraph to try to keep sleeping, claiming he was, “more depressed than ever,” in his life. Which adds to the argument that Holden is definitely static.

However, with new information and new pieces of literature, Holden is changing -- in the reader’s eyes at least. With every suicidal reference and every time Holden talks about how depressed he was, we are granted more of a look at his mental instability. So Holden Caulfield changes in the reader’s point of view. The reader goes from seeing a jerk teenager who can’t seem to keep his thoughts in order to a struggling boy who is moments away from hitting rock bottom. But can that be considered dynamic? Holden is undergoing change but the majority of that change is in our perspective.

Holden also seems to constantly think about Jane. He brings her up in his thoughts in almost every chapter yet he always seems to have the same thoughts and the same plan of action. He remains static through his decision to stay motionless when it comes to reentering her life.

On the other hand though, he changes his thoughts from where they used to be JaneJaneJane to where they became PhoebePhoebePhoebe. Even in the second to last chapter, he talks about feeling happy, content, and like he wanted to go home and stay where he was because of how happy Phoebe was on the carrousel. His thoughts in each chapter took a dynamic path because he changed what he used to be thinking about Jane and filled his mind with his kid sister.

Continuing on, Jane is a pretty confusing subject and Holden’s thoughts on her definitely throw me for a loop. From the first time he mentioned her, after learning that Stradlater had a date with her, to the last time he mentioned her, his perception of her didn’t change. She still was the Jane that kept her kings in the back row, the Jane who was always friendly to Holden, the Jane who he kissed everywhere but her mouth. He was static in the sense that he didn’t ever have a new experience that would change her in his eyes.

But what about that time when he actually dialed her phone number? Granted, he got her mother on the line and hung up because he wasn’t in the mood to talk to Jane’s mother, but what can that change -- from not dialing, not dialing, not dialing (despite the billion phone booths he walks into) to actually dialing -- be called if not dynamic? Would it be considered just a blip in the writing? An accidental, unintentional addition to the narrative just to keep the reader interested? No. We know that the author does everything for a reason. Not one thing in this book was done purely for entertainment purposes, not even the names of the characters.

But can one character really be static and dynamic?

Traditionally, I believe that a character can only be one or the other; changing or unchanging. However, Holden seems to fall into a separate category. He seems to write his own literary rules for himself. He isn't a traditional case. I can find and agree with evidence for both sides; yes, Holden is static and yes, Holden is dynamic. Essentially, I believe that Holden can be a new type of character. He has aspects of inner change and lack thereof. Since he is the main character, he can confidently be anything the author wants him to be. An argument can be crafted for just about any metaphor, any analogy, any symbol, any characteristic of Holden Caulfield because this book is left so far open to interpretation. Why else would Mr. Scalia still be excited to learn something new from his students when it comes to reading the book if it wasn’t so open-ended with every piece of information?

I know this perspective might be slightly different than that of the basic yes/no, static/dynamic and I understand that it might seem to be off-prompt. However, I don’t plan to apologize for a different interpretation of the question because it was left open-ended for a reason. I, like J.D. Salinger, carefully thought out every aspect of my argument and article and I believe that, with evidence, this prompt can have a looser guideline.

(Despite my lack of apology I don’t intend any aggression so here’s a heart to make up for it!!)

4 Quirks Concerning Holden

Holden Caulfield is a stagger-minded boy with confusing characteristics.

In ONE circumstance, he strikes up a conversation with one of his schoolmates mothers. Mrs. Morrow, a lady who stumbles onto the late night train and chooses the seat next to Holden, comfortably introduces herself to him and enjoys how he “shoots the crap” with her about her son. However, focusing on Holden himself, he steps into a more “suave” state of mind, as he prefers to refer to it as - we see this state anytime he’s feeling confident, like in Chapter 9 when he prides himself on being “suave as hell,” on the phone with Faith Cavendish. On the train, Holden makes a daringly strange move to interact in an overly-friendly manner with this mother. He estimates her age to be in the forties then continues on to mention how much sex appeal she had. Holden didn’t describe anything about Mrs. Morrow to exactly be traditionally “sexy,” which would probably explain why it came to be such a shock to me that he dug her so much. In his encounter with her, he changes his personality and attitude to keep up with a pace that would more easily match hers, shining light on his tendency to take the personality shape of whoever he’s with.

Overall, I got a glimpse of how Holden really can turn on the charm in instances that are necessary to him.

In a SECOND circumstance, after Holden hits up a group of unattractive women in his hotel bar, he decides he can’t get Jane Gallagher off his brain. He reminisces on the time Jane cried after her booze-loaded father showed up, how she lost eight balls when they played golf one time, how he made her feel comfortable. You get a feeling from this flashback that Holden is happy. Holden truly misses those days. However, he does tie Jane to a negative memory - Stradlater. In essence, I don’t truly believe right now that everything Holden is telling us about how great all his time with Jane was is completely truthful. I think some of what he is feeling and believing has to do with the fact that he wants to prove to himself that he knows Jane better than Stradlater does, whether it’s his subconscious or a completely unrelated coincidence.

I feel like this memory of him with a woman sheds light on who he sees himself as, happy and carefree, when he was with Jane. He seeks the attitude Jane had in all the other women he runs into and is comparing them to her constantly. She makes up his bar of standards for other women. His interactions with her differ drastically from his interactions with, forsay, Mrs. Morrow. Holden has a more caring, cautious, compassionate edge to himself when he was with Jane - or at least that’s how he remembers himself being. Holden turns on the charm, the interesting side, and the lust for Mrs. Morrow.

But despite the differences between Jane and Mrs. Morrow, Holden seeks their similarities. Mrs. Morrow’s motherly features stand out to Holden in a way that reminded him of how Jane treated him. Jane was always soft and kind to Holden and the ability of Mrs. Morrow to include those personality traits when Holden met her added to her sexiness that Holden saw.

In a THIRD circumstance, Holden displays his tendency to not let an idea go once he has it. When Holden got in a cab to go to Ernie’s to spend some time in a nightclub, he asked his cab driver about his recurring misunderstanding about where the ducks in Central Park go in the winter when the lake freezes over. Holden doesn’t seem to understand that his question isn’t completely similar to anything else a cab driver would hear and heats up an argument on his way to the nightclub. The weird thing here, though, is Holden’s behaviour is why he had his cab driver so frazzled yet his mood shut down once the cab driver began to question what trick Holden was trying to pull on him. Holden responds by getting more frustrated and more irritated with the argument that begins to brew between him and his cab driver, Horwitz. Holden introduced the random topic then proceeded to get irritated without a justifiable reason when Horwitz didn’t know the answer and gave a questionable response.

Holden’s interactions go straight from genuine curiosity to an irritated state and snarky comments. He creates the tense atmosphere and then snaps when the driver follows through with it. This is a much more different behavioral pattern than the previous two mentioned with the ladies. Holden, rather than being suave and impressive, is irrational and upset.

In the FOURTH circumstance, on his way up the elevator, Holden shows interest in inviting in a prostitute for the night. The elevator guy encourages him and Holden gets a younger woman sent up to his room. Her mannerisms and language were young and childish, contributing to Holden’s uneasiness. Holden felt unsure about his decision from the moment the lady walked into his room and, despite his desire to rip off his virginity like a band-aid, he decides that he’s not in the mood. Holden pays the woman for staying and just hanging out in his room for a couple minutes and leaving. But, personality-wise, Holden keeps changing his mind on how he’s feeling. In one night, he goes from looking at Mrs. Morrow’s sex appeal, to taking a bus to a hotel, to wanting to go to the bar to pick up a chick, to going back into a cab and arguing, to walking back to the hotel and wanting a prostitute, to no longer wanting attention.

His interactions are touchy and based solely on who he’s with. He’s a hard puzzle to put together.

My Current Analysis of Holden Caulfield - Catcher in The Rye

Holden is a very unique piece of the story to figure out -- I still have yet to more thoroughly characterize him. However, in reading these seven chapters, I got a slightly different insight on his personality each time, which chronologically built up to my current general understanding.

In the first chapter, there’s a subtle draw to the words Holden is saying. It sounds almost like you have a complete glimpse into his consciousness and he is telling you his thoughts immediately as they run through his head. However, he didn’t have quite a traditional start. He states in the very first sentence, “If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all of that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.” An introduction so much different than anything I’ve seen before. He goes straight into what’s happening in his life in “the now,” without spelling out his roots. As he continues in the chapter, he gives off a carefree attitude toward just about everything anyone else in his life would value; a nice school, a family, friends/roommates, a crowded game. Holden isn’t interested in any of that.

Which leads me to question, as I started chapter two, what is Holden interested in? Well, he ran to one of his teacher’s houses, Mr. Spencer’s, despite his lack of breath from smoking, which puts a sense of urgency into his action. It brings me to a premature conclusion that Holden cares about certain people that had a positive effect on his life, since a teacher could realistically be a positive force on anyone’s life. He was going to his house to say goodbye, almost like he knew if he didn’t say it right then he wouldn’t have a chance to say it at all. However, once he arrives, gets into his teacher’s house, and begins to have a conversation, Holden can’t wait to get out of that house, stating, “The minute I went in, I was sort of sorry I’d come.” He completely melted apart my first conclusion on his character throughout the rest of the chapter through his immediate and strengthening desire to escape that house. He does remain respectful throughout his entire visit but he starts to feel the same sense of urgency he felt when he ran to Old Spencer’s house, crafting an understanding for me that Holden isn’t interested in positive influences, he may even actually despise them to an extent.

In the third chapter, Holden introduces us to a boy who he shares the showers with, his room and roommate with a connecting room on the opposite side, giving him a slightly confusing description, through insight on how he is always barging in on Holden, “eighty-five times a day,” through the shower curtains yet, “He was also sort of a nasty guy.” Holden connects a nasty guy to a symbol of cleanliness, the showers, which is a strange tie to the reader. Throughout this chapter, Holden develops his sense of dislike for this showermate, Ackley. Ackley’s personality immediately gets Holden riled up, without even saying one word. However, Holden seems to tolerate Ackley to an extent and almost appreciates the seemingly unwanted attempt at a bad friendship from him. Which gives me the thought that maybe Holden just doesn’t like to be alone.

In my continuation to the fourth chapter, Holden introduces the reader to his roommate, Stradlater, and seems to have a pretty good connection to him. Holden follows his roommate to the bathrooms where his roommate is getting ready for a date to hold a conversation. Into the conversation, Holden discovers her name and immediately recognizes it.

“‘What’s her name?’ I was pretty interested.

‘I’m thinking… Uh Jean Gallagher.’

Boy I nearly dropped dead when he said that.

‘Jane Gallagher,’ I said. I even got up from the washbowl when he said that. I damn near dropped dead. ‘You’re damn right I know her.’”

Holden takes on a nervous side, and begins to pace around his roommate thinking out loud. He talks about Jane’s childhood, her parents, her obsession with leaving her kings in the back row in checkers. All of his knowledge about her and his immediate change in attitude when he heard her name leads us to believe, maybe he has a thing for this girl. Maybe he digs this girl. However, it was one of the many abrupt and immediate changes in attitude in Holden in the book so far, which leads me to believe his attitude never stays the same for long and his thoughts dictate his actions to a large extent.

In chapter four, Holden’s roommate asked him to complete some homework of his on a descriptive piece of writing. So, in chapter five Holden decides to use his brothers baseball mitt because of all the character and ease of description it has to him. However, despite the fact that Holden is working on an assignment, we are given more information on Holden’s past, including his brother who owned the mitt who died of leukemia in 1946. Holden never outright stated he missed his brother, Allie, but he illuded to that through his statements like “He [Allie] was also the nicest, in lots of ways,” and “I was only thirteen and they were going to have me psychoanalyzed and all because I broke all the windows in the garage.” He loved his brother so much that the night after he died, he slept in the garage and broke his hand trying to break every window he saw. He didn’t have much of a reason for it, other than being hurt emotionally and reciprocating that pain physically.

In the next chapter, which is still taking place on the same day, Holden’s roommate comes back from his date and Holden is still itching to see Jane and hear about her and talk to her. He asks Stradlater for details on the date and immediately lets anger control him. Holden attempts to strike up a fight with him, a guy twice his weight, over a girl Holden hasn’t seen in years. Holden immediately was pinned down by Stradlater, who kept repeating in his face, “What the hell’s the matter with you?” It made me think twice about Holden as to whether or not everything flowed completely normally in his brain. I was wondering if he had any sort of mental disorder or illness that the reader is unsure about which causes his mind to constantly jump around all the time and force him to make rash, impulsive decisions.

In the next chapter, Holden seeks a conversation with Ackley, seemingly looking for a connection with anyone other than Stradlater. He wakes Ackley up, which gives the air that Holden is a bit needy. He showed off his uncleaned bloody nose and annoyed Ackley until Stradlater went to bed. However, once his roommate was in bed and asleep and Ackley said Holden could not sleep in his room, Holden decided it was time to leave. He finished packing his things that night and rushed out of the corridor, yelling, “Sleep tight ya morons,” as loud as he could down the hall. Chapter seven wraps up pretty quickly, with Holden getting more rash and obnoxious as the day became night.

Overall, Holden has a very jumpy personality. He’s never on one topic for too long and is constantly experiencing different emotions for different events in his life. As my initial read of this book continues, I think Holden is almost lost in his sense of direction and is floundering for a clear cut path. He can’t always tell the difference between the right choice and the wrong choice and doesn’t make a huge attempt to either. However, I cannot shake the feeling that Holden isn’t telling us something. The narrator isn’t being completely truthful in his retelling. But I won’t know if my hunch is correct or whether my initial depiction of Holden is correct until I read more of his story.