Hapworth 16, 1924 and Salinger

[Silvia]

The reason why I'm starting this thread is that I am literally electrified by the following, astonishing discovery of mine: I've just came across (lucky me!) J. D. Salinger's last published work, Hapworth 16, 1924, whose existence I didn't even suspect! I'm so happy right now I think I'll have to wait a couple of hours before I start reading it! This is something of a coincidence, too, because just yesterday night I was thinking of focusing on Salinger's works for my thesis...Anyway, I was curious to know your mind on the subject. I know that many people dislike Salinger to the extent of saying he should be left out from anthologies. After his death, articles have been written in which it was said that it sure was a sad thing that he should die but, c'mon, had anyone ever taken him seriously?
I think that, for a start, we should at least try to stop considering The Catcher in the Rye (Young Holden in the Italian translation) as a novel that speaks to teenagers only. Moreover, it seems to me that Salinger has become almost a synonim for TCITR and vice versa, while Franny and Zooey, Rise High the Roof Beam and his stories are often forgotten.
Las time I wrote here some of you were about to discuss A Perfect Day for Bananafish, if I remember well, so this might be a fresh topic for you. If you dislike Salinger, why is it so? Of course, I realise that it may partly depend on personal taste, but there must be an objective reason, too.
As for critical works, would you suggest some titles so that I can start researching? I still have to make up my mind on the exact topics I'm going to deal with in my thesis, but I want to work hard so as to do him justice and hopefully it'll turn out to be an original approach to Salinger's works.

[Rores28]

After reading TCITR I was at first surprised to see all of the vitriol being splashed around, but as I thought on it I realized that it almost has to be so. If we stop looking at Holden as an unreliable and mentally "troubled" narrator, which seems to be the lens through which most view him, and instead see him as a voice of difficult truths, I think the text becomes much more meaningful, and given Salingers allegedly reclusive personality I have to think that this is more to the purpose that Salinger created him.

It seems most see Holden as a sort of transitory archetype in the process of maturation that must be overcome in order to become a "healthy and functioning adult." Holden journey is interesting because all of us have gone through it, but apparently have not gotten "stuck" as Holden tragically has.

I agree that Holden is an archetype of maturation but I disagree that this "stage" must be overcome, or at the very least I disagree that this is Salingers intention with Holden. I think Salinger is inviting us to try and hold on (and the name Holden here is obviously no coincidence) to some of our childlike qualities and not to allow society to inculcate us so deeply with the mores of the "adult" world.

Holden is not necessarily the paragon of this philosophy but he is the struggle and the consequence of being an individual who attempts to defy the adult world.

This may seem like a strange recommendation but maybe it will add a certain depth to your thesis. Days of Wars Nights of Love by Crimethinc. Crimethinc is an anarchist collective and this is a good introduction and overview of their (and I'm reluctant to use this word, as are they) ideology. A lot of it touches on the idea of what it means to mature into an adult, and whether or not it is not a happier person (and society) who does not suffuse him/her self in the zeitgeist of "adult" culture.

This is why then I say necessarily a lot of people must dislike it, or take it at best as the forerunner of the angsty teen trope. Because for most, if you are not disagreeing with its message, than you are admitting a sort of defeat.

[Silvia]

I apologize for this delay, and thank you very much for your reply to my message!
If I can find it I'm going to check out the book you suggested, even though I must admit the fact that it has been written by an anarchist collective makes me a little skeptical.
The reason why I can't see Holden as an adolescent rebel against the adult world is that, like you, I think the whole novel, as well as most of Salinger's works, focus rather on the conflict Individuality VS Homologation. Holden is an original and therefore can't fit in well with the schemes of society. Of course we can't prescind from Holden being a young man about to experience the tough side of life but not wholly acquainted with it yet, as it is a point of view functional to Salinger's criticism of society, but we should acknowledge there's more to the novel than just this. Everyone, after all, can identify with Holden, not just teenagers. The maturation process you talked about concerns each one of us, no matter what period of life we are in, since it is a never ending process, a process aimed at gaining awareness and at coming closer to a clearer definition of our inner selves. Holden is probably closer to this goal than those surrounding him, that's why he experiences a crisis. In this sense, Holden is an adult, that is, the one who's going through an evolution, whereas the others just got old, all of a sudden (this is something Seymour says in Hapworth 16, 1924,as he complains about the other children at the summer camp, who are sadly bound to age without maturing) and weren't given the chance to come to terms with reality as Holden has. So, this might be Positive Individual VS Negative Individual. I don't know, I guess I still have to think about it, because right now this whole argument seems a little confused even to myself and I'm not sure I'm not changing my mind and claiming the opposite in few hours.

I think Salinger is inviting us to try and hold on (and the name Holden here is obviously no coincidence) to some of our childlike qualities and not to allow society to inculcate us so deeply with the mores of the "adult" world.

You might be right, but I don't agree that Salinger is warning us about the dangers of losing our childlike qualities. It is true that children are important characters in Salinger's works, but are they really "children"? Think of the young people in the Glass family, think of Teddy, think of the seven-year-old Seymour writing a letter to his parents in Hapworth 16, 1924...They are saints embodied in frail bodies, they are little Buddhas eating their cornflakes as children do, they are intellectuals, everything but children (the way children really are)! Salinger probably uses children because the voice of children is usually the voice no one listens to, no matter what great truth it is speaking. Then there are normal children, too, such as Phoebe or Sybil or Teddy's sister, who sometimes become important because they can relate to the protagonist in various ways.