The Catcher in the Rye and the Bible
Moral Critic or Critic[al] Moron?
The
morals and
teachings found in
tbe Bible are meant to be taken and
applied to a
person’s
everyday life. However, these
teachings can be over-applied (as can anything). Some people who study the
Bible extensively see its
influences every
where. An example of this is how literary
critics often over-emphasize the
impact which the Bible has upon
writers and
novels. More specifically, some literary critics have compared
J.D. Salinger’s novel
The Catcher in the Rye and certain characters to
biblical scenes and
characters. In these
cases, the impact of the Bible on the novel is very
unclear, and most likely, figments of the critic’s overly
Christian imaginations. Despite the
fact that the implications in the
Bible are so incredibly
vast and vague (and subject to every individual’s interpretations) and that they could easily be applied to any piece of literature (particularly if the critic is intensely focused upon the
Bible), the situations in
The Catcher in the Rye that these critics link to the
Bible are erroneous.
J.D. Salinger is a
very religious man; however, his studies of
spirituality are not limited to
Christian beliefs and the
Bible. A more accurate manner in which to interpret the writings of any author, especially in terms of religion, is to study the
background of that author, and his/her own
religious studies and
beliefs.
J.D. Salinger was, in fact, a
very religious man, who studied
Zen,
Buddhism,
Christian Scientist, as well as the teachings of
Ramakhrishna and
Vivekananda (two Indian
holy-men) (Hamilton 129). Salinger’s
interest in various religions would indeed have influenced his work; however, many critics tend to focus only upon the Bible. Jerome David Salinger was born
January 1, 1919 in
New York City. He attended
Valley Forge Military
Academy in Pennsylvania beginning in 1934, this is where he first began writing (Grunwald 12). Salinger, who never attended a
Christian boarding
school as a
young man, was never intently focused upon the bible in his writings. In
1936, he was accepted to New York University (Grunwald 13).
NYU as most people know, is a very diverse college, as is
New York City. This diversity probably led Salinger to be exposed to many different religious ideas and teachings. Had Salinger grown up in the deep south and attended a
college with strong religious
affiliation, there would be sufficient evidence to
support the idea that his writing was primarily influenced by the
Bible (as some critics have proposed). However, quite the
opposite is true, he was raised by parents of different
religions (his fathers family was
Jewish, and his mother was a
Christian) and was educated in several non-religious environments (Grunwald 11). Salinger later went on to serve in the Counter
Intelligence Corps (CIC) during
World War II (Grunwald 14).
Around
1952, Salinger underwent some sort of momentous conversion of religious beliefs. During this
time, Salinger was primarily focused upon the teachings of
Ramakrishna and Vivekananda and
Zen Buddhism (Grunwald 121). Ramakrishna taught that “a
man cannot realize
God unless he renounces everything" (Ramakrishna 79). This ideal is highly evident in the
protagonist of
The Catcher in the Rye,
Holden Caulfield. Throughout the novel, Holden renounces all of his surroundings, and every person whom he encounters. Salinger as well is seen to have
practiced renunciation in his daily life. On January
1,
1953 (his
34th
birthday), Salinger moved into small cottage in Cornish,
New Hampshire with no running water, no
electricity, and no
telephone (Grunwald 15). The fact that
critics believe that Salinger’s writing is influenced by
Christianity alone is probably due to the critics individual beliefs rather than Salinger’s. It is not hard to see that often times
critics will
superimpose their own beliefs on a piece of work, rather than studying the
author’s background, personal influences, and beliefs.
Carl F. Strauch is
one critic who has blatantly imposed is own beliefs upon Salinger’s
work. In Strauch’s criticism, he tries to tie
together separate parts of
The Catcher in the Rye by referencing the Bible. Strauch’s interpretation reads as follows:
Here we have an explanation of Holdens guilt feelings and why he broke his hand against the garage windows, and we trace all the elements of his fantasying to this psychological clause. Mutilation is itself the physical symbol of a psychological state of self-accusation and self-laceration. Hence, when Holden, after discovering that he cannot pray, reflects that next to Jesus the character in the Bible that he likes best is the lunatic that lived in the tombs and cut himself with stones… we note that Holden identifies himself with a madman. In Mark, V.1-20, we are told of the lunatic that broke all his chains and fetters, for no man could tame him… (Strauch 507)
Up until this point in Strauch’s
criticism, his reasoning seems fairly
logical. However, the fact that Strauch must attempt to link Holden to another “
madman” in the
Bible (in
Mark V. 1-20), shows how Strauch is placing his own
Christian knowledge on top of what Salinger already mentioned in the
novel. By making further references to “madmen” in the
Biblical text, Carl Strauch is attempting to show
off what he knows of the Bible. Strauch’s
criticism then turns towards his own
beliefs, rather than those of the actual author,
J.D. Salinger:
“If we are to comprehend what happens in The Catcher we must attribute prime importance to this little scene of about two pages at the head of chapter fourteen; for Holden will subsequently break his morbid psychological fetters” (Strauch 507).
Strauch thus implies that Salinger was
primarily influenced by the passage mentioned in
Mark. However, by reading
The Catcher in the Rye, an average reader, (who is not intently focused upon Biblical studies) does not see any reference to
Mark. Furthermore there can be found very
little evidence to support the idea that Holdens habit of referring to himself as a
madman and the idea that he is (somewhat subconsciously)
acting out the frustration and guilt of the
lunatics in the Bible. Strauch mentions that Holden “
breaks his… psychological
fetters”; however, there is little actual proof of this in
The Catcher in the Rye (Strauch 507). Holden ends up in a
mental institution, most probably placed there by his parents. Holden did not break any
fetters, he only decides not to move out
west, a decision that any sane person would make. The
fact that Holden did make the right decision (as he does in most instances in The Catcher in the Rye) proves that he is not truly a “
madman” and is not logically linked to
lunatics in the Bible, who are in fact real “
madmen.” Strauch’s knowledge of the
Bible, and obvious
Christian affiliation, leads him to misinterpret Salinger’s work by placing his own beliefs over those of J. D. Salinger’s.
Critics can more accurately describe and criticize a literary
work when they fully understand the personal beliefs of the author, rather than using their own. Instead of doing what Carl F. Strauch did, and describing what
The Catcher in the Rye would have meant had he wrote it, David D. Galloway more accurately describes The Catcher in the Rye in
terms of Salinger’s own religious beliefs. Galloway describes
Holdens attempts to recapture his
childish
innocence in
terms of “
mysticism (which Salinger
usually considers in terms of
Zen Buddhism)” (Galloway455).
Holden Caulfield can in many ways be seen as a mystic because “the life of a
mystic is only temporarily one of
isolation” (Galloway 445). It is easy to see how at this
point in Holdens
life, he is very isolated from the rest of the world. In the
opening
pages of The Catcher in the Rye Holden is standing on a hill
looking out over the rest of his fellow classmates at a
football game (Salinger 2). Holden states that “
Practically the whole
school except
me was there” (Salinger 2). Holdens
isolation is thus portrayed in the very opening of the
novel, as it is throughout as well.
Other beliefs held by Salinger were
considered by David D. Galloway in his criticism of
J.D. Salinger. Galloway also
describes Salinger as a writer who questions whether “
God is dead” (Galloway 445). Although this idea is outlined nowhere in
Zen Buddhism, the
teachings of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, or
the Bible, it is very possible that during his studies of
religion and spirituality Salinger studied the writings of Nietzsche. The works of
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche are said to have influenced the [Nazi doctrines (
World Book 5683). During Salinger’s travels to
Eastern Europe in
1937, he was exposed to
Nazi gangs and the philosophies of Nietzsche. As Galloway
points out, “To act with
morality and
love in a universe in which
God is dead… is perhaps the most acute problem in our
age” and Salinger intensely considers this in his writing (Galloway 445).
In The Catcher in the Rye, this search for God can be seen when Holden
attempts to
pray. When Holden is unable to
pray it is
proof of his own contemplation of
God, and both Holdens and Salinger’s consideration of Neitzsches idea that “
God is
dead”.
Literary
criticisms are often tainted by the critic’s own
personal religious beliefs and
knowledge. Thus is the case with Carl F. Strauch who
superimposes his own Christian ideals on the work of
J.D. Salinger, a man who has studied religion and spirituality in many forms. David D. Galloway does a much more adequate job of interpreting Salinger’s work by relating it to Salinger’s own religious beliefs. In Galloway’s
analysis, research into Salinger’s religious beliefs is evident; however, the only thing clear in the
literary criticism of Carl Strauch is his own
religious affiliation.
All critics would be better suited to leave their own beliefs (especially those pertaining to religion) aside, and assume those of the author whom they are criticizing.
Works Cited
Galloway,
David D. “The
Love Ethic.” The
Absurd Hero in American
Fiction,
University of Texas Press, 1970. 140-69. Rpt. in Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Carolyn Riley. Vol. 3. Gale
Research Company,
Detroit Michigan,
1975.
Hamilton, Ian. In
Search of
J.D. Salinger,
Random] House,
New York,
1988. 129
Grunwald, Henry Anatole. “Salinger: A
Critical and
Personal Portrait”.
New York: Harper, 1963.
“Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm.”
World Book Encyclopedia: Field Enterprises, Inc,
Chicago.
1950. 5683.
Salinger, Jerome David.
The Catcher in the Rye. New York: Bantam,
1989.
Sri Ramakrishna. Thus Spake Sri Ramakrishna. Mylapore, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math,
1967.
Strauch, Carl F. “
Kings in the Back Row: Meaning Through
Structure-A reading of Salinger’s “
The Catcher in the Rye.” Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature
1961. Rpt. In Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Vol. 12. Gale Research Company,
Detroit,
Michigan,
1980. 5-30.