By comparing and contrasting suitably selected parts of the two novels you have studied for this inquiry. demo how far you would hold with the ciew expresed above. Your statement should include relelvant remarks on each writer’s methods and relevant contextual stuff on the 21st century reader. Reader reactions vary tremendously with personality. society and ethical motives. The personality of the reader will order the extent to which the reader engages with foreigners such as Holden and Mersault.
Whereas the society that the reader lives within ordains the reader’s reading of what it is to be an foreigner. Ultimately it is the ethical motives. merchandises of both personality and society. each person holds which influence whether any single reader sides with the foreigner. For a 21st reader. life in a pluralist society. eccentricities and foibles of persons are by and large more recognized and such things do non specify an foreigner in the modern universe.
Salinger’s usage of first individual narrative depicts Holden Caulfield as an foreigner from the beginning because of his perennial remarkable “I” and the absence of collectives such as “we” even when Holden is in the company of other people. The usage of such enclaves encourages a true and personal renditition of the interior adolescent voice. Harmonizing to Costello this “authenticity” is revealed in the idiosynchrasies of Holden’s ‘inside’ address forms ( that do non have in his direct address ) such as the usage of disconnected remarks and the informal repeat of curses such as “goddam” and “bastard” .
Repeated phrases environing such curses like “goddam hypocrite bastard” bring on a fancy from a sympathetic modern reader. Although curse is still used in the ‘traditional’ sense of cussing. it is going a more tolerated manner of address and does non arouse censoring it did at the clip of The Catcher in the Rye‘s publication. Introductions of The Catcher in the Rye by school library boards into mainstream instruction after such contention over the books blasphemes and expletives entirely acknowledges the colloquial style’s entreaty to younger readers. The adolescent voice appears to be
accessible and familiar and therefore increases the likeliness of an adolescent reader “sid ( ing ) ” with the foreigner. The informal. direct reference of Salinger’s episodic narrative besides spans an age of readers who find the premise of a relationship with Holden due to the usage of “you” and the retrospective narration. that so frequently transforms into a watercourse of consciousness. more believale. and so are more likely to “side” with him. However. like the typical modern-day 1940s reader. peculiar ethical motives held by a 21st reader could disapprobate siding with Holden because of such a writing manner.
His informal linguistic communication. where cursing and curse frequent much of his unstructured voice. could pique many readers irrespective of their surrounding society and in fact Catcher in the Rye is still censored in many American schools today despite its critical acclamation. Ironically. and with a absurd lip service. such indignation at curses is besides seen in the character of Holden himself. “I saw something that drove me brainsick. Somebody’d written “Fuck you” on the wall” .
Holden’s rage at this look could hold the power to convey those readers alienated by the informal usage of “bastard” with the disclosure that Holden does hold moral criterions. His fury to this. as seen in “I kept desiring to kill whoever’d written it… kept picturing… how I’d smash his caput on the rock stairss till he was good and blasted dead and bloody” paradoxically shows Holdens regard for others in that he recognizes the usage of such linguistic communication to others is violative to most people. But yet once more Holden’s explosive. inflated reaction has the power to estrange a 21st reader.
Whether his grounds fo such a reaction can be admirable. the presence of force throughout the 21st universe – Syria. computing machine games such as “Call of Duty” . the recent mass slayings inspired by amusing vigilance man Batman – polarizes the reader by personal moralss to such subjects and so one can non merely province that 21st century readers are ever on the side of the foreigner. although many will be. Similarly the impersonal vioce of Mersault as he describes a shockingly unmotivated slaying has the power to estrange the 21st reader because of the fathomless deficiency of emotion in “the trigger gave” .
This is in blunt contrast with Holden’s explicitly violent reaction that arises from an outrage rooted in the human status ; Mersault seems about sub-human and crude in his actions “because of the sun” . The deficiency of emotion in the character of Mersault is estranging and so the reader finds it harder to “side” with Mersault as such an foreigner. Camus’ simple enunciation in “the trigger gave” shows Mersault’s ain absence of empathy with the universe. In Part One Camus offers a critical window for readers to look upon the absurdness of life without significance and the unsafe reprecussions of non giving it intending.
In Part Two Mersault acknowledges the absurdness of populating a life without intending. “realising I sounded pathetic. I said rapidly it was because of the Sun. ” This psychological revolution. although subtle. offers a deep sense of apprecation of an Absurd life. Just as Part One has the unfortunate power to disapprobate a 21st reader. Part Two has the power to prosecute the reader. if non with the character of Mersault. but his doctrine to make significance for himself.
In the last pages of The Outsider Mersault. exasperated. asks “Didn’t he understand? Everyone was priviliged. There were merely priviliged people. ” In a modern universe where godlessness has risen in the face of barbarous natural catastrophes – the tsunami of 2006. hurricane Sandy – and every bit barbarous catastrophes of a semisynthetic universe. many originating from religous haughtiness – 9/11. the July 2007 bombardments throughout Europe. and the go oning ‘War on Terror’ where many think the lip service of a war for peace is concealing a western conquering for money and power.
It is soothing for such a 21st reader disillusioned by such events to happen that even the most crude of existences ( like Mersault ) have the capacity for such a concrete religion in world. and mankind’s ability to make significance for itself. Although this facet of Mersault’s character could convey many 21st readers to side with him. the foreigner. there are many who find his Marxist attitude estranging. specifically readers with strong spiritual religion. and so would non side with the foreigner.
Such condemnation would be created in the first episode with the magistrate where violent linguistic communication is associated with his religous Acts of the Apostless. “he took out a Ag rood and came back towards me flourishing it” . “Brandishing” is particularly dyslogistic and menacing and suggests Camus’ personal belief. in conformity with Karl Marx. that ‘religion is the opium of the masses’ . Opiates are substances that are halluconegenic ; bring oning false senses of ecstacy. dulling the head to world and calming all passionate urges ;
images like this can be seen in the priest’s abstract image “suffering sludges from these stones… a godly face emerging from the darkness” . These images are straight opposed by Mersault. resistance that compliments an facet of the theory of the Absurd. that faith is simply a comfort in the face of decease. Such concern with the significance of life and God was sparked in authors like Camus after post-war France was absolutely devastated by the immense loss of life and ghastly nature of trenchwar. merely as recent calamities provoke the same worldwide concern in the 21st century.
Holden Caulfield suffers with similar thoughts of disenchantment as seen in his unsavory judegement of his brother ; “Now he’s out in Hollywood. D. B. . being a prostitute” . The utmost nature of Holden’s pick of enunciation swings on a all right line of condemnation and empathy. Hoever the 21st century reader is more than probably to happen this dark temper really amusing and so would be more likely to side with Holden. The subject of people ‘selling-out’ and rolling from their true egos is a common aggravation of the 21st universe. and so more people would place with Holden. and side with his thoughts of disenchantment.
Twenty-first century readers would besides sympathize with Holden’s disenchantment with big life as seen in the idealistic symbolism of the ‘catcher in the rye’ where Holden takes on a fantasy function as a defender of kids “Thousands of small kids… And I’m standing at the border of some brainsick drop. What I have to make. I have to catch everybody if they start to travel over the cliff” . In this dream universe Holden can metaphorically protect childhood artlessness. guaranting that they do non ‘fall’ in the traditional sense of corruptness.
This image echoes Mr Antolini’s stalking warning to Holden himself “This autumn I think you’re siting for – it’s a particular sort of autumn. a atrocious sort. The adult male falling is non permitted to experience or hear himself hit underside. He merely maintain falling and falling. ” The fact that Holden places himself at the border of this drop suggests he excessively feels susceptible to corruptness. and is really much afraid of “falling” and allowing others “fall” like D. B. . who Holden feels has sold out and “fallen” .
Such frights are realised in the cocotte episode where Holden is offered sex. a really big construct to him. and says yes even though “It was against ( his ) rules and all” . In the terminal Holden can non travel through with the agreement and this gives us an penetration into Holden’s positions on the universe. It appears Holden positions grownup constructs. and the procedure of turning up. and “falling” every bit much the same thing. This can be seen in Holden’s misunderstanding of the words to a Robert Burns verse form.
Holden hears the wordss as “if a organic structure catch a body” ; constructing a phantasy around danger and decease instead than around the love and personal relationships described “gin a organic structure meet a body… gin a organic structure kiss a body” in the true verse form. Holden sees merely decease. letdown and corruptness in the grownup universe and is thouroughly disillusioned. he fails to see the joy that the natural patterned advance of love and other relationships can convey with the procedure of turning up. A 21st century reader. particularly one in adolescence. finds this image endearing as it is a fright most people have.
This fright is magnified in today’s universe where work is progressively competitory and doing a life from your dreams is a rareity ; most immature people will travel on to make occupations they did non dream of as a kid. merely as D. B. writes books alternatively of the novels Holden believes he is destined for. And so a 21st century reader sympathises Holden. this sympathy merely heightened by the cognition of Holden’s traumatic childhood and the fact he is presently recieving psychiatric aid in an establishment of kinds. With increasing apprehension and credence of mental unwellness this excessively adds to the chance of a modern reader siding with Holden.
Conversely. The Outisider’s true. realistic representation of life is merely every bit attractive as the idealistic phantasies of Holden’s imaginativeness. The 21st century reader finds comfort in the beauty of Mersault’s pragmatism and the fact that it truly is the ‘little things’ : “the room was bathed in beautiful. late-afternoon sunshine” . “I’m really fond of white coffee” . “I had the whole sky in my eyes and it was all bluish and gold” . “I looked up at the mass of marks and stars in the dark sky and laid myself unfastened for the first clip to the benign indifference of the universe.
And happening it so much like myself. in fact so fraternal. I realised that I’d been happy. that I was still happy” . Mersault’s felicity in the face of the gravest of destinies offers a reassuring optimism to a 21st century reader. In decision. I believe that one can merely depict whether they would ever side with the foreigner themselves. In a personal reaction to the characters of Mersault and Holden. I find Mersault’s attitude to life the most admirable and so I frequently side with his position as an foreigner.
However. I excessively find Holden’s really personal watercourse of conciousness endearing. and through the class of The Catcher in the Rye I developed a fancy which clouds any logical statement of weighing up sides. Mersault although admirable in many facets. was really hard to happen ‘endearing’ . and yet I still found myself sympathetic to his state of affairs despite his evident deficiency of respect in Part One. Personally. I believe a 21st century reader can non assist but side with the foreigner due to the innate human reaction of empathy.
We can non assist but sympathize with Holden’s enduring and Mersault’s mistreatment under the justness system. We can non assist but desire to assist the apparently incapacitated. and so I believe we will finally side with the foreigner. no affair our society. ethical motives or personality. There will be minutes when we reject the foreigner. and these minutes are dictated by our society. ethical motives and personality. But these minute ( s ) of rejection are polar in our acknowledgment of the foreigner position. and it is finally this acknowledgment that leads us to their side.