Get help from the best in academic writing.

The Catcher In The Rye Holden Essay college admission essay help houston tx Software Development homework help

The Catcher In The Rye: Holden Essay, Research Paper

The Catcher In The Rye: Holden

Preface –

This book has been steeped in contention since it was banned in America after

it & # 8217 ; s first publication. John Lennon & # 8217 ; s bravo, Mark Chapman, asked the former

beatle to subscribe a transcript of the book earlier in the forenoon of the twenty-four hours that he

murdered Lennon. Police found the book in his ownership upon groking the

psychologically disturbed Chapman. However, the book itself contains nil

that could be attributed with taking Chapman to move as he did & # 8211 ; it could hold

been any book that he was reading the twenty-four hours he decided to kill John Lennon & # 8211 ; and

as a consequence of the fact that it was & # 8216 ; The Catcher In The Rye & # 8217 ; , a book describing

nervous dislocation, media speculated widely about the possible connexion. This

gave the book even more ill fame. So what is & # 8216 ; The Catcher In The Rye & # 8217 ; really

about?

Superficially the narrative of a immature adult male & # 8217 ; s ejection from yet another school, & # 8216 ; The

Catcher In The Rye & # 8217 ; is in fact a perceptive survey of one person & # 8217 ; s

apprehension of his human status. Holden Caulfield, a adolescent turning up in

1950s New York, has been expelled school for hapless accomplishment one time once more. In an

effort to cover with this he leaves school a few yearss prior to the terminal of term,

and goes to New York to & # 8216 ; take a holiday & # 8217 ; before returning to his parents & # 8217 ;

inevitable wrath.

Told as a soliloquy, the book describes Holden & # 8217 ; s ideas and activities over

these few yearss, during which he describes a developing nervous dislocation,

symptomised by his turns of unexplained depression, unprompted disbursement and

by and large uneven, fickle behavior, prior to his eventual nervous prostration.

However, during his psychological conflict, life continues on about Holden as it

ever had, with the bulk of people disregarding the & # 8216 ; madman stuff & # 8217 ; that is

go oning to him & # 8211 ; until it begins to infringe on their well defined societal

codifications. Increasingly through the novel we are challenged to believe about

society & # 8217 ; s attitude to the human status & # 8211 ; does society hold an & # 8216 ; ostrich in the

sand & # 8217 ; outlook, a calculated ignorance of the emptiness that can qualify

human being? And if so, when Caulfield begins to examine and look into his

ain sense of emptiness and isolation, before eventually declaring that the universe is

full of & # 8216 ; hypocrites & # 8217 ; with each one put out for their ain hypocrite addition, is Holden

really the 1 who is traveling insane, or is it society which has lost it & # 8217 ; s mind

for neglecting to see the hopelessness of their ain lives?

Holden & # 8217 ; s Personality –

There are 3 chief facets in Holden & # 8217 ; s personality:

1. His unfavorable judgment toward the & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; things in society.

2. His perceptual experience that Torahs ( Rules ) are & # 8216 ; kid & # 8217 ; s play & # 8217 ; for the strong

and a hard

battle for the weak.

3. Respect for fellowman.

The unfavorable judgment toward & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; things in society is expressed in the novel

chiefly by the word & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; . Holden is a representative of the universe of

childhood whose features are the opposite values to those Holden calls

& # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; .

One of the things Holden frequently calls & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; is the universe of films and

everything about it. Examples of it are his choler toward his brother D.B.

because he moved to Hollywood, antipathy of Sunny the cocotte who tells him

she spends most of her clip in movie theatres and derision to the three adult females he

met at the saloon who are merely interested in films and celebrated histrions.

Another thing Holden calls & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; is the theatre. He finds the theatre & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ;

because he thinks that alternatively of showing world as it is, the accent

is put on smoothing staginess. He says he has ne’er seen so much & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ;

things like he saw in the theatre. Out of these illustrations and others we see that

for Holden it is really of import to be & # 8216 ; existent & # 8217 ; , honest and non & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; , therefore the

unfavorable judgment toward the & # 8216 ; phony & # 8217 ; things in society is the most important facet of

his personality

Another of import facet in Holden & # 8217 ; s personality is that regulations to him were meant

to function the strong, whereas he belongs to the weak, therefore he ignores them

wholly. His attitude toward regulations can be demonstrated by these illustrations:

Ring Lardner & # 8217 ; s Tells Holden a narrative in which a married police officer fell in love

with a miss who drove

faster than the velocity bound and finally was killed

because of it. In this narrative Torahs ( Rules ) are mentioned twice:

1. The police officer fell in love with a miss while he was married and

this means interrupting societal Torahs.

2. The girl drove excessively fast and this means interrupting traffic Torahs.

The result of this narrative is failure and decease. From here we can larn of

Holden & # 8217 ; s personality because he likes this narrative really much and he thinks that

these felonies don & # 8217 ; t necessitate penalty.

Another illustration is Holden & # 8217 ; s talk with Mr. Spencer who tells him: & # 8220 ; Life is a

game male child. Life is a game that one plays harmonizing to the regulations & # 8230 ; If you get on

the side where all the hot-shots are, so it & # 8217 ; s a game & # 8230 ; But if you get on the

other side, where there aren & # 8217 ; t any hot-shots, so what & # 8217 ; s a game about it? & # 8221 ; .

Holden agrees with Mr. Spencer.

Actually, Holden has an ambivalent position of regulations which is expressed in Holden & # 8217 ; s

words: & # 8220 ; I & # 8217 ; m ever puting myself regulations about sex and I instantly interrupt them & # 8221 ; .

Holden refers regulations to the universe of the strong but he himself can non avoid

scene regulations for himself, yet he ne’er keeps them. So this is another

contradiction in Holden & # 8217 ; s personality.

Another facet of Holden & # 8217 ; s personality is the fact that Holden can & # 8217 ; t base

people who don & # 8217 ; t esteem fellowmen and wear & # 8217 ; t listen to what they say. Holden

thinks that it is really of import to listen to people and esteem their privateness.

Examples of this can be found in many parts of the narrative such as:

1. Holden & # 8217 ; s willingness to halt in the center of the sexual act

because of a miss & # 8217 ; s bespeak when others wouldn & # 8217 ; T.

2. Holden & # 8217 ; s esteem to the nuns.

3. Holden & # 8217 ; s esteem to Jane: the willingness non to snog her and

soothing her when she cried.

In visible radiation of these illustrations and others we can reason that fellowman is really

of import to Holden. However, when people criticize him, he doesn & # 8217 ; t esteem them

at all. This can clearly be seen in Holden & # 8217 ; s attitude toward Pheobe and Antolini.

Holden & # 8217 ; s attitude toward:

1. Teachers.

2. Friends.

3. Family.

4. Life.

1.Holden & # 8217 ; s attitude toward instructors is ambivalent: on the one manus he is

instinctively against them because they are representatives of the Torahs he

interruptions. On the other manus he respects instructors like Antolini and Spencer.

2.Holdne & # 8217 ; s friends are presented as negative and selfish characters such as

Stradlater and Ackley. Although Stradlater and Ackley are socially opposite,

( Stradlater on the top and Ackley in the underside ) they are both unfit for Holden

and under the camouflage of the fine-looking successful jock or the ugly rejected

sloth, they are the same & # 8211 ; selfish, ache other people and obey Torahs.

3. Holden has an exceeding attitude toward his parents. On the one manus he

wants to delight them and on the other manus he doesn & # 8217 ; t do anything to carry through

that so he disappoints them.

To his brother D.B, Holden has some regard accompanied with letdown of

him going commercialized all his life as a author in Hollywood, of his

girlfriend and of his auto.

To his sister Pheobe, nevertheless, Holden has a particular sentiment because she

represents childhood, pureness, artlessness and apprehension to Holden. Despite all

this, Pheobe likes films, participates in school dramas and criticizes Holden.

Allegedly, Holden should hold hated her but he chooses to disregard these

& # 8216 ; disadvantages & # 8217 ; .

4.Holden & # 8217 ; s attitude toward life consequences from his attitude toward himself. His

low self-esteem causes him to seek to run off from life and from world. When

life is presented to him as a game with regulations, he breaks the regulations and foliages

the game.

In Conclusion –

We see Holden as a changeless character. As a individual who refuses to accept world

and attempts every bit much as he can to hold on childhood. He wants to go frequenter of the

kids in order to protect their pureness and artlessness.

And as a concluding comment I would wish to state that when we are honorable we can see

within ourselves suppressed elements of the forces runing within Holden

Caulfield, and because of that I would urge this idea arousing novel as

a fascinating and edifying description of our human status. However,

beware & # 8230 ; for that really ground it is non comfy reading.

The Culture of Owning

The Culture of Owning.

Description

Answer the following questions based off the reading. Should the Polluter Pays principle still apply today? Why or why not? What are your views about the harm-benefit test? How can the do no harm rule improve nature today? This article published in 2005 by Eric T. Freyfogle is about land ownership in the United States and how we as Americans, our concept on property rights have changed or evolved since colonial times. Freyfogle begins by talking about the Dust Bowl, a period of time in the 1930’s where severe dust storms damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies. The Dust Bowl also brought on severe drought wind erosion. The drought came in three waves, 1934, 1936 and 1939-1940. Some areas experienced a drought for eight years. Bad farming practice and land use were contributors to the Dust Bowl. Another cause was the fact that private property rights gave landowners the freewill to use or misuse their land and the right to be left alone. Efforts to control soil erosion gained ground through the 1980’s, as did the creation of wildlife habitats.

There were many other measures to protect the land as well like the Wilderness Act, floodplain protection ordinances, costal-zone development restrictions, and pollution/pesticide laws. All had seen much success until the 1990’s when the laws began to be challenged. Former Vice President Dan Quayle thought that those who harmed the environment, should be held responsible. The “Polluter pays” principle required polluters to either compensate for the damage they cause or purchase the technology needed to control it. Landowners strongly resisted taking responsibility for the polluted runoff from their land. They did not want to be held accountable for destroying wildlife habitats, altering the flow of water or letting their top soil slide in to water reservoirs. They argued that complying with the environmental laws infringed on their right to make a profitable use of their land. The landowners came up with their own rebuttal called the harm-benefit test. Basically, under this test, a landowner uses their property to benefit the population. If the population benefits, they should have to pay for it. Thus now, we have farmers expecting payments from government programs and such when they comply with the things in place that reduce development and the conservation of wildlife habitats. The American right to property has had so many different meanings and variations over time. These rights to property have never included the harming of others. The do no harm rule commanded that landowners cause no harm to other landowners or the surrounding community. With this rule, however, lawmakers have given varied content. What one sees as harmful, another may not, so that fight continues. In recent years, the law has allowed landowners to alter nature freely. As we have learned in class, altering nature can be harmful to everyone. Freyfogle ended the article by stating that we would be good to remember the Dust Bowl and the failure of the generation then in charge to foster new ideas of ownership. Property law and land use are not separate entities. We should want to live in healthy places, while not infringing upon a landowner’s right to do with their land as they see fit.  

Essay Help “>Essay Help

https://onlinecustomessaywriting.com/

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service




Rating: