Is Holden Caulfield an INTJ?

[quentin]

I'm re-reading The Catcher in the Rye. I'm enjoying it more now, since as an adult I can read between the lines, whereas as a teenager I read it at face value. The alienation and cynicism Holden feels, that he's trapped in a shallow world of phonies (while not seeming to realize that in his own way he's just as shallow and phony as the rest) speaks to me. He reminds me a lot of the way I was when I was an adolescent. Self-absorbed and sarcastic and highly sensitive and confused about my place in the world.

On the other hand, perhaps those are universal traits for all teenagers, not INTJ-specific.

[Henry]

I'm re-reading The Catcher in the Rye. I'm enjoying it more now, since as an adult I can read between the lines, whereas as a teenager I read it at face value. The alienation and cynicism Holden feels, that he's trapped in a shallow world of phonies (while not seeming to realize that in his own way he's just as shallow and phony as the rest) speaks to me. He reminds me a lot of the way I was when I was an adolescent. Self-absorbed and sarcastic and highly sensitive and confused about my place in the world.

On the other hand, perhaps those are universal traits for all teenagers, not INTJ-specific.

Worst required reading in all of school. Period. Terrible book on so many levels.

[logos]

Worst required reading in all of school. Period. Terrible book on so many levels.

I loved it. I guess that just goes to show how widely opinions can differ. :/

[quentin]

Why did you think it was so terrible? Like I said, it's perhaps better to read it as an adult, because you can 'see through' Caulfield and his hypocrisies, but are also more sympathetic to him because you have enough distance from your own teenage years. As a teenager you just read it as a straightforward story. Most teens aren't sophisticated enough to grasp the concept of the unreliable narrator.

[Tsuru]

ENTP jumped out at me the both times I've read it.

I didn't think it was a "great" book in the serious literature kind of sense, but stylistically it's really interesting and unique.

[Rohsiph]

Worst required reading in all of school. Period. Terrible book on so many levels.

Can you please show me some of these levels? I wasn't aware of them--especially of there being so many. This is very serious if this really is an issue --period-- . . . please help :)

[Henry]

Why did you think it was so terrible? Like I said, it's perhaps better to read it as an adult, because you can 'see through' Caulfield and his hypocrisies, but are also more sympathetic to him because you have enough distance from your own teenage years. As a teenager you just read it as a straightforward story. Most teens aren't sophisticated enough to grasp the concept of the unreliable narrator.

Right except:
1. I don't think its fun.
2. I don't think there's a message worth reading about and its not that accurate a depiction of life.
3. The negativity is overwhelming.
4. Few, teenagers least of all, are able to grasp the ironies of the story.
5. Its not executed with exceptional skill.

Those of you who have never bothered to develop your social skills may identify with Holden, but I detest the book. No point, not fun, not art.

[INTJgal]

Holden strikes me as ENFP. The introverted extravert. but i'm not certain.

[rocksteady]

I liked it, felt i could relate a bit. I am not sure how to view it terms of literary greatness however, i usually rate books with a liked/dislike system, i'm not very picky. Although, when I dislike a book I never finish it!

[Rohsiph]

Right except:
1. I don't think its fun.
2. I don't think there's a message worth reading about and its not that accurate a depiction of life.
3. The negativity is overwhelming.
4. Few, teenagers least of all, are able to grasp the ironies of the story.
5. Its not executed with exceptional skill.

Those of you who have never bothered to develop your social skills may identify with Holden, but I detest the book. No point, not fun, not art.

Hm. What a compelling thesis. I'm almost convinced--could you offer some citations?

[Henry]

Hm. What a compelling thesis. I'm almost convinced--could you offer some citations?

How exactly do you want me to cite an example of how the book is no fun? How it has no message? How teenagers aren't going to be able to grasp what little irony there is? That its not executed with skill?

[Rohsiph]

How exactly do you want me to cite an example of how the book is no fun? How it has no message? How teenagers aren't going to be able to grasp what little irony there is? That its not executed with skill?

Oh . . . well, perhaps by skimming through the pages and picking a particular passage that is particularly un-fun, or meaningless, or really hard to grasp for teenagers, or by comparing a passage from this book with a similar one in another book that is far more skillfully executed.

You know . . . justifying your opinion succinctly. I guess I might be asking for a little much, but I feel entitled to ask when I think about the 8-page paper I wrote entitled "Holden’s Negativity seen through his Female Relationships in Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye" about a year ago.

This is generally how the academic system figures out what books are/are not of literary value.

[Henry]

Oh . . . well, perhaps by skimming through the pages and picking a particular passage that is particularly un-fun, or meaningless, or really hard to grasp for teenagers, or by comparing a passage from this book with a similar one in another book that is far more skillfully executed.

You know . . . justifying your opinion succinctly. I guess I might be asking for a little much, but I feel entitled to ask when I think about the 8-page paper I wrote entitled "Holden’s Negativity seen through his Female Relationships in Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye" about a year ago.

This is generally how the academic system figures out what books are/are not of literary value.


Regarding the sarcastic tone, I think one needs to ask why you are having an emotional response to my broad and allegedly unsupported criticisms. If its as nonsensical as you claim, why repeatedly respond?

Individual portions are meaningless because lots of works have passages that are no fun and passages that are pointless. Catcher is not special in that regard. It is special in that there's nothing worthwhile in the whole book. Asking for citations in response to criticisms of being a completely vapid work is a bit like asking for the flamistams to be put up next to the lonigrens so the ianens can flow more freely.

Even assuming you could, you honestly expect me to care enough to go through a book I detest and transcribe portions of it online to convince a fan-boy of its lack of value?

And grats on the paper. You win the prize. Writing an 8 page paper definently makes you an unquestionable authority on the subject, and on literature in general.

[Rohsiph]

Regarding the sarcastic tone, I think one needs to ask why you are having an emotional response to my broad and allegedly unsupported criticisms. If its as nonsensical as you claim, why repeatedly respond?

I have time, I am having fun responding.

Individual portions are meaningless because lots of works have passages that are no fun and passages that are pointless. Catcher is not special in that regard. It is special in that there's nothing worthwhile in the whole book. Asking for citations in response to criticisms of being a completely vapid work is a bit like asking for the flamistams to be put up next to the lonigrens so the ianens can flow more freely.

That there are scholarly journals devoted to Salinger's work suggests that there is something to be found in most of his works--including Catcher. Now, it's up to the reader to decide whether the writers of the criticism support their claims well enough to believe their arguments, but I'd be more surprised to find your contentions to dismiss the wide range of articles on Catcher than to find support in dismissal of your view--such that I'd think it to be an interesting endeavor for you to successfully validate your argument.

Even assuming you could, you honestly expect me to care enough to go through a book I detest and transcribe portions of it online to convince a fan-boy of its lack of value?

No, honestly I didn't expect you to even try . . . but I hoped maybe you would. It's pretty rare, the person who'll make the effort to argue effectively on the Internets. I'm somewhat taken aback at your claim about my being a "fan-boy"--the term, as I know it, is usually associated with negative connotation, and I'm not sure how asking you to support your arguments is any indication that I would particularly support any "fan-boy"-like love for the book kind of being discussed.

And grats on the paper. You win the prize. Writing an 8 page paper definently makes you an unquestionable authority on the subject, and on literature in general.

Thanks for the ad-hominem. I wear those as badges of honor on the Internets--actually, they're common enough that they're really like a basic shell, I guess, keeping me from getting naked and stuff.

No, the referencing my own work was just to try suggesting that perhaps one can find & support contentions that there is value in the book in question--I wasn't trying to boast. I looked over it just now; it's actually pretty flimsy & poorly written . . . but thanks for getting swept up in my sarcasm, it makes me glad to know my power ;)

[Henry]

That there are scholarly journals devoted to Salinger's work suggests that there is something to be found in most of his works--including Catcher. Now, it's up to the reader to decide whether the writers of the criticism support their claims well enough to believe their arguments, but I'd be more surprised to find your contentions to dismiss the wide range of articles on Catcher than to find support in dismissal of your view--such that I'd think it to be an interesting endeavor for you to successfully validate your argument.

No, honestly I didn't expect you to even try . . . but I hoped maybe you would. It's pretty rare, the person who'll make the effort to argue effectively on the Internets. I'm somewhat taken aback at your claim about my being a "fan-boy"--the term, as I know it, is usually associated with negative connotation, and I'm not sure how asking you to support your arguments is any indication that I would particularly support any "fan-boy"-like love for the book kind of being discussed.

My point stands. You can't prove a negative by providing specifically vapid passages, ISTJ.

Regarding being a fan-boy, its obvious. Above, you couldn't decide whether to break into tears or ask me to prove a negative and lace posts with sarcasm because I said its a shitty book. And then you reference what an authority on the subject you are.

Thanks for the ad-hominem. I wear those as badges of honor on the Internets--actually, they're common enough that they're really like a basic shell, I guess, keeping me from getting naked and stuff.

No, the referencing my own work was just to try suggesting that perhaps one can find & support contentions that there is value in the book in question--I wasn't trying to boast. I looked over it just now; it's actually pretty flimsy & poorly written . . . but thanks for getting swept up in my sarcasm, it makes me glad to know my power ;)

You call my negative reference to your bragging personal?

Oh . . . well, perhaps by skimming through the pages and picking a particular passage that is particularly un-fun, or meaningless, or really hard to grasp for teenagers, or by comparing a passage from this book with a similar one in another book that is far more skillfully executed.

You know . . . justifying your opinion succinctly. I guess I might be asking for a little much, but I feel entitled to ask when I think about the 8-page paper I wrote entitled "Holden’s Negativity seen through his Female Relationships in Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye" about a year ago.

This is generally how the academic system figures out what books are/are not of literary value.

[Rohsiph]

Well, I'm sure you're happy to have solved this little tangent, Henry, eh? ;)

I mean, since you've encapsulated the last darting ideas so wonderfully, now.

I'm so very happy to see you in such good & stable health.

[Tsuru]

This whole thread is full of a bunch of phonies. Phony like that guy Fischer I knew back in elementary school. Goddamn that kid always had a He-Man lunchbox and you knew, YOU KNEW, that he didn't watch any goddamned He-man. But He-man was the shit back then, so Fischer must have been the shit too if he brought a goddamn He-man lunch box to school. That's the kind of guy Fischer was. Always bringing He-Man lunchboxes to school just to impress the shit out of some kids. One time at lunch I asked him if he was going to eat his pudding, and he said he was. But then when lunch was finished he never ate the goddamn pudding and just threw it in the trash. Fischer was the kind of guy who threw pudding in the trash when he knew you wanted it just because he didn't like you all that much, you know, a real rat bastard, if you really want to know the truth. No foolin. Drippy Mcgee though, he ALWAYS gave you his pudding, even if he probably would have eaten it himself if you hadn't asked him. A real prince. But I think he might just have been scared that you were going to pop him in the lip or something and that's why he gave you the pudding. He's the kind of guy that's always thinking someone is going to pop them in the lip if they don't do something even if they weren't gonna. But see, you don't want to be the kind of guy that's always giving your pudding to people just because they asked. That's pretty phony in its own way, if you want to know the truth. Just like that guy at the bus stop...

:P

[iamnotspock]

Tsuru -- I think you nailed it. Nice ;-)

Henry -- You seem a tad judgemental for an ENFP. Might you be an ENFJ?

Rohsiph -- Don't you know that using logic on an NF is no fair? Henry is talking about how he ** feels ** about the book. It's not _fun_ (for him). Hence, "there's nothing worthwhile in the whole book". This is the NF approach in a nutshell. Reach broad conclusions based on personal feelings as opposed to facts. To ask for evidence is to corner the cat. But I suspect you enjoy that part ... most INTJ's do :-))

[blckprljinju]

holden was clearly having depression issues... so wouldn't it be easier to type him not just as he was in the book but as he would be if someone was depressed?

[ssrprotege]

Caulfield comes to me as a Feeler. I think Intuition is a give-away. He is indeed rebellious, but I think he has his own standards of beliefs and appears uncompromising. His wandering, I think, has to do with finding out who he really is, something that most teenagers go through. Also, he seems a bit naive, I mean, I don't think he quite grasped harsh reality. From my vague memories, I guess he's an INFP.

[ElstonGunn]

It's been a while since I read the book, and I wasn't impressed with it when I did read it. I wouldn't say that Caulfield seems particularly INTJ-ish to me, but that's based on somewhat hazy retrospect, and I also strongly disliked the character, so there's a whole thing about not really wanting to be associated with him. All that being said (i.e., I'm a bad guy to ask about this), he strikes me as more of an ISTP than anything else.

[Claptonian]

I could see him as an immature, emotionally scarred INTJ. He's quite elitist, which fits with the stereotypical NT.

Catcher is one of my favorite books.

[MacGuffin]

Holden was a whiny little bitch at times, so if he's an introverted NT, he's probably INTP.

[skqt]

Right except:
1. I don't think its fun.
2. I don't think there's a message worth reading about and its not that accurate a depiction of life.
3. The negativity is overwhelming.
4. Few, teenagers least of all, are able to grasp the ironies of the story.
5. Its not executed with exceptional skill.

Those of you who have never bothered to develop your social skills may identify with Holden, but I detest the book. No point, not fun, not art.

Exactly what I thought when I read the book. I went in without any idea what the story was about and by the end I was shocked, shocked that such a book receives so much praise.

Although to be fair, I think one reason I disliked the book so much was because of Holden's character and attitude. I can't stand these kind of people, all emotional and contradictive who think the world is working against them.

However, a well written story makes even the most irritating of characters a pleasure to read.