The Catcher In The Rye Critical Analysis Essay
In The Catcher in the Rye, . Salinger used symbolism throughout the novel. Three major symbols were the ducks, the Museum of Natural History, and Jane Gallagher. They all represent Holden in a way, and Salinger uses these symbols very well.
While Holden is wandering around New York City, he asks many people about what happens to the ducks in the pond when it freezes. I think this really symbolizes Holden. He isn’t really wondering about the ducks, he is wondering about himself. He wants to know what will happen to him when the weather gets really cold. He wants to know if he will have to go home, because he is really afraid to. This relates to the theme of going home, which is a recurring theme during the novel. The novel is basically his slow return to his home, and he is wondering whether he should go home or stay outside and freeze.
The other two symbols, Jane Gallagher and the Museum of Natural History, both represent the theme of the past. Jane Gallagher was an old friend of Holden’s, and he mentions her many times during the story. He mentions that he will call her, but he never gets the nerve to. She is an important part of his past that he misses a lot, and he wants to go back and be with her again.
The Museum of Natural History represents a different aspect of his past. While Jane Gallagher makes Holden want to return to his past, the Museum of Natural History sort of changes his mind. He remembers how he used to go there all the time, and how he was different, but the wax figures were always the same. He realizes that he can’t go back in time, because he is not the same as he used to be. He also realizes that he will never be the same as he used to be.
. Salinger’s use of symbolism in The Catcher in the Rye is very helpful in conveying hidden messages. He uses different symbols to use these messages, such as Jane, the Museum and the ducks. They all represent Holden, showing the way he thinks and acts.
I chose this piece of writing because I felt that it was well written, and it was about a book that...
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times observed the film "cries out to be a small film—a quixotic little indie production where the daffy dialogue and weird characters could weave their coils of paranoia into great offbeat humor. Unfortunately, the parts of the movie that are truly good are buried beneath the deadening layers of thriller cliches and an unconvincing love story ... If the movie had stayed at ground level—had been a real story about real people—it might have been a lot better, and funnier. All of the energy is in the basic material, and none of it is in a romance that is grafted on like an unneeded limb or superfluous organ."