This post is going to be kinda personal, which is something I don't usually do, but I find that I'm relating to Holden, and that Catcher in the Rye is a personal book that begs a personal response. So, I've decided that if I was generally in a significantly worse mood and had been taught the moral standards of upper-class 50's culture, my stream of consciousness would sound quite a lot like this book. Holden has this fickle but selective negativity (specifically directed towards coming of age) that I can (unfortunately) totally relate to. I don't mean to elevate myself to Holden's level in any sense; I'm not nearly as upset as he is, my beliefs don't manifest in ways that are nearly as dramatic as flunking classes and roaming about New York, and I wouldn't be nearly as fun to listen to. But the complaints (and the ways that he undermines those complaints with compliments and can't figure out how to follow through with them in the real world) struck a chord with me while I read. (Warning: because of this my theories about Holden will probably be warped by my theories about myself.)
I understand the hate, but I'm not sure why it exists. I don't actually hate things (and I think Holden doesn't either because he often undercuts his insults with things like "but he's a pretty nice guy" and would never wish harm on anyone), I just get annoyed by them sometimes. But does Holden get annoyed by things because he legitimately doesn't relate to the culture he's growing up in and often finds adults shallow and subtly dishonest? Does he have a legitimate critique of society? (Part of me would say yes, but since I'm pretty much in his position, that doesn't mean much) Or is he just bad at fitting in with that kind of crowd and afraid of responsibility and not being able to bend over and pick up the chalk one day?
His whole kids are better than adults thesis is certainly questionable. I understand it because in a way I believe it myself, but if you think about it, children are just as "phony" as young adults in a lot of ways. They're just as rude to one another for equally stupid reasons, it's just less subtle. They're shallow, they just care about toys and their own definitions of coolness instead of, say, money. They probably outright lie more (though Holden does this too so maybe it doesn't quite count). Adults have more subtle methods of communication with one another, but isn't there a possibility that those are just as honest/effective as those of children if you have a social IQ high enough to understand them? (which Holden very well might not-- although I don't actually think this is his problem)
Holden takes issue with the value that adults place on fame, prestige and outward appearances (as do I) but are kids actually indiscriminate in their treatment of other people? Maybe really little ones are, but as soon as they're old enough to understand their parents' biases, they adopt them. In fact, I would argue that they do this often in more thoughtless, extreme ways simply because they haven't had the time to question their own beliefs yet. There was a time when I would have said to you 'all republicans are stupid or evil'. And if someone had introduced themselves to me as a republican, I would have said "what?? why on earth??" and disregarded their opinions from there on out, not because I had had bad experiences with republicans but because I had picked up on my parents political opinions despite not really understanding them. I have fortunately outgrown this attitude.
Anyway, my point is that kids are also capable of discrimination. So why do we (Holden and I) have this problem with adults that we don't have with kids? Maybe it's because we're trying to justify our emotional aversions to coming of age.