New Article

Allancw

Member
Great points about Holden/Phoebe relationship and pedophilia. As mentioned in my other post today, I think the Fuck You business was likewise related to this issue. What I'm not so sure about is how directly the pedophilia relates to Freemasonry.... Got some thinking to do...

I had to shorten my other post for character-limitation reasons. This was among the deletions:

Speaking from experience: When dealing with what a writer means, there are, IMO, three levels. There is the outright conscious, then the ‘obvious subconscious,’ then the ‘deep subconscious.’

These are important distinctions; in your work it might be useful to think along these lines. For example, did Salinger consciously ‘craft in’ all the Freemason allusions? A good example might be the ‘Fuck You’ business I deal with below. The ‘Al Pike’ and other references are important because we know they were conscious. This gives us the go-ahead to analyze the book as you have done. But we can’t assume that all of the stuff you found was ‘conscious.’ Some may have been the second layer: stuff that Salinger would admit to even though he wasn’t consciously designing them. The ‘Fuck You’ as pedophile allusion may have been on the deeper layer. Depends on Salinger’s (or any author’s) depth of self-reflection. (More on this below.)

This likewise had to go:

To put it another way: Do you really think Salinger sat down and thought to himself, ‘I’m going to write a book that will be destructive to the culture of the United States’? Given his (pretty obvious) dislike of Freemasonry, I don’t think so. It may have been depressing to him that – due to Freemasonry’s string pulling – the book became a sensation. This may have been partially behind his refusal to talk about the book. His seclusion as well. Just a thought. (Again: What an author consciously meant (or didn’t) with a piece of business (typology) is no small matter.)

Anyway, great work.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Allan, I'm curious: in your own experience, how often has it happened that readers have pointed to interpretations of your work that you had not intentionally constructed, but that you admit were generated by your subconscious? Could you give some examples?
 

Allancw

Member
Helluva good question! It HAS happened but not often. (It's more common that I thought they were off the wall.) And it's not 100% that my agreeing or disagreeing was correct. Unfortunately, self-reflection is not a common trait, altho I of course like to think I possess it. Let me think on that one. I'll get back to you. (My net access is spotty so a delayed answer may not mean much.)
 

Allancw

Member
Here’s an example, altho I thought of it myself.

I wrote the first edition (the Random House one) in the early 1980s. A lunatic version of my life as a big time pot smugger back in the 1970s. As I say, nihilism running amok.

Then for Penguin in 2000 I wrote a Forward to the New Edition, right? A bit of it was ‘What the book is about.’ Then I got to the dedication page, written right after the Forward. Without thinking I put there: ‘This book is dedicated to people who stick together.’

I added a footnote to the page: ‘Which, come to think of it, is what it’s really about.’

A true epiphany: It took me 15 years to realize what the book was ‘about.’ See, in my real life I had found that people do not stick together. They will fuck you in a heartbeat. This was upsetting. So in writing the book, the one thing that came out – keep in mind it’s a bizarre ‘fantasy – was that the nihilistic lunatics fucking stuck together.

See what I mean?

In my view, Catcher might very well have been written as a completely anti-Freemason story, with the pedophile stuff a separate issue, either conscious or not on Salinger’s part.

Unfortunately, and to Salinger’s dismay, the Freemasons decided that the book still was to their advantage.

This could also be the case with, say, Orwell and 1984. My impression is that some of you guys (like Jan) figure Orwell was ‘one of them.’ Maybe so. But maybe not, as might be the case with Salinger. There’s a catch-22 here, via MKULTRA’s view of human nature. Telling the truth – as with 1984 – may in the end actually be ‘predictive programming,’ no matter how negative ‘they’ look. Take The Matrix. Those guys are not on our side, altho at first look they seem to be.

More to come….
 

A new day

Member
Great points about Holden/Phoebe relationship and pedophilia. As mentioned in my other post today, I think the Fuck You business was likewise related to this issue. What I'm not so sure about is how directly the pedophilia relates to Freemasonry.... Got some thinking to do...

I had to shorten my other post for character-limitation reasons. This was among the deletions:

Speaking from experience: When dealing with what a writer means, there are, IMO, three levels. There is the outright conscious, then the ‘obvious subconscious,’ then the ‘deep subconscious.’

These are important distinctions; in your work it might be useful to think along these lines. For example, did Salinger consciously ‘craft in’ all the Freemason allusions? A good example might be the ‘Fuck You’ business I deal with below. The ‘Al Pike’ and other references are important because we know they were conscious. This gives us the go-ahead to analyze the book as you have done. But we can’t assume that all of the stuff you found was ‘conscious.’ Some may have been the second layer: stuff that Salinger would admit to even though he wasn’t consciously designing them. The ‘Fuck You’ as pedophile allusion may have been on the deeper layer. Depends on Salinger’s (or any author’s) depth of self-reflection. (More on this below.)

This likewise had to go:

To put it another way: Do you really think Salinger sat down and thought to himself, ‘I’m going to write a book that will be destructive to the culture of the United States’? Given his (pretty obvious) dislike of Freemasonry, I don’t think so. It may have been depressing to him that – due to Freemasonry’s string pulling – the book became a sensation. This may have been partially behind his refusal to talk about the book. His seclusion as well. Just a thought. (Again: What an author consciously meant (or didn’t) with a piece of business (typology) is no small matter.)

Anyway, great work.
 

A new day

Member
Thanks, Allancw. You made Salinger more human for me. I'm one to take in fiction with similar perspectives of the writing; the creator's conscious, creator's sub-concious, and the weirdly connected archetypal zeitgeist. We cannot separate ourselves from the times we live in and if, when expressing a personal experience to a current audience, the signs of the times come out in character. I believe this is why Hollywood movies and TV entertainment programming has been so successful. For fun I like to analyze my dreams this way, especially if I've binged on marathon viewing. Good way to purge the programming.
 

Blitzer

New Member
Good info,Allancw...I,however,DO feel that Salinger deliberately invested The Catcher In The Rye with the subliminal "ceremony" that takes place in The Lodge,and other Esoteric Orders;also,being Army Intelligence,he was doing the Work for the express purpose achieved by the book("once Intel,always Intel").It was likely far more successful an Operation than they thought it would ever be,gaining such a huge foothold on the minds of America's youth at that time,and on into the later years, via instruction in the Public Fools' System.I knew,in high School,the Nature of that book,and specifically refused to read it,as I knew it was exposing my Friends to the "don't give a damn Bum,pervert" mentality so prevalent throughout The States today(I learned much of Esoteric Arts, growing up in a "Cult",basically).Indeed,Catcher In The Rye affected generations of America's young with it's exposure to subliminal "Arts and Parts",that they otherwise would never know of.I know,I am a "Blue Lodge" Free Mason,though I haven't been in years.Yet,"Once One,Always One"...I disagree with what the Higher Orders do to our society,both here and throughout the European World,even in the former Colonies,etc....but,I understand so much more now-and have come here to Learn more. I am very happy to be here,among like-minded persons,exploring these issues.
 
Top