hahaha

[jacobo]

well yeah i have a ten page paper to write and it wasn't working out so i sorta went off on a tangent in the paper... i love my drunken tangents... i think the theory holds some water... you be the judhge of that. you need to read a little to get to the tanget but what you'll read is pure glistening BS. and pure glistening BS is always fun to analyse. Phony Accusations. In the course of our lives we read everything from the absurd to the life changing. It’s important to spot the difference between these two literary extremes. Often times people wage war on books that they feel are either inappropriate or absurd. These people feel that the moral fiber of society is in danger if people are given an unvarnished view on that very same society. They refuse to see past the blunt message that’s slapping them across the face. Rather, these people choose to pick apart the technicalities in the writing like word usage. A good example of this is J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye. Salinger’s classic is shot down by many simply because it uses coarse language. A great example of this is the gripe that many have about the book’s usage of the word fuck. Fuck is used a total of six times in the novel. People often times tear the book apart for this word. Also, often time’s people have no clue as to the context in which the word is being used. The word is used to show how vulgar our society is, not to gain any form of shock value from the reader. If one takes the time to understand the context and message of the book, one will find that this work of literature is quite possibly one of the most mind expanding novels we could have our children read. The Catcher in the Rye is a superb novel and should not be withheld from anyone who wishes to read it. It should have a place in every school library across the nation and should be recognized as something more than a trashy, trendy, vulgar book. Life is what you take from it, and if you choose to not look deeper than words you’ll find yourself living a superficial and baseless life, it’s as simple as that. One of the more prominent complaints about The Catcher in the Rye is its word usage and content. Critics often shoot the book down because of these things. They claim that a book that contains such content is not suitable for children. Many religious groups feel that the book is seething with blasphemy and should have never been published in the first place. The religious argument is easy to pick apart. It’s obvious that they’re trying to push the agenda of their religion upon school boards. On fundamentals alone the religion argument holds no water. The very thought that anyone can go impose their ideals upon a government institution grossly defies the logic of democracy. Yes, everyone should have a say, but no one group is to have control of a governing office. Now, out of fundamentals and into logic. The usages of “blasphemous” terms in the novel are implemented by one character, Holden Caulfield. This usage of language develops the Holden and exposes his hypocrisies and short comings. They are not used to tear down the church in any way. Now onto the novel’s word usage in general, not just this ever-present blaspheming that seems to get people’s blood boiling. Holden often curses society; he uses vulgar language as a way of rebellion. If the reader were to pay attention he/she would notice that Holden is hardly a role model, if anything he’s the pure essence of ignorance. With this context in place, why should anything Holden says or does be taken literally? Why should any actions or terms voiced by him find their way into the lives of our youth? It seems like a discredit to think of our children as so stupid and malleable. Anything in this book can be seen on TV today, the language in this book can be heard all around our school yards, and to ban this novel for its facetious presentation of such vulgarity is asinine. It pokes fun at these actions, it doesn’t support them. The advocates for banning this book don’t seem to see this and it speaks volumes of their disposition. The more down to earth critics find a fight in things more important than words. Some complaints about the book center on the obsession that Salinger seems to have with Holden. The book itself is a concentration on “three days in the bewildering world of an adolescent.” It seems fitting to carry out this obsession with the Holden. It gives the reader more means to identify with him. For the books message to set in, the reader needs to completely understand Holden. Not just his words or actions but his purpose. Holden symbolizes so much of our society and is such a positive influence on the book that it’s almost mandatory that he be depicted in such detail. Suggesting that this book is somehow bad because of its attention to detail is frivolous and hypocritical. Different writers have different styles, if we were to deem any book that thoroughly developed its characters we would see less of the novels we’ve so aptly considered classics and see more of the New York Time’s best sellers. There’s a sickening cry to tradition when it comes to The Catcher in the Rye. People are poised in the provincial mindset that cursing is bad under all circumstances. This ideal tries to appeal to moral values, but those same moral values have been held for centuries and have always been under scrutiny. Times keep changing and people want their children to live as they did. This mentality gives no space for progress; it’s detrimental to society if anything. For our species to be able to progress in any manner we need to be able to recognize the context of things and stop labeling based on what’s on the surface. It can’t be stressed how important it is to understand something before you judge it. For if you judge without knowledge you’re perpetuating the ignorance that you claim to be looking down upon. The call to tradition will do nothing but slowly destroy all progress that is so savagely trying to be earned. This is where I stop thinking. I’m tired of spitting out this wordy BS. So I shall just write about a theory that was formulated by a friend. The theory is as such: rainbow sprinkles make everyone happy. Just think about it, when you have a choice what would you rather have? The brown or the rainbow sprinkles? That’s what I thought. Now with this clearly scientific proof under our belt we can evolve the theory. Since everyone loves rainbow sprinkles there should be a way we can use them to make this world a better place. You figure the average bomb that we drop on poor third world nations with marginally effective air forces costs somewhere around $30,000. Now convert all the money we spend on bombs into a rainbow sprinkle slush fund. You figure that you can buy rainbow sprinkles in bulk for $70 for five pounds. Now that means that means that there’s roughly 2,143 pounds of sprinkles to every bomb we drop. Now instead of dropping three napalm-death-canisters from a plane why don’t we drop 6,429 pounds of rainbow sprinkles? How happy would it make you to walk outside only to find that it’s raining rainbow sprinkles from the heavens? Ohh yes my friend, the world would become a splendid place. Hunger would be nearly non-existent and our species could prosper in rainbow mounds to grainy ice cream topping orgasms. I can see it now, little Iraqi children making sprinkle angels while feasting themselves upon assorted colored gold. But then again, one country may produce more sprinkles than another. The some big sprinkle consuming country (probably France) would invade that country to secure more sprinkles for their future. Then the world police would have to step in and put an embargo on all sprinkles coming in and out of France. Then some country (probably Spain) would see how many sprinkles France got and try to invade Egypt. And Egypt, being the sprinkle lacking country that they are, would retaliate savagely and we would have ourselves a sprinkle induced world war, resulting in the extermination of 96% of the species. Now with all the sprinkle mongers gone the remaining few can start a utopia in the sprinkle ridden remains of our once great world. Yes… I need some sleep… yes.

[jacobo]

also, foxhorn vineyards california chardonnay is damn good. seeker i expect to hear from you... the wine expert of the forum.

[theroguechemist]

beautiful divergence nice piece

[bmx-life™]

I have always heard about that book catcher in the rye, now I must seek it out. For some reason I always think of Assassinations when I hear that title.