McEvoy was referring to Dylan’s “Age of Masturbation,” and it’s funny that
there is a line – or two – in the film, “Rebel in the Rye,” – NOW PLAYING –
that makes a mention – or two – of the verb out of which that noun
(‘masturbation’) derives. It’s uttered by this Columbia don of creative teching
whose class Salinger is attending. The don calls the class off after some five
minutes – and having assigned some home work for the next meeting – ‘a short
story’ – with lines to the effect: “I’ll leave now; in the remaining time you
can either write that short story or masturbate [general laughter from
students]. Mind, some writers don’t usually make that distinction!”.
The Wikipedia entry for “The Catcher in the Rye” (recall Aristotle, “Wikipedia
is Wikipedia”) has a short section on “Interpretations,” according to which,
“The Catcher in the Rye” is really about the Second World War – in code as it
were. In any case, “Rebel in the rye,” which is based on a biography of
Salinger, makes the point too in that it is Holden Caulfield who keeps Salinger
through those difficult years.
There are a few good conversational implicatures in the film. Salinger’s
literary agent keeps saying, “You know, publishing is EVERYTHING.” She is being
hyperbolic, but most New Yorkers are. At the very end, when Salinger
communicates to her that he intends to publish no more, she appeals to ANOTHER
trope, not hyperbole – but ‘irony’. “Ah well, as I always say, you know,
publishing AIN’T anything,” which retrieves a smile from Salinger (played by
Hoult).
Helm was referring to Salinger’s admiration for Hemingway. It seems Scott
Fitzgerald was another of his heroes, and Holden Caulfield makes a passing
reference to the Gatsby. In any case, it may have been Scott Fitzerald who
‘convinced’ Salinger to move from New York to Westport – Scott Fizgerald
Country – before settling in his Cornish (New Hampshire) ‘cottage’.
It might do to revise Holden Caulfield’s implicatures, but I fear to dub them
‘conversational’. For one, Holden Caulfield is a fictional character, but
surely literary critics have applied, say, Grice’s apparatus to the study of
fiction. For another, this fictional character DOES HOLD conversations – with
other fictional characters. At one point in “Rebel in the right,” Salinger
meets the editor of “The New Yorker,” who sounds very Griceian: “One of your
problems is that you over-explain.” He would say ‘explicate too much,’ but
Grice had not yet coined ‘implicature’. Salinger takes this advice to heart.
The editor also says something both Griceian and Wittgensteinian (who disliked
the idea of a private language): “You seem to under-estimate your addressee’s
ability to understand you – i.e. your implicatures” (I’m rephrasing). In the
next scene we see Hoult (well, Salinger) crossing out some lines from his
manuscript. In other words, leaving the IMPLICATURES _out_. But for a third,
Holden wanted to get a retreat. Let me see if I find the quote
“I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. That way
I wouldn't have to have any goddam stupid useless conversations with anybody.”
which I’m unsure how Grice would react to! But when was it that Grice actually
qualified his ‘implicature’ with ‘conversational’? In 1967. In 1965, while
lecturing at Oxford he had not yet provided a systematic classification of
implicature. By 1967 and beyond, his taxonomy goes something like this:
A) EXPLICATURE
B) DISIMPLICATURE
C) IMPLICATURE – This can be
a) CONVERSATIONAL
b) NON-CONVERSATIONAL
Both (a) and (b) fall within what Grice calls NONCONVENTIONAL. He gives room
for a class of implicature which is conventional, rather, and which he
exemplified with the ‘implications’ invited by, say ‘but’ (His example, the
Great War song, “She was poor, but she was honest” – what Frege called
‘colouring’.
And so on. By leaving the ‘conversational’ behind, Holden Caulfield can still
very well pretend what he wishes and avoid ‘hav[ing] to have any goddam …
conversations with anybody.’ JUST HIS SELF?
Cheers,
Speranza