Plans

In The Bell Jar, Esther is very successful in school and recognizes the fact that she is expected to continue to excel in whatever career she chooses.  She also recognizes that she is expected to choose a path that does not "waste" her talents.  She usually has a ready to go answer for questions about her future, but when talking with Jay Cee she finds her self unable to give it.

What I always thought I had in mind was getting some big scholarship to graduate school or a grant to study all over Europe, and then I thought I'd be a professor and write books of poems or write books of poems and be an editor of some sort. Usually I had these plans on the tip of my tongue. 

"I don't really know," I heard myself say. I felt a deep shock, hearing myself say that, because the minute I said it, I knew it was true (32).

In this moment, Esther recognizes that she has only had these plans to satisfy adults who ask her what her future will be.  She herself, is unsure of what she wants to do, and this is just something that she could see herself doing that she knows would not be considered a "waste" of her talents.  It is not necessarily something she would even enjoy doing.  She seems to realize this in an instant and, instead of her usual response to such questions, answers Jay Cee truthfully.

Personally, I find this aspect of Esther's character the most relatable.  I can't really relate to the fashion stuff, or the poem writing, or being a woman in the 1950s.  However, I, and I think most people in this class, can relate to Esther's response to this common question adults ask us teenagers.  I tend to answer this sort of question in a similar way to Esther, giving a response that I think the listener want's to hear and that aligns with what I'm good at.  It certainly makes sense to pursue what you're good at because it means you'll have a better chance of success.  Also, I think that doing something you're good at is more enjoyable partly because you experience more success.  However, happiness is definitely not directly linked to success in the workplace, and the answers that adults approve of are not necessarily the best plans for the future.  I think it is totally ok and normal to not know what you want to do in 10 years, and it is not something that I think adults should disapprove of as happens in this book.

Why Trust Holden?

Holden Caulfield is a very unique narrator.  As established in the famous first line, he speaks directly to the reader, and is aware of the that fact during his narration. He also tells us quite frankly, "I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life."  This statement, in the context of his awareness of the act of narration, calls in to question his reliability as a narrator.  However, I do not think I'm alone in feeling like I can trust Holden as a narrator.  I think this is partially because of the way he speaks his mind to us all the time and certainly doesn't hold back with his criticism of others.  In addition to criticizing others, he is also fairly self-deprecating.

I was sixteen then, and I'm seventeen now, and sometimes I act like I'm about thirteen. It's really ironical, because I'm six foot two and a half and I have gray hair. I really do. The one side of my head—the right side—is full of millions of gray hairs. I've had them ever since I was a kid. And yet I still act sometimes like I was only about twelve. Everybody says that, especially my father. It's partly true, too, but it isn't all true. People always think something's all true. I don't give a damn, except that I get bored sometimes when people tell me to act my age.

As a teenager, admitting to acting like you're twelve is pretty significant, as we teenagers generally look down on younger kids and their behavior.  Holden also calls himself a moron repeatedly while discussing his flunking out of school (again).  I think Holden's self-deprecation is part of what makes him likable as a narrator and easy to believe.  Holden can be quite harsh in his criticism, for example when he first tells us about Ackley.

He was one of these very, very tall, round-shouldered guys—he was about six four— with lousy teeth. The whole time he roomed next to me, I never even once saw him brush his teeth. They always looked mossy and awful, and he damn near made you sick if you saw him in the dining room with his mouth full of mashed potatoes and peas or something. Besides that, he had a lot of pimples. Not just on his forehead or his chin, like most guys, but all over his whole face. And not only that, he had a terrible personality. He was also sort of a nasty guy. I wasn't too crazy about him, to tell you the truth.

Hearing all of Holden's thoughts almost makes one feel like a co-conspirator of sorts, getting all the dirt on the people in Holden's life.  Also, he is criticizing pretty much every character in the book including himself, but does not criticize the reader, which, I think, endears him somewhat to the reader.  When I think about it logically, I have very little reason to trust what Holden tells us, but his familiar voice and understandable tiredness with the world around him lure the reader in.  Do you trust Holden as a narrator?  Is there a specific reason you trust/mistrust Holden?  I have had trouble identifying any specific reason as to why I feel like I can trust Holden's narration, but for some reason I do.

Stephen's Isolation

Through A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce, the central character, Stephen Daedalus, is an outsider.  However, by the end of the novel it is apparent that this is by choice instead of by any social inability he might possess.  In fact, he seems to see his self-enforced isolation as both a political statement and a prerequisite for becoming an "artist."  He seems to subscribe to the idea that art should be unbiased and therefore feels that he must separate himself from the subject of his art to ensure lack of bias.  For this reason, he rejects his friend Davin's efforts to make him an Irish nationalist.

—I'm an Irish nationalist, first and foremost. But that's you all out. You're a born sneerer, Stevie.—When you make the next rebellion with hurleysticks, said Stephen, and want the indispensable informer, tell me. I can find you a few in this college.
—I can't understand you, said Davin. One time I hear you talk against English literature. Now you talk against the Irish informers. What with your name and your ideas—Are you Irish at all?
—Come with me now to the office of arms and I will show you the tree of my family, said Stephen.
—Then be one of us, said Davin. Why don't you learn Irish? Why did you drop out of the league class after the first lesson?
—You know one reason why, answered Stephen.

Stephen is very critical of the idea of nationalism in this passage, despite the fact that he admits his heritage is Irish. It seems that he is not rejecting his background as much as he is separating himself from the influence of it, which confounds his nationalist friend. A few lines later, Stephen says, "This race and this country and this life produced me[.] I shall express myself as I am." He is not denying the fact that he was born in and molded by Ireland, but at the same time Stephen rejects further outside influence and desires to create his art without any other forces trying to change him.

Stephen's aloofness can also be seen when he refuses to sign MacCann's petition for universal peace.

—I am waiting for your answer, said MacCann briefly.
—The affair doesn't interest me in the least, said Stephen wearily. You know that well. Why do you make a scene about it?
—Good! said MacCann, smacking his lips. You are a reactionary, then?
—Do you think you impress me, Stephen asked, when you flourish your wooden sword?
—Metaphors! said MacCann bluntly. Come to facts.
Stephen blushed and turned aside. MacCann stood his ground and said with hostile humour:
—Minor poets, I suppose, are above such trivial questions as the question of universal peace.

In this scene, Stephen's rejection again seems ridiculous to others.  Why would someone not sign a petition for universal peace?  For Stephen, this is partly because of the imagery associated with the presentation of this petition, but I think mostly because signing would be indicative of the fact that Stephen has a political view.  Stephen's desire to be an artist without bias is so strong that he feels signing such an innocuous petition would show bias.  However, I think that his refusal to sign is also partially motivated by his pride and the opportunity to make a public statement about his self-imposed isolation from any outside influence in his quest to become an artist.