Skip to main content

What is the metaphor of Jane "kept all her kings in the back row" in the book Catcher in the rye?

It's interesting to view Jane's checker-playing as a metaphor for her approach to life. Kings in the back row might stand for self-discipline, reserve, or a hidden ally.


One thing Holden remembers from playing checkers with Jane is that, when she got a king, she would keep it in the back row. She would line up her kings because "she just liked the way they looked when they were all in the back row." This is unusual because a king in checkers is a powerful piece. Most people are eager, as soon as they get a king, to use it to help them win the game. 


We can tell from this that winning was not Jane's primary concern in checkers.  She wanted things to look a certain way. This might tell us that she was a precise person who liked things arranged just so. Holden tells us that she was a ballet dancer, and "used to practice about two hours every day, right in the middle of the hottest weather and all." This shows us that Jane has a lot of self-discipline.  


Jane is also reserved. She obviously has problems with her stepfather, but she does not confide in Holden, even in the scene where she cries and he comforts her. She also does not go on making out with Holden afterward. She keeps her secrets and her dignity, just like she keeps her kings in the back row.


Because Holden knows this about Jane, he has some hope that she did not allow Stradlater (a notorious lecher) to take advantage of her.  


Finally, it's possible that Holden himself is Jane's "king in the back row." He is clearly devoted to her and wants to help and protect her. During the course of the book, they do not see each other, and Holden does not even call her (though he considers it many times). Really, Holden is not in much shape to protect anybody, however much he might want to do so. Still, he is on Jane's side. He is an ally who might help her some day, though it is not apparent to the rest of the world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.