>>24541387You are. Your criticism reads like some high schooler trying to sound smart.
You mention Moby dick and the Bible, as if books exist in a vacuum and BM alone is guilty of borrowing shit. You're actually so retarded you grasp at the lowest hanging fruit of criticism while turning a blind eye to the elephant in the room: that polysyndeton is not a copyright and that if Bible was actually written like BM, no one would read the Bible. Sure as hell not 6 billion people.
You call him an imitator, as if Faulkner wasn't imitating Joyce, or Joyce wasn't imitating Flaubert. I have little doubt you will now try to draw arbitrary lines to make them "novel", while once again turning a blind eye to the fact that BM resembles nothing in Faulkner (to some midwits everything with long sentences and gothic undertones is Faulknerian). BM is less like Faulkner than TSATF is like Ulysses. That's a fact.
You don't understand shit about the book. You think the violence is the draw when it is the one thing that turns more people away from the book than otherwise. I am also certain you think that Holden's speech about war is the thesis statement of the book, because that's what you've heard. As if there aren't half a dozen other equally important speeches in it. You don't have the intelligence to engage with the actual book, so you have resorted to wikipedia tier criticism.
I thought of explaining it to you but you're too retarded for my effortpost. There is a reason the book is written in non hierarchical polysyndeton which has nothing to do with the Bible. It's got to do with pallindrome.