Words are seemingly simple devices of communication. When growing up, one imitates the sounds and atmosphere created by their guardians, unable to alter their style of living until a sense of independence has developed. Before becoming self-aware of their development, the individual confronts various groups of peers and elders, all of whom abide by their own moral codes and beliefs. Meanwhile, external forces, such as music, sports and clothing, group people together whether or not the individual agreed to this arbitrary grouping. Despite language’s complexity, one small conclusion may be drawn: words, and their connotations, are usually outside the control of the individual.

What may a word’s denotation offer? A lexicon provides minimal consolation for the individual seeking a universal and systematized usage of language. Consulting the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one is blandly informed “pain” is the “the physical feeling caused by disease, injury, or something that hurts the body.” What can one learn from this? Pain may possibly be best defined through experience, which is rarely quantifiable. A “physical feeling” cannot be precisely defined. Instead, figurative language may be employed, and one, in trying to relate their pain to another, will recall a shared experience and say, “Yes, it’s just like that.” Pain avoids a formal definition and instead relies on a victim to be understood mentally and physically.

Pain can also be defined scientifically, however. Through technical language of nerves, red and white blood cells and bones and neurons, pain can become can become less abstract and better tailored, even if technical terminology seems impersonal at first. Behind “nerves” and “neurons” lies mountains of research, papers and ignorance. Despite the amount of knowledge accumulated on all subjects, there is always more to learn. The body, which some may view as a simple matter, contains innumerable mysteries. Cancer and consciousness are beyond the grasp of human understanding, and if they are ever solved, new challenges and discrepancies would undoubtedly arise.

What, the is the definition of “pain”? The individual must ask, “In what context is the word used?” Only then can one begin to gaze at the complexity lurking beneath the surface. I have no authority to arbitrarily define a word with centuries of connotations and denotations. One can, however, begin to understand and grapple with words through etymology, slowly tracing the curves and twists most words have traveled one, and even then one’s knowledge will have grown by an immeasurable fraction. What am I participating in currently? I am writing words gathered through reading and conversations, using them unconsciously while ignorantly unaware of their lives, which have all preceded mine. Language, one of the distinguishing factors between humans and other animals, conceals its origin and essence from us.

The individual holds no power over language. As I write this, I cannot locate the reason why I used “locate” instead of “find.” I am powerless as certain words naturally occur to me while others avoid my thoughts. Although I am certain of my purpose, I cannot explain why these words have magically appeared to me. Am I responsible for my words? If words came against my will, then what authority do I hold over their meaning?

J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye has become a symbol for murder. Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley and Mark Chapman owned a copy of the coming-of-age novel against conformity, some even having it on their person while shooting. Was their behavior the fault of a novel? Murder is absent from the novel, and few individuals look to Holden Caulfield as an inspiration and hero. It takes more than incessant teenage rambling to have a pedestal. To quickly blame one novel for various travesties ignores any underlying complexities at work, such as mental illness, previous history and, perhaps with Chapman, a perverse religiosity. These deadly but rare interpretations of the novel should inspire deeper research into the individual and the novel and ignore blind scapegoating.

Did Salinger have a responsibility to publicly condemn the murders and attempted assassination? A famous recluse, Salinger is not seen in any video recording and few pictures exist. Privacy was valued the most. For those who believe Salinger should have condemned the murders, would a public statement prevent any such event? An extreme interpretation requires confirmation, and such a confirmation may be found in any text. An author may publish a work without fully understanding its meaning. I am doing so right now. I am uncertain of this work’s implications, but numerous interpretations may arise for any number of readers. I could condemn an interpretation supporting killing others, but that interpretation would still exist.

It is insufficient to claim writers have no responsibility for their writings. Writers have purposes and attempt to convey them to an audience. However, interpretations are out of the writer’s hands when the work is published. Certain radical interpretations can be unforeseen by the author, and if somebody wants the text to mean something for them, they will purposefully alter it. Author’s have a responsibility, but readers have a greater one to struggle through words and their precise meaning in a certain text.