Robert L. Oprisko’s Honor: A Phenomenology and Holden Caulfield

Abstract

Robert L. Oprisko’s book, “ Honor: A Phenomenology ” challenges ones of the most obvious social norms in contemporary society. The concept of honor is one that the “generic” as Sergei Prozorov would say, simply cannot comprehend, nor even make efforts to define. Though fluently used in infamous works such as “ The Iliad ”, honor has yet to be so explicitly dissected until now. Dr. Oprisko’s book takes a promiscuous and brutally honest approach to “Honor” en generale as well as the many facets associated with such. Similar to fine cuisine and wine, there are many literary accompaniments that serve as wonderful pairings to broaden the kaleidoscope perspectives presented in the book. The contested novel by J.D. Salinger, “ The Catcher in the Rye ”, although by no means consists of any political or metaphysical theory, contains a stark personification of what is actively presented in every chapter of Dr. Oprisko’s book. Holden Caufield serves as a terrific litmus test for the concepts defined in Oprisko’s work. Holden is by no means a likeable character in the literary world, but however he is raw enough to be able to internalize and beholden things like, “honorableness”, “dignity”, and most importantly for Holden, “face”. Though to the naked eye and untrained mind these “things” which Holden can in fact internalize may seem fairly simple; it challenges the reader to humble oneself and accept that which is the raw. There is no space for semantics and lies in Oprisko’s work. In fact it is so shockingly explicit, one may find themselves utterly offended. Holden Caufield offended readers for years after Sallinger brought him to life over the span of 200 or more so pages, so much that the book was condemned in certain places. Robert L. Oprisko’s, “ Honor: A Phenomenology ”, in my utmost opinion, contains this same potential. By critically engaging in Oprisko’s spar with “honor”, one may find themselves on the defense of their very own identity and subsequent reality. It is on this defensive edge, that one can only truly engage with the subjects in Oprisko’s radical work.