How does Holden's narrative voice contribute to the sense of unreliability?

• A. It is formal and precise
• B. It uses slang, digressions, and subjective judgments that cast doubt on events
• C. It provides a strict, objective history
• D. It uses technical jargon

Answer: (B)

Holden Caulfield’s voice is informal, conversational, and full of digressions, sprinkled with slang and sharp personal judgments. This tells us the story through his moods, biases, and mental state rather than through a clean, dispassionate timeline. Because he interprets events through his own feelings—calling people “phonies,” reacting passionately to situations, and veering off-topic to chase memories or impressions—the account feels filtered and incomplete. The result is that readers must read between the lines and question how much of what’s described is accurate, since it’s shaped by his unreliable perspective at the moment of recall. The digressions and subjective judgments signal that what’s being recounted is not a neutral chronicle but a personally tinted memory, making the events seem less certain and more open to doubt. In contrast, if the narration were formal, objective, or full of technical jargon, it would convey steadier reliability, which is not what Holden’s voice aims to do.