I’ve been trying to figure this one out for a long time: why on Earth is J.D. Salinger’s <i>Catcher in the Rye</i> regarded as one of the most breathtakingly important works of modern literature?
Through multiple readings, I’ve attempted time and time again to find some hallmark of importance. Many say that the book encapsulates the essence of the teen years, but all I see in Holden Caulfield is the worst kind of dramatic, misanthropic jerk and can’t imagine how anybody could possibly identify with him.
It’s not a poorly-written book, and I wouldn’t call it “bad” for what it is, but what it is doesn’t seem to be all that much. More viewpoints on this work would be greatly appreciated.
I loved the book. I think you have to read it when you’re at that age ( I read it at age 17). Holden is a misanthropic jerk. But, didn’t you feel that way at that age? I particularly remember (it’s been years since I read it) the scene where he’s having a heart to heart with an older man (a teacher?) and he ignores the good advice he’s being given and concentrates on how hot it is in the room and how the old man keeps picking his nose… how it looks like he’s just pinching it but Holden knows he’s picking it… that WAS me as a kid.
Also, it told things like they were. Not such a big deal now… but in 1951…
For me, it was a whole new style of writing than I had ever been exposed to before. I had been forced to read so many stories and novels that, while important in the learning of literature and in the study of the English language, I HATED. Hawthorne, Melville, Hemmingway, Chaucer (not too bad but damn long). Or, they took books that I had once loved (To Kill a Mockingbird) and ruined them by forcing symbolism and syntax down our throats and making reading the most boring thing imaginable.
I, partly because of that book, took a minor in English Lit. in college. Not that this entry shows it… not exactly a brilliant literary analysis…
I identify closely with him. He’s very human. He might come off as a jerk, but all in all he’s not a bad kid. He has a good heart, despite his misanthropy.
If you don’t get it, that’s ok. It’s no big deal. I don’t get Shakespeare.
Yeah, he’s a dramatic, misanthropic jerk, but that’s how teenagers are. But despite that, he’s somewhat an idealist: his misanthropy is only people failing to live up to his high expectations of them.
I don’t think so. Most teenagers aren’t misanthropic in the least. Selfish, perhaps, self-loathing, perhaps, but hating all mankind? Not likely. I’d also suggest that even those teenagers who are misanthropic probably don’t see themselves in that way; it’s more likely they feel it’s the world against them than actually despising everyone in it.
I think one reason it has this exalted status is that MDC was found reading it shortly after killing Lennon. If that doesn’t give a book a cult following, nothing will.
On its own it might not look like much, but it was a reaction to a willfully vapid pre-packaged teen culture best symbolized by Andy Hardy and Henry Aldrich, well-intentioned but ultimately dishonest treacle. Catcher in the Rye was a huge step away from this, and is important for that reason. Before Catcher, the last major coming-of-age novel about a middle-class teenager was probably Penrod by Booth Tarkington, which really didn’t resonate anymore after a major depression and war.
That might explain why it was popular when it came out, but why is it popular now? Times have certainly changed, and I think the book’s pretty dated. There are zillions of books out nowadays that tackle the teen-angst angle far better and more accurately.
Here’s what I suspect. I don’t have any studies to back this up, though. It’s pure speculation.
The book is assigned reading in many high schools and colleges.
Students are told it’s a masterpiece and that they should appreciate it.
When those students read the book, however, they often either don’t grasp the underlying themes are just plain don’t enjoy the book very much.
When the students become adults, many years later they attempt to reread the book to see what they missed.
Also, I think some of the younger set (say under 20 years old) may read the book thinking it’s a counterculture or anti-grownup parable. Plus, I think they may believe that reading it (or appearing to be reading it) gives an impression of intellectualism to their friends and other fellow students.
In short, it’s a “cool” book, and part of the allure is the legendary reclusiveness of the author. It’s the mystique of Salinger.
:rolleyes: Yes, baby boomer pop culture explains how multiple generations, both older and younger have loved this novel. A pop star from the 60s was killed by a nut who liked the book, and hence millions respect it. Nice theory you’ve got there.
dantheman, you obviously don’t like the book. Why can’t you accept that other people do, without having to dismiss them as mindless trendoids or influenced by the killer of The Greatest Man From The Greatest Band Of All Time? I mean, you can perhaps guess that I don’t think much of the Beatles, but it doesn’t mean I dismiss their enduring popularity as the result of their fans desire to appear respectable to their peers.
CITR is a well written novel with a fascinating fully drawn protagonist and universal thematic concerns. It was culturally relevant and marked the beginning of a new social trend. It has all the hallmarks of an enduring literary work.
Though, I get the feeling that you’re dislike of it isn’t really because you don’t like it, but because you want to appear clever and counter cultural to the people reading the board. it gives an impression of intellectualism to other Dopers. It’s “cool” to dislike a beloved book, and that’s why you hate it.
That’s not necessarily true. I hate it because it sucks. CITR is on the short list of books I’ve thrown across the room when I’ve finished it. It and Look Homeward, Angel are the only two I’ve kicked after throwing.
“Coming of age” in literature had traditionally meant transitioning from the entertaining–but ultimately unimportant–world of children into the marriage-and-job world of adults. When you make the jump, you look back on the world of youth with condescencion and contempt, because you know you’re part of the real world now.
Catcher in the Rye shows the division in a different light. Youth equals integrity, adult equals “phony.” Your generation is suddenly something you feel solidarity with, as long as you live, and your parents’ world is never yours, no matter how old you get; they will never consider you to be peers. Childhood has a lasting value beyond whatever warmhearted “lessons” it teaches you for the adult “real” world. For the first time, generational antagonism was something that lasted forever, not just until you bought into adult values.
Yeah, other writers have covered it since, in timelier language, but Salinger’s book represents a clear break with a long and fraudulent literary tradition. Does it ring untrue for you? On the Road rings a little false for me (I tried to retrace his route in 1991 and that world just isn’t there anymore. Also, his descriptions of women go no further than their hair color and whether or not he had sex with them; try selling that to an editor today), but I appreciate it for its virtues anyway.
SpazCat: perhaps I was unclear. My theorising that those who hate it do so to appear cool was imitating (and as poorly reasoned as) dantheman’s assumption that those who do like it do so to appear cool. I’m sure that just as I have my reasons for liking it that are entirely unrelated to how other people see me, you have reasons for hating it that are entirely unrelated to how other people see you.
> “Coming of age” in literature had traditionally meant
> transitioning from the entertaining–but ultimately unimportant–
> world of children into the marriage-and-job world of adults.
> When you make the jump, you look back on the world of youth
> with condescencion and contempt, because you know you’re
> part of the real world now.
>
> Catcher in the Rye shows the division in a different light. Youth
> equals integrity, adult equals “phony.” Your generation is
> suddenly something you feel solidarity with, as long as you live,
> and your parents’ world is never yours, no matter how old you
> get; they will never consider you to be peers. Childhood has a
> lasting value beyond whatever warmhearted “lessons” it
> teaches you for the adult “real” world. For the first time,
> generational antagonism was something that lasted forever,
> not just until you bought into adult values.
Surely either of these ways of dividing the world - youth is trivial, while adulthood is important or youth has integrity, while adults are phony - are absurd simplifications of reality. Why should I be impressed by either of these oversimplified positions? Furthermore, my opinion that Catcher in the Rye isn’t a great book has mostly to do with something else. It’s a preppie novel. Like the movie The Dead Poets Society, it’s about preppies who think that preppie society is what the world is about.
EXACTLY! I was just talking about this to my fella the other day. When I was seventeen, I couldn’t just hare off and wander New York City all night. I didn’t get kicked out of a fancy private school because my folks couldn’t afford to send me to one. If I wanted to run away from home and wander around all night, the most I could do is walk through some fields. In fact, when I was seventeen, I was battling a pretty nasty and irritating disease, so by that time I had learned to get over myself. Holden never did learn that and that’s why I kicked the book.
Well, I suppose I’ll chime in, if not to add anything revolutionary.
I first read Catcher in the Rye when I was 16 (I’m 17 now) and I really liked it. I suppose that it might be the ultimate hit-or-miss book. I’ve never met someone who wasn’t quite sure how they felt about it. As we see here, there doesn’t appear to be a middle of the road. Anyone who gets a sense of “meh”, feel free to prove me wrong.
dantheman, you said that you think that a lot of people like it because it’s a counterculture parable and they only read it because it is assigned and labeled as a “classic”. Well, if every book that was counterculture and a “classic” was as popular as CITR, we’d be having debates about The Awakening and The Scarlet Letter every week.
I just think that CITR is a compelling story that may not be realisitc, but it does capture the angst of unrealistic expectations (both put on you and put on by you). It’s a chronicle of giving up and growing up. I can relate.
I also think that it’s necessary to really examine Holden for what he has experienced. I think he has a right to be cynical and jaded after what he’s been through (Allie dying and the harrassed kid who jumped out the window). Most people who don’t like the book would say that his expectations are unrealistic and make him an asshole. Well, yeah, but it’s not as though he’s imposing this arbitrary set of behaviors on everyone. To me, he’s eccentric and likable, to others, he’s an insufferable jerk.
CTIR is about a character who is so disaffected with modern society that he feels that there is absolutely no place in it for him. Holden represents the angst and frustration of many teenagers, as well as intellegent individuals who feel out of place in this American social system that everyone is expected to fit into. Salinger basically hit the nail on the head with this boook when it comes to creating a moving, likeable yet brash and honest character that points out the facades that most individuals put between themselves and others. He’s calling adults phoney, but at the same time he’s criticizing the mundanity of what life is expected to offer us. Holden rebels against this by fiercely setting himself apart from his dull witted classmates, the inane and boring adults he encounters, and the world at large that he perceives has no place in it for him. Again, this is exactly the type of struggle that many teens encounter as well as those who find themselves not wanting to fit into the atomic age family society of America.
His pessimism for his fellow man at large is what obsseses him throughout his journey, but he remains a romantic at heart longing for memories of a past crush. His only hope for happiness in this world is through his sister and the dreams he has of being “the catcher in the rye” where he protects the innocence and imagination of childhood from plumeting off into the unispired, boring, and hypocritcal nature of adulthood.
And that, my friends, is why it is such a fucking amazing book.
Oh, and I’ve left out the love of imaginative creation that he feels for his brothers writing but has been comprimised by the lack of creative vision that is Hollywood adaptations, which is why this book as thankfully remained as far away from the silver screen as possible. Salinger was fucking right to stick to his guns when it comes to this.
Actually, I think he was reacting to an adaptation of “Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut” that he didn’t much like.
Colinmarshall: I can tell you why the book is a beloved classic, but I can’t tell you why you should like it against your every instinct. Read something else.
