Because everybody missed the point of Catcher. Pissed him off (and made him rich, to boot) so he decided not to write for us cretins.
Official interpretation: Holden Caulfield is a symbol of the growing alienation of America’s youth, and its disaffection with the “Establishment.” He points out the phoniness of authority, the phoniness that was eventually revealed in Vietnam, Watergate, yadda, yadda, yadda. Holden is a hero, albeit an anti-hero.
What he really meant: Holden Caulfield is a whiny, self-centered brat and too many of today’s (1950s) kids are turning out like this. His accusations of phoniness were supposed to be ironic, given that Holden’s actions prove that he, himself, is the fake: the crybaby who can’t handle responsibility and tries to pass off his character flaws as society’s problem. Holden is not a hero, not in the slightest - as a matter of fact, he is a particularly loathesome boy… like many of today’s young men.
In short, it was a cautionary tale: “Look what’s happening to our kids!” But everbody totally blew past the point, which pissed the man off so he decided to retire.
Well? Every other reason has been given for his retirement, why not this one? I do know that I would like to reread Catcher to see if this interpretation makes sense… but I feel some of the denizens here will set me to rights.
Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951, before Nine Stories (1953) and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters (1955) and Seymour, an Introducton (1959). I think Franny and Zooey was 1961. He has written stuff he has not published, and sued to keep at least one book unpublished within the past ten years.
Alternate theory: He distrusts the motives of publishing for recognition and renumeration. In Catcher, Holden mentions an older brother who writes for Hollywood,and dismisses this brother as a “prostitute.” Maybe this nagging opinion weighed more heavily on him once he no longer needed to publish for money?
Margaret Mitchell wrote “Gone With The Wind” and pretty much called it a day. (I believe a book she had previously written was later published. but died a quiet death.)
My guess is that after Catcher, it wasn’t going to be a picnic to write Catcher II. It’s not easy to get that lightning back in the bottle. There is an old adage that “everybody has one good book in them.” Maybe JD figured Catcher was his.
By the way…for younger Dopers, how does the book hold up today?
Wait, I just checked–in 1949, “Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut” was made into a film, My Foolish Heart. Maybe the “prostitute” reference was for the still-fresh disgust he felt at this experience, and his early retirement, for later, similar disgust with the publishing world. Since he didn’t NEED to publish anymore, he resolved to write solely for his own pleasure.
Another story was adapted into some Iranian film more recently, but I doubt he had a direct hand in that.
I’m nineteen. I read this book when I was fifteen or sixteen, and it instantly became my favourite book ever. It stll is. Sure, the "goddamn"s, the “f-” in place of the obscenities and his weird hat that he keeps talking about are a little antiquated, but there is still something there, that I guess is found in every generation of young people. It’s an amazing book, and, sure Holden was whiny and self-obsessed, but then again, so was Hamlet.
Actually, those two (Hamlet and HC) really speak to me, and I say this as a lover of literature, rather than as a punk teenager. They’re both flawed characters, but they both have a passion and sincerity that is endearing. Like everyone of that age, they tend to be idealistic, but this just adds to this endearing quality.
As I said earlier, the language is a little outdated, but it doesn’t matter within the context of the novel. It’s written with such energy and vitality that it overcomes the fifty years since its publication and makes Holden’s conversational prose as compelling and natural as if it were written today, in modern language*?
*Can you imagine if it were? That would be majorly weird… Clueless meets Salinger?
I think Salinger thinks everybody missed the point. Whenever I hear or read discussions about this subject, I always think of that part in Catcher where Holden starts bitching about how people like the pianist “for all the wrong reasons,” and that if Holden were the pianist, he would just play in the closet and not let anybody hear. Or something like that. Anybody know what I’m talking about? I currently don’t have a copy of the book, so I can’t quote the section I’m talking about.
As for what the point of the book really is . . . I’m not confident enough in my ideas to speculate on it here. I never read Catcher for any of the deep meaning it supposedly has. I just like it because it makes me laugh, starting on the first page, and because I can kind of relate to the main character (as I’m sure most former teenagers can).
Obviously, I don’t know Mr. Salinger, ahve never met him, have never talked to him, and have no way of knowing what he’s thinking or why he does what he does. I can only speculate.
Some things I’ve read about him indicate he’s just a weird guy, period. MAYBE that’s all there is to his reclusiveness. But even if J.D. Salinger were the most normal, well-adjusted guy on Earth, I can easily understand why he’d become a recluse.
Ever see the movie “Misery,” or read Stephen King’s book? If you have, you’ll grasp my point immediately. I’m sure Stephen King has plenty of crazy fans who’ve frightened him, but I’d bet that King’s most insane fans are BRady Bunch kids compared the Salinger fanatics.! It seems as if EVERY psychopath on Earth has read “The Catcher in the Rye” a hundred times, and thinks that book is about HIM. I can only imagine how many letters and phone calls Salinger has gotten, over the years, from fruitcakes and maniacs who say, “You’re the ONLY one who understands me!”
I mean, can you imagine the kinds of nuts who’ve tried to track down Salinger? Small wonder that he was so furious when W.P. Kinsella used him as a character in “Shoeless Joe” (the book that became “Field of Dreams”). Salinger probably thought, “Kinsella, you IDIOT! What’s wrong with you? That’s ALL I FREAKING NEED, you moron! People who think they’re hearing voices telling them to come up here and kidnap me!”
MAYBE Salinger is crazy- or maybe some of his fans are so crazy, he decided it was safer to move to the middle of nowhere to escape them.
A successful artist gets a unique kind of attention when he/she turns inward and refuses to provide any more output. I believe it’s an ego thing; it’s inflating in a way that worldwide fame isn’t. It lends a “street cred” and hipness factor that’s missing from the more exposed and known artists. Live this way long enough and you’ll convince yourself that the world isn’t worthy of your work…or is it the other way around? I’m not sure.
Wasn’t he busy taking his 19-year-old girlfriend to a sex therapist? I’m sorry, but I read an excerpt from Joyce Maynard’s book and it was just über creepy.
