J.G. Keely's Reviews > The Catcher in the Rye
The Catcher in the Rye
by
by

Sometimes truth isn't just stranger than fiction, it's also more interesting and better plotted. Salinger helped to pioneer a genre where fiction was deliberately less remarkable than reality. His protagonist says little, does little, and thinks little, and yet Salinger doesn't string Holden up as a satire of deluded self-obsessives, he is rather the epic archetype of the boring, yet self-important depressive.
I've taken the subway and had prolonged conversations on the street with prostitutes (not concerning business matters), and I can attest that Salinger's depiction is often accurate to what it feels like to go through an average, unremarkable day. However, reading about an average day is no more interesting than living one.
Beyond that, Salinger doesn't have the imagination to paint people as strangely as they really are. Chekhov's 'normal' little people seem more real and alive than Salinger's because Chekhov injects a little oddness, a little madness into each one. Real people are almost never quite as boring as modernist depictions, because everyone has at least some ability to surprise you.
Salinger's world is desaturated. Emotions and moments seep into one another, indistinct as the memories of a drunken party. Little importance is granted to events or thoughts, but simply pass by, each duly tallied by an author in the role of court reporter.
What is interesting about this book is not that it is realistically bland, but that it is artificially bland. Yet, as ridiculous a concept as that is, it still takes itself entirely in earnest, never acknowledging the humor of its own blase hyperbole.
This allows the book to draw legions of fans from all of the ridiculously dull people who take themselves as seriously as Holden takes himself. They read it not as a parody of bland egotism but a celebration, poised to inspire all the bland egotists who have resulted from the New Egalitarianism in Art, Poetry, Music, and Academia.
Those same folks who treat rationality and intellectual fervor like a fashion to be followed, imagining that the only thing required to be brilliant is to mimic the appearance and mannerisms of the brilliant; as if black berets were the cause of poetic inspiration and not merely a symptom.
One benefit of this is that one can generally sniff out pompous faux intellectuals by the sign that they hold up Holden as a sort of messianic figure. Anyone who marks out Holden as a role-model is either a deluded teen with an inflated sense of entitlement, or is trying to relive the days when they were.
But what is more interesting is that those who idolize Holden tend to be those who most misunderstand him. Upon close inspection, he's , not consumed with ennui or an existential crisis, he's actually suffering from 'Shell Shock'--now known as 'Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder'.
The way he thinks about his brother's and classmate's deaths--going over the details again and again in his mind, but with no emotional connection--it's not symptomatic of depression, but of psychological trauma. He is stuck in a cycle, unable to process events, going over them again and again, but never able to return to normalcy.
It takes a certain kind of self-centered prick to look at someone's inability to cope with the reality of death and think "Hey, that's just like my mild depression over how my parents won't buy me a newer ipod!" It's not an unusual stance in American literature--there's an arrogant detachment in American thought which has become less and less pertinent as the world grows and changes. As recently as The Road we have American authors comparing a difficult father-son relationship to the pain and turmoil of an African civil war survivor--and winning awards for displaying their insensitive arrogance.
Perhaps it's time we woke up and realized that the well-fed despondence of the white man should not be equated with a lifetime of death, starvation, war, and traumas both physical and emotional. And as for Salinger--a real sufferer of Post-Traumatic Stress who was one of the first soldiers to see a concentration camp, who described how you can never forget the smell of burning flesh--I can only imagine how he felt when people read his story of a man, crippled by the thought of death, and thought to themselves "Yes, that's just what it's like to be a trustafarian with uncool parents". No wonder he became a recluse and stopped publishing.
I've taken the subway and had prolonged conversations on the street with prostitutes (not concerning business matters), and I can attest that Salinger's depiction is often accurate to what it feels like to go through an average, unremarkable day. However, reading about an average day is no more interesting than living one.
Beyond that, Salinger doesn't have the imagination to paint people as strangely as they really are. Chekhov's 'normal' little people seem more real and alive than Salinger's because Chekhov injects a little oddness, a little madness into each one. Real people are almost never quite as boring as modernist depictions, because everyone has at least some ability to surprise you.
Salinger's world is desaturated. Emotions and moments seep into one another, indistinct as the memories of a drunken party. Little importance is granted to events or thoughts, but simply pass by, each duly tallied by an author in the role of court reporter.
What is interesting about this book is not that it is realistically bland, but that it is artificially bland. Yet, as ridiculous a concept as that is, it still takes itself entirely in earnest, never acknowledging the humor of its own blase hyperbole.
This allows the book to draw legions of fans from all of the ridiculously dull people who take themselves as seriously as Holden takes himself. They read it not as a parody of bland egotism but a celebration, poised to inspire all the bland egotists who have resulted from the New Egalitarianism in Art, Poetry, Music, and Academia.
Those same folks who treat rationality and intellectual fervor like a fashion to be followed, imagining that the only thing required to be brilliant is to mimic the appearance and mannerisms of the brilliant; as if black berets were the cause of poetic inspiration and not merely a symptom.
One benefit of this is that one can generally sniff out pompous faux intellectuals by the sign that they hold up Holden as a sort of messianic figure. Anyone who marks out Holden as a role-model is either a deluded teen with an inflated sense of entitlement, or is trying to relive the days when they were.
But what is more interesting is that those who idolize Holden tend to be those who most misunderstand him. Upon close inspection, he's , not consumed with ennui or an existential crisis, he's actually suffering from 'Shell Shock'--now known as 'Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder'.
The way he thinks about his brother's and classmate's deaths--going over the details again and again in his mind, but with no emotional connection--it's not symptomatic of depression, but of psychological trauma. He is stuck in a cycle, unable to process events, going over them again and again, but never able to return to normalcy.
It takes a certain kind of self-centered prick to look at someone's inability to cope with the reality of death and think "Hey, that's just like my mild depression over how my parents won't buy me a newer ipod!" It's not an unusual stance in American literature--there's an arrogant detachment in American thought which has become less and less pertinent as the world grows and changes. As recently as The Road we have American authors comparing a difficult father-son relationship to the pain and turmoil of an African civil war survivor--and winning awards for displaying their insensitive arrogance.
Perhaps it's time we woke up and realized that the well-fed despondence of the white man should not be equated with a lifetime of death, starvation, war, and traumas both physical and emotional. And as for Salinger--a real sufferer of Post-Traumatic Stress who was one of the first soldiers to see a concentration camp, who described how you can never forget the smell of burning flesh--I can only imagine how he felt when people read his story of a man, crippled by the thought of death, and thought to themselves "Yes, that's just what it's like to be a trustafarian with uncool parents". No wonder he became a recluse and stopped publishing.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Catcher in the Rye.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
August 1, 2000
–
Finished Reading
May 26, 2007
– Shelved
October 17, 2007
– Shelved as:
contemporary-fiction
February 27, 2008
– Shelved as:
novel
June 12, 2009
– Shelved as:
reviewed
September 4, 2010
– Shelved as:
america
Comments Showing 1-50 of 67 (67 new)
message 1:
by
Kelly
(last edited Jun 11, 2009 07:55AM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jun 11, 2009 07:53AM

reply
|
flag

I know some of the people who like this book have fairly good reason, I tried to give at least a glimpse of that. Hopefully Frederick will be along to give his two cents.

And who is Frederick? A Catcher fan, I take it?








For me, the key point with Salinger is that he seems to have gotten so tired of people loving his books for the wrong reasons that he gave up on publishing. (I don't know whether he also gave up on writing.) Also, I think your generalizations about Salinger and his imagination may be true with regard to this book, but that doesn't mean that it applies to him across the board. I like the Glass stories much better than Catcher, which I thought was very well written but kind of trite.
Finally, I also think its a bit unfair to pan an author because he's not as good as Checkov. By that standard, you could basically throw out just about all of American literature.

He also seemed to have been suffering from pneumonia.
Interesting review, though I don't agree with you--I've always admired it as a portrayal of a broken person, and not because I particularly "idolized" Holden (who seemed to me to be a sad sack indeed, even when I first read it at 16).

Are you suggesting I grade world literature on a curve to make up for the Americans' shortcomings?

I guess most of the broken people I have met were more interesting.

I thought the way that Salinger wrote Holden's failure to action captured something particularly accurate about teenage boys, then and now. It's a tragedy more than a bildungsroman.

Are you sugges..."
Not at all. I'm saying that its not much of a criticism to say that something doesn't live up to one of the greatest strengths of perhaps the best short story writer of all time. Similarly, I don't think your reviews stand up to, say, Nabokov's Lectures on Literature or Lawrence's Studies in Classic American Literature. But I don't dismiss them because of that.

But I guess that's just my experience with reading: I keep finding new things that change my perspective and I recognize that things I used to think were original and well-written are actually redundant and clumsy. But there's a great deal of subjectivity: a book is poorly written compared to a set of standards for what makes writing good, and these standards are developed and refined by a varied experience in literature.
So, when I read a book of cynical, psychological realism, I compare it to similar books, to see whether it performs its task as well as they do, or whether it has some unique aspect they lack.
Great review!
I started reading this book yesterday. I think it's hilarious but I'm not sure if I'm s'posed to take it seriously or not. It's certainly a pleasure to read but I don't think it's thaaat great.
I have one(silly)question. I remember on your review of Scott Pilgrim you mentioned you watched FLCL. I had a conversation about FLCL and one person told me that in order to fully appreciate it you have to read Catcher in the Rye. Did you see any great similarities between the two?
I started reading this book yesterday. I think it's hilarious but I'm not sure if I'm s'posed to take it seriously or not. It's certainly a pleasure to read but I don't think it's thaaat great.
I have one(silly)question. I remember on your review of Scott Pilgrim you mentioned you watched FLCL. I had a conversation about FLCL and one person told me that in order to fully appreciate it you have to read Catcher in the Rye. Did you see any great similarities between the two?
Fashionable or not fashionable, as one commenter noted, I had most of the same opinions as you about this book.
I asked someone whose literary opinion I value whether he REALLY liked the book and his response was, "Yes, doesn't everyone like Salinger?"
I read a time capsule review at the time of the book's release and it was so glowing and so full of praise my first thought was, "Someone either got paid or laid."
My point: I silently thought I was alone in my opinion. So my own review might just point to yours and have the caption: What he said.
I asked someone whose literary opinion I value whether he REALLY liked the book and his response was, "Yes, doesn't everyone like Salinger?"
I read a time capsule review at the time of the book's release and it was so glowing and so full of praise my first thought was, "Someone either got paid or laid."
My point: I silently thought I was alone in my opinion. So my own review might just point to yours and have the caption: What he said.

Not particularly, no.
Melissa said "I silently thought I was alone in my opinion. So my own review might just point to yours and have the caption: What he said."
Well, that's very flattering of you to say. I'm glad my review worked so well for you. As for being alone, I know it can sometimes feel that way, especially with a popular book that everyone is required to read, but I know a lot of intelligent, literary-minded people who didn't care for it.


I would like to better understand how one (wo)man's bland can be another (wo)man's brilliance.


"This allows the book to draw legions of fans from all of the ridiculously dull people who take themselves as seriously as Holden takes himself."
It's like I've just been validated as someone who's not ridiculously dull...

i'd like to think awards are given for quality, visceral prose, and not for "stances" or politics. McCarthy is one of america's best prose writers. Perhaps his Pulitzer was belated appreciation for Blood Meridian: or the Evening Redness in the West, which is a perfect novel.

No problem, we all need a little validation, now and then.
Keith said: "it is not for us to measure suffering"
Then who?
I'm not saying that it's invalid for the well-off to have their own pains. Everyone has their own pain, we all have difficulties we must deal with in life, and however minor they are, they will seem serious and real to the person suffering because of them.
I'm not saying a wealthy depressive suffering from ennui should be forced to feel better because there are others in the world in worse condition--that isn't how the human mind works. An American youth cleaning their plate does nothing for starving children in Africa, despite the non sequiturs of their mothers.
What I am saying is that it is naive, arrogant, and insulting to equate one experience with another. If a star quarterback is put on academic probation then turns around and says 'now I have experienced discrimination, and know what it's like to be Black, gay, and a woman', that statement is ignorant and imprecise. It doesn't mean he isn't inconvenienced by what he's going through, but to equate it with a much more painful experience is inaccurate.
I think it is imperative for every person to 'measure suffering' in their own life and in the lives of others, so that they develop a healthy sense of sympathy and empathy with their fellow human beings instead of living life only through a lens of insular self-obsession.
When a tween tweets "My parents didn't get me an iphone5--my life is over!" I don't think to myself 'what justifiable and profound suffering', I think 'what an unpleasant prat'.
"i'd like to think awards are given for quality"
I'd like to think that, too, but from what I know about awards committees, it's simply not true. They are put together by groups that have their own social, political, and artistic interests, funded by organizations that have their own preferences. Look back through the history of any award, and you will find that many of the works now considered masterpieces won none of them, while many of the former winners have become dated and forgotten.
Indeed, as critic and author William Gass famously said: "The Pulitzer Prize in fiction takes dead aim at mediocrity and almost never misses". It is an award with a history as fraught and politicized as any other, as came to light notably . I don't think The Road won on the merits of its prose, but as the last gasp of insular American fiction trying desperately to stay relevant amidst globalization and a Nobel Committee whose politics the hardship of white privilege.

I saw Jonathan Franzen give a talk at my college campus, and he was an avatar of the American self- importance that you're describing. He was upset with the "disrespect" towards American writers from the Nobel committee. But why would a Swede enjoy The Corrections? It's a snarky story with microscopic focus


Yeah, I'm talking a bit about all three, and it does get rather busy in there. Basically, I'm trying to say that in Catcher, both the story events and the character psychology are portraying not everyday angst, but a post-traumatic disorder resulting from witnessing death. Hence, a reader who looks at a story of a boy trying to cope with the death of a friend and reads it as being 'teen angst' is conflating their own ennui with something much more psychologically damaging, which, as you say, is insensitive.
In the case of The Road, I felt that while the events of the story were certainly of the more harrowing type of suffering, the character psychology did not match up to that, and felt more like the ho-hum depression of White suburbia than the reaction of someone always surrounded by death and horror.
In the Oprah interview, McCarthy, himself, states that the theme for the book was his own sometime-distant relationship with his son, and I think that shows through. Instead of the reader, in this instance it would be the author equating the psychological turmoil of a father/son relationship in Middle Class America with the sorts of experience one expects from African civil wars. Again, it's an insensitive comparison.
And as for the Award Committees, I was trying to imply that it might be in the interest of the Pulitzer to promote precisely that sort of comparison, since American literature has so long been based around small instances of personal suffering instead of the grand, impersonal, institutional suffering of the revolutionary, the criminal, a culture, a race, or women under patriarchy.
But yeah, I've heard of Franzen remarked upon in similar ways, and there's a reason I've learned to mistrust American critical darlings, particularly those that end up on Oprah.

The New Egalitarianism reference is quite intriguing. Should it be correlate with the Awards Committees pointed above? What about Art and Music?
This review is sure eloquent and interesting. Except eventually for §6-8, which I didn't get, or was there to categorize people on how they interpret the book.

Oh dear, I hope that wasn't the result! As long as you enjoyed them for some other reason than the selfish justification of your own solipsism, I think we're fine. I mean, I could always be wrong about them, myself.
"The New Egalitarianism reference is quite intriguing. Should it be correlate with the Awards Committees pointed above? What about Art and Music?"
Certainly, I think it's applicable to all the arts. I suppose that's another idea that deserves to be fully fleshed-out somewhere so I can link to it handily.
The basic idea is that art is originally under control of the idle rich: they create and distribute it, and the worth of art is determined by their preferences. At that point, art is valuable when it's complex, stylized, and referential. To become a great artist (or writer, or whatever), you need to be educated, to be able to draw upon this deep well of knowledge of the history of art.
So then you have the Industrial Revolution and The Great War and these old social power structures break down and it changes our cultural values. So you got movements, like the Dadaists, where the whole idea is to reject tradition, to take art out of the hands of the establishment and make it a 'personal expression'.
Of course the irony of such conspicuous rebellion is that you have to follow trends rigorously so you can reject them and do the opposite, making you just as reliant on the tradition for your inspiration. So you get the Beat Poets, and Punk Rock, and other movements which are based not around refinement or knowledge, bu 'authenticity'.
I think a good illustration of the shift is poetry. Traditionally, poetry was considered the most difficult and complex art, require vast knowledge and skill, and works of poetry were held above prose because they were much more difficult to produce. Now, poetry is thought of mainly as an outlet for angsty teenagers trying to 'express themselves'.
And the idea of 'self-expression' is central to this concept of artistic egalitarianism, where every person's opinion is considered equally valid. Indeed, if a teen hands you their poetry and you start talking about the scansion and meter, they'll probably get upset and take is as criticism, because for them, the importance of the work is what it expresses, not how it was made.
Of course, this egalitarianism has produced great things in art: it has made the arts available to more people than ever before, it has lent importance to folk art, and it has forced art to change and evolve. But, it also means that art is no longer vitally connected to that central, knowledgeable class of experts. There are still critics, but after deconstructionism, they are just dabbling in self-expression, too, and so we get an art world full of pretension and very weak in aesthetic theory.
And yes, I think that holds for the award committees, too, since they are made up (at least in part) of those same self-indulgent critics, authors, and teachers. It is in their best interest to promote a certain brand of pretension, since it is the basis of the cultural capital which makes them respected and influential in the first place.
"Except eventually for §6-8, which I didn't get, or was there to categorize people on how they interpret the book."
Yes, I was trying to address other common readings and interpretations.

Yes, this Swede at least did not enjoy Franzen's Freedom. It was just trying so hard to any anything relevant to say about women's lives, when it was obviously more focused on the men and their manly buisiness. It was quite sad.
But then again the Nobel committee is as flawed as most other committies, and the guy who made the statment about American litterature is no longer the head of the board, so maybe they will choose one of the great American males soon.

Mind you, it's been many years since I've re-read this one, so my opinion might be off here. Like most Salinger fans, I would say his other works are better than this, his most well-known.

Useless sarcasm aside, I have to admit that's was interesting idea with valid argument.
However, rejecting any naïve or existential art can also lead to some lack of understanding.
Positivist knowledge can be insufficient when it comes to Art as it involve some illogical entities like feeling or unconscious.
Sensitivity is obviously part of Art beauty, even if it's almost impossible to rate and not referring on education. It would be pretty bland otherwise. Well it would be just like math.
We may also consider there were also a lack of things to discover, analyse and technically improve at some point in art history, paroxysm being certainly dadaism, which is more than a reject of tradition, but a deep questioning about art. And there were a lot of material left to dig in human sensitivity.
Sure art shouldn't be only personal projection. But individualist(sensitive) and intellectual works are both legitimate when it comes to creation.
Edit:
Regarding prehistory, art also came from self conciousness. Human being most likely felt the need to project there idealist view to assert their individuality. First art being hand stencil painting. In that regard, it could be considerate as a side effect of human selfishness and arrogance.
Causality thrown me in the non-intellectual and uneducated pool, though I try to balance things and palliate my lack of knowledge. But I don't plan to give up my selfish amazement on artists and authors' semen projection any-time soon.
Well, I'm certainly missing something oblivious, let me know.
I actually liked this book because it provided quite strong feeling with bland situation, poor language (if I remember well) and insensitive hero. Well It was a while ago, I can't really detail much.
Sorry about the funky grammar and blurry ideas. I'm not really used to writing (and thinking) and it isn't my first language.

I was simplifying and generalizing in my comment, and I tried to say that I don't think an egalitarian approach to art is worse than an elite approach--both systems have both benefits and drawbacks.
When art is in the hands of an elite, then most artists and critics will be knowledgeable and have a well-developed aesthetic, but this also prioritizes form over content, so you get periods like the 18th Century where work was highly complex and stylized, but often at the expense of depth and passion.
Contrarily, when art is in the hands of the public, it will be much more passionate and ever-shifting, but the market will also be flooded with both artists and critics of lower skill and quality. Both approaches are valid, and each can produce great works and artists.
But they also produce very different artistic communities. The elite community is rigid and slow to change, but has a highly-developed central philosophy. The public community is very open to change, but has no common points of agreement, which can be problematic for critics, since, in order to talk about art, there must be a common basis for understanding.
It's like how, in America, a university degree started out as something an elite few got, and which was difficult to get. Now, it is a requirement for anyone who wants to get a career, and so university classes have become much easier so that the average person will be able to get a degree without too much trouble.
So, if everyone must be allowed to be an artist now, then becoming an artist is not an accomplishment. This decentralization can lead to the sort of situation which produced the 'Sokol Affair', where a scientist wrote a deliberately nonsensical paper which ended up being published and praised because the keepers of the gates did not have sufficient ability to tell quality from nonsense.
In the art world, this would lead to a situation where, without a central aesthetic by which to judge art, we default to valuing art only as an aspect of celebrity and infamy, since those will be readily apparent even to the least capable critic. At that point, art is no longer judged by the skill with which it is created, or the meaning behind it, but by its pretentiousness or ability to shock.

I came from the Ishmael review where I react on the Seagul and Donnie Darko reference. Reading other review I noticed a reject against more passionate/escapist tales. I have more keys now to understand and weighting incoming reviews.
I hope you don't mind if I pop in to derail some other review if I need more enlightenment.

Yeah, though it depends how one defines 'escapist'. I think of it as moving away from the world, as something a person can pour time into without learning or changing. I reject that because it's not a healthy way to treat the mind.
Some people use 'escapist' to refer to something they can get 'lost in', but I don't think this is accurate. A person can get lost in the act of learning, or by confronting something new, even though these activities bring you closer to the world, not further from it. So yes, I tend to reject something that is 'escapist' in that it has no purpose outside of itself.
Even in the cases of fantasy or science fiction or horror, the themes, characters, philosophies, and art of the piece can all lead the reader to look at the world and at themselves in new ways, and can teach them things, and hence, I wouldn't consider them to be 'escapist'.
"I hope you don't mind if I pop in to derail some other review if I need more enlightenment."
If another one of my reviews inspires a response, then certainly, pop in.


Also, regarding one of the previous comments saying that it is fashionable to dislike it: I have found quite the opposite. It seems to me that it is a book it is "cool" to like, as though simply enjoying a certain piece of literature reflects some kind of deep self-aware psychological trait, rather than simply reflecting the fact that you liked the book. It was also mentioned to us the book had a cult following, and I have met several people outside of my school who enjoyed it.

But yeah, it's funny with a big book like this, where one side says people only like it because its fashionable and the other side responds that people only dislike it because that's fashionable--just goes to show that its more important to discuss the actual book rather than get mixed up in whether or not people like it, or are supposed to like it.
Thanks for the comment.


Salinger tells you this is nit a David Copperfield story. So don't read it like it is about Holden. Hint: look at the first page of David Copperfield to understand "Caiulfields" name.
I hope you will reread it again. This time when you get to the Merry go round play the music Salinger said was playing, and see if that makes sense or if he is using this book to tell you about money, power and war.

Keely talks about shell shock and Salinger's experiences with war in this review already, so I think he got that WWII was an influence, but thanks for expounding on that point.