HOLDEN CAULFIELD RECONSIDERED.

HOLDEN CAULFIELD REVISITED. This obituary for J.D. Salinger says about THE CATCHER IN THE RYE: “Taken as portraying a thirst for authenticity by some, the work is seen by many young people these days as merely whiney.” We had a discussion about the book last summer on this blog (see here, here, and here). Annalisa and Nick certainly would agree that Holden Caulfield is whiney and that it spoils the book. Dick Weisfelder observed then that “Nick’s reaction is typical for his generation.” In light of that discussion, Dick called my attention to this obituary article about THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by Ian Whitwham, who would be roughly my contemporary (if he was a sixth former in 1961, he would have been between 16 and 19). Whitwham loved the book in 1961 and says he loves it now (“I’m a crusty, unsentimental old git and I like it more than ever.”) Whitwham taught the book to sixth formers for years and says there were always some students who loved it, but, I gather, a minority because he concludes: “It’s more tragic, more heartbreaking — and rather lost on tedious, insensitive modern youth.” I’m afraid that after fifty years I have joined the “tedious, insensitive modern youth” insofar as I have no desire to reread the book. I said earlier that “Characters like … Holden Caulfield are all about us now.” I don’t want to spend any more time with Holden Caulfield, but I am unfair to Salinger if I don’t acknowledge that he created a powerful character and identified an outlook on life that seems to be all about us now. Pioneering books often suffer because what was novel becomes familiar.

This entry was posted in Literature. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to HOLDEN CAULFIELD RECONSIDERED.

  1. Mary Jane Schaefer says:

    Usually, the very popularity of a book marks it out by the literary world as “lowbrow” and unworthy of academic ratification. Yet, J.D. Sallinger”s major work has escape such dismissal. Why? I remember reading it when I was young and impressionable. And it didn’t impress me. What was I missing? The taste of the youth of my generation?

  2. Dick Weisfelder says:

    You may have forgotten how conformist the early 50s were, Mary Jane. That Doris Day – Dennis Day era before Elvis, rock and even James Dean explains Holden’s impact. In some ways Dean in Eden and Rebel seemed to build on Holden’s cynicism about the adult world.

  3. Nick says:

    Then I feel as if it doesn’t deserve to be considered great literature if its value is only in the context of a very specific time and place.

  4. Nick says:

    Also, I’m very insulted by the comment that my generation isn’t “sensitive” or that I can’t grasp how “heartbreaking” it is. I imagine the next thing out of his mouth will be something about how pre-marital sex didn’t exist until 1986.

    You can certainly write a story where your main character is not a likable person, and quite often those stories are great, but they cannot function if you do that and also make the story’s success require you to root for them as well.

  5. Elmer says:

    Philip Larkin says that sexual intercourse wasn’t even invented until 1963.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *