Guest Blog

'The Catcher in the Rye' revisited post-adolescence

By Max Bonem, Staff Writer

April 28, 2008 | 6 a.m.

Although I do not consider myself to be the most literary-conscious person, I do hold a special place in my heart for various books that I have either been forced to read through school or have actually chosen to read on my own.

Like many people who went through high school English classes being forced to read the likes of Steinbeck, Faulkner or Kafka, I think the appearance of Jerome David Salinger’s 1951 classic “The Catcher in the Rye” was the one hope of experiencing any enjoyment. Almost every person I know who has read “The Catcher in the Rye” rates it at the top, or near the top, of the list of his or her favorite books. However, from what I gathered throughout high school and what can be seen all over the evil network (aka Facebook nation), those who have come to love Salinger’s first novel most likely read it around the same age as I did.

I remember reading “Catcher” during my sophomore year English class and thinking it was the work of God. It could be because the novel's protagonist, Holden Caulfield, possesses a cynical view of his entire world or the fact that Holden, like every other 16-year-old, doesn’t seem to be understood by one single soul.

Just recently, though, these thoughts started coming to mind while I was aimlessly wandering around Alden Library and stumbled upon a ratty, old copy of the book. It was the strangest feeling. I remembered how much I loved “Catcher,” but I could not remember why exactly.

Almost four years after having read the novel for the first time, I reread “Catcher” and have come to some interesting conclusions. Why is it that every 16-year-old loves Holden Caulfield? Well, it is because Holden displays the traits that every 16-year-old possesses, even 50 years after Salinger created him. First of all, Holden hates everything. That should be enough, but specifically, he hates everything that everyone else seems to enjoy. Ice-skating, movies and intelligent conversation— all of these things Holden simply believes are horrible.

When you’re 16, you want people to think that you don’t like what everyone else does and that you think outside the box and see the “phoniness” of the masses. The connection that younger readers have with Holden seems to have evaporated with age. Although I am just now nearing my 20th birthday, the classic anti-hero Holden does not produce the same effect that he once did.

“The Catcher in the Rye” is a simple tale, really. Holden leaves his bazillionth school and heads to New York City, where over the course of two days or so, he spends a lot of money, gets wasted, goes out with a girl he detests and continually mentions a certain Jane Gallagher whom he never seems to want to call five seconds after heading toward the nearest phone booth. Obviously, the 214-page book is not one with a thoroughly developed plot, but the details of Salinger’s first person narration are what stay with you.

Strangely enough, what I took away from the second reading was Salinger’s repeated use of certain words: "stupid," "hate," "kills," but above all, "phony." The word "phony" is used 41 times throughout the book and is used to describe everything from a person’s likes to his older brother’s profession. But think of it this way: isn’t Holden just a phony? Or maybe it is Salinger, but from what I’ve gathered of his recent life, calling him a phony would be the least of his worries.

Either way, just imagine if “Catcher” took place circa the 21st century. Holden’s hilarious take on cell phones, reality shows, celebutantes— he would be a more popular blogger than Perez Hilton, whom I am sure Holden would also believe to be quite the phony.

In the end, “The Catcher in the Rye” is still one of the most respected and cherished books that I can imagine. It is so appreciated that no one has even made a movie of it yet. People have tried, and there have always been rumors. Only such films as “Rushmore” or even more so, “Igby Goes Down," have even touched on similar aspects, though Kieran Culkin did seem to hate just about everything in his portrayal of the super anti-hero Igby in the latter film mentioned. “Catcher” may not have had the same effect on me the second time around, but it is still the most important piece of literature that a 16-year-old could read. Simply put, it should be a reading requirement once you get your license.

Holden Caulfield gives hope to every depressed, pissed off and sarcastic kid who picks up Salinger’s classic, and maybe that’ll be enough. But if ads for “The Catcher in the Rye: A film by Wes Anderson” start popping up, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

---