Home › Blogs › Joel's blog

JD Salinger is dead. His being overrated, though, is immortal.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:20 — Joel

I always liked the idea of JD Salinger more than I liked anything that Salinger wrote. Franny and Zooey was ok, I guess, but Catcher in the Rye is massively overrated. Generations of literary hipsters have named their children "Holden" because they saw Catcher's protagonist as the ideal; an authentic James Dean type, maybe, railing against the phoniness of modern life.

Me: When I got around to reading the book at age 17 -- during my year of reading classic novels that were often banned -- I simply couldn't believe what a whiny sonofabitch the kid was. I don't think it's because I had the soul of a College Republican; I was reading books like Johnny Got His Gun, Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five that year and they were greatly influencing me. I just think that Holden Caufield was a whiny sonofabitch. Which makes me suspicious of all those who idolize him.

Salinger, of course, withdrew from public life after Catcher. The glimpses we got of him over the intervening decades were not flattering; he apparently had a pretty creepy sex life. But there's something fascinating and inspirational about an artist who produces One Great Work and gives it to the world, then hides himself forevermore. Too bad the reality of JD Salinger could never, ever live up to the hype.

Rest in peace, you old bastard.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Buzz Up!
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7065

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:40 — crywalt

Holden To This For Me

I re-read The Catcher in the Rye recently, within the last year or so. I'd read it in high school and thought it was powerful and honest and spoke to me and all that good stuff. I really felt like I was Holden himself.

Re-reading it nearly 25 years later I found exactly what you did, Joel: Holden is a whiny little bitch. And a jerk. He basically goes through the whole book being an asshole to everyone, even people who are unaccountably nice to him. He needs a good smack in the head and a job.

What I ended up wondering was if Salinger intended that or not. Could be that's what he wanted and the book's been misunderstood.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:56 — Joel

Re: Holden

That's really the only possible redeeming interpretation, Rywalt. And I'm all for a little revisionist criticism, but I'm not sure that viewpoint will ever win out. Like I said: Too many kids named Holden out there.

Reading Catcher, though, actually helps me see the world of through the eyes the adults who'd grown up in the Depression and came of age in World War II only to see their kids hit adolescence and early adulthood between Korea and Vietnam. We gave them this wonderful world that we never had and they're rebelling? AGAINST WHAT? GODDAMN THAT ELVIS ALL TO HELL!!!!! Or something like that. Those adults wouldn't have been entirely right, of course, but I imagine that every snot-nosed "rebel" probably looked a little like Holden Caufield to them.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:42 — Capuchin the Wry

And what are we to make of the late Howard Zinn's works?

...am I allowed to draw a loose parallel between "Catcher" and "The People's History..."?

I'll give Zinn a hale-and-well-met nod since he has just died, but sheesh. Unless he was the First to reduce a study of the USA, "warts and all," to just "the warts," I think he was overrated, too.

Still. A worthy opponent. Completely wrong-headed, but worthy. ;o/

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:52 — Ben

RE: And what are we to make of the late Howard Zinn's works?

Working on it.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:55 — Joel

Re: Zinn

You may have noticed what I wrote about him yesterday at my blog:

Our history is much more complicated than either the Texans or Howard Zinn would have you believe; I think the arc of progress has been more to America’s credit than Zinn would ever admit. I’m nonetheless grateful to Zinn for opening my eyes to the idea that the story we’re so often told isn’t the only way to understand it.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 12:17 — Ben

Re: Re: Zinn

I did notice, and I found much to commend it.

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 13:45 — Capuchin the Wry

Re: Re: (Re:?) Zinn

I think I concurred on Joel's blog. But only insofar as the old bastid was, like, some sort of pioneer in the "anti-regular-history" business. The title of "The People's History...," sadly, speaks against any sort of pioneering and smacks of the same-ol same-ol we got from Lenin, et. al., since time-out-of-mind (or time-down-the-memory-hole).

Yes; I have dipped into it. Yes; I find it amusingly so one-sided that its attempts to "balance the one-sided view of history" come out all comical-like instead of sober and balanced and nuanced.

As I said, if he was the first to have a go at that sort of US history, I give him high marks (ha ha). I believe in acknowledging pioneering efforts, even if they are flawed, as they usually lead to better things.

I guess this weekend is the best time to trot out that essay on the Texas history book re-edit push (thanks, Ben, for the prod).

On the other hand, if Zinn was just another in a long line of wanna-be deconstructionists and destructionists, I can only give him a "meh." Seen a thousand of 'em. One-sided is one-sided, no matter which side you are on.

Here's to me and Joel writing a good solid history text!

Thu, 01/28/2010 - 13:53 — Joel

Re: Zinn

Well, I won't claim that Zinn was "pioneering" in that regard. He's kind of the Model T of left-wing revisionist history; he didn't invent the idea, but he got it out to the masses.