Image via Wikipedia
“Must we go on with this inane conversation?” someone inquires of Holden Caulfield at one point in The Catcher in the Rye. It’s a question I recall asking myself a few times back when I read the book.
I suppose maybe I read the book too late to really “get it”, too late in my life and too late in the history of our nation and world. For some reason I didn’t read it until I was an adult. I went to high school in the 1980’s, and even though political correctness was in its embryonic stage Catcher had already been deemed too scandalous for young ears.
That “scandal” is, in my opinion, what has really vaulted Catcher to its abstract significance. It has given the book an undeserved level of prestige. We tend to embrace the forbidden, to be drawn to the esoteric. Telling teenagers that a book has been banned gives that book a one way ticket to Coolsville and makes the youngsters want to read it that much more. Unfortunately in this case the controversy is much ado about nothing. From my viewpoint it seems like a bunch of uptight wet blankets got themselves in an uproar about some “damns” and “hells” and various instances of taking The Lord’s name in vain. I’m not saying these are good things by any means, but I am suggesting perspective. Banning The Catcher in the Rye from…well, anywhere…..while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the garbage that has been appearing on our televisions and movie screens with increasing quantity and intensity over the past couple of decades seems somewhat misguided.
The book itself is an easy read…..too easy as a matter of fact. The first time I read it I kept waiting for the symbolism, foreshadowing, and other hallmarks of great literature. I pegged Holden Caulfield as a Shakespearean tragic hero with a fatal flaw in the mold of Macbeth or King Lear. I assumed there had to be some reason why many thought of this as such a great novel. All I got for my intellectual effort was a reminder of what happens when one assumes.
The “hero” Caulfield is just an irksome and petulant bundle of neuroses. I suspect that if I’d done my academic duty when I was supposed to, at around age 14 or 15, I might have more closely identified with the whole angst vibe, the sense of being perpetually unimpressed and underwhelmed by everything and everyone. But it’s amazing what a difference a decade or so can make. Two decades really changes the game. As cynical as I can be, as adept as I am at openly mocking the absurdity in our world, even I find Holden Caulfield to be a bit much. He’s the kind of galling personality that in “real life” would have people just waiting with fervent anticipation for him to fall on his face. It’s difficult to like Holden or feel any semblance of compassion for his plight. He does have a tendency to accurately see through the speciousness of others, one of his few redeeming qualities.
I don’t dislike The Catcher in the Rye. It’s a decent, well written story. I don’t feel like the time I spent reading it (and re-reading it years later) was necessarily wasted. I’m just of the opinion that those who deem it as one of the best books ever written are giving gravitas to something unworthy of their passion.
have it rated higher on their list and mine. Sometimes I think enjoyment of a movie is all about timing. Where one first sees the film and under what circumstances, how many times they’ve seen it, what year it came out in relation to the viewer’s age, and other correlations. I was only 8 when Caddyshack was in theaters, and it was Rated R. But many people have come to adore it through the magic of television and video, and there are older films that I find immensely pleasurable, so the timing issue doesn’t fully explain why I rate it dozens of spots lower than the majority likely would. I also believe that everyone’s sense of humor is different and that we “get” certain things while others just go completely over our head. Bill Murray is someone whose humor just never really bowled me over, and his legendary performance in Caddyshack made his career. Actually, I would go so far as to say it IS his career. Anyway, I do enjoy the movie which is why it’s on the list. I just may not enjoy it as much as you do. And the sequel that was made eight years later which is disparaged by most, especially fans of the original…..well, I don’t think it’s all that bad, probably because I don’t have the first one on such a high pedestal.
example of circumstances shaping one’s opinion. I’m not positive that E.T. was the first movie I ever saw in a theater, but I distinctly remember seeing it in a theater with my mother and sister, and I know it’s one of only three movies (we’ll get to the other two much later in this process) that have ever brought tears to my eyes.
There are 3 Academy Award winners in that list ladies and gentlemen. That’s impressive. I’m not a Sean Penn fan by any means, but with Spicoli he created one of the most original and enduringly funny characters in American cinema. And if Phoebe Cates never does another thing in her life (and let’s be honest…..her career after Fast Times hasn’t exactly been noteworthy), she will be immortal to generations of randy teenage boys who’ll never forget her coming out of that pool.
boy-next-door type turning his house into a brothel while his parents are away on vacation, Cruise burst onto the scene and over 25 years later is still around. One key element to a good movie can be a memorable scene or two, and all anyone has to say to evoke a smile when it comes to Risky Business is “Old Time Rock n’ Roll” or “El Train”. That kind of positive notoriety is the envy of about 99% of all entertainment produced these days.
