Re-reading long after I left the age…………………
I read ‘Catcher’ for the first time when I was in my teens, and believe I may have read it again around 5 years later. It seemed interesting to try in again long after that time when the rapid hormonal changes are putting you through extreme autonomic nervous system hyper-arousal – fight, flight, dissociation and ‘whatever’ freeze
And what a very different (though enormously enjoyable) experience it has been, leading me to reflect much more on the writing than I ever did. When I read it, it was long before it was deemed necessary to get teens into reading by ‘books aimed at teenagers’ We were reading classics in school, dealing with adult themes, and expected to read them in an adult and sophisticated way (admittedly, my education was geared towards pushing us all into academia, so we were expected to pull ourselves upwards from an initial place of interest and enthusiasm)
Now, I gather that because this is about a teenager, written first person, it is deemed to be fit to ‘encourage’ reluctant readers – I think it’s absolutely the wrong book to be forced to approach in a lit-crit way, at the time when your relationship with it might be purely emotional identification – or, it might be too uncomfortable to observe, up close and personal your own psychology when in the middle of it. Not to mention the fact that some of the language will feel very dated – I wonder how books written by adults with a teen narrator will fare in 50 odd years’ time (Catcher was published originally in 1945. And, no, that’s not when I first read it!) I suspect the endless like, like, whatever dialogue – if the author really attempts to pin down current youth buzz-speak, will make for throw-the-book-against-the-wall annoyance. Salinger is pretty sparing of his I assume 1945 young-slang but I suspect it might distance a teen reader, as it will make it feel dated.
I think in many ways it is an ‘emotion recollected in tranquillity’ read, and far more interesting for an (ahem) mature reader. I really appreciated this time round, Salinger’s skill.
Firstly, that first-person narrative. Perhaps of late this has been overdone. I know a lot of readers dislike it intensely and find it false. When appropriate (like any stylistic choice) it works brilliantly. And this is, for sure, appropriate. Had Salinger decided on the narrator as third person god approach, the wonderful mismatch between the dismissive ‘whatever’ thoughts of Holden Caulfield and his tenderness, how much vulnerability of any kind ‘kills’ him, be it impoverished nuns with straw baskets or what happens to the ducks in Central Park in the winter. The swiftness of his movement from prickliness to vulnerability and compassion and back again is beautifully done, and very truthful.
In many ways, for those unfamiliar with the book, not a lot (externally) happens. Intelligent, sensitive, prickly-as-a-succulent-cactus Holden Caulfield, second son of an eccentric, gifted, clearly damaged, family. The third child died young, of leukaemia, before the start of the novel, and the shock-waves have hit everyone hard. Holden himself is at that stage where he is most unforgiving of everyone around him BECAUSE he is so vulnerable to their vulnerabilities – prickle is a defence against pain. He has just been expelled from his latest expensive school. He is a youngster with an attitude, self-destructive, wasting of his talents without being able to see quite why that might matter. The ‘story’ of the book is the three or four days between the expulsion and when his family would expect him home for the normal term end. Holden is looking back at that period, from a time some months in the near future, and he is telling his story possibly to us, but maybe to someone else – who that might be is suggested, quite early on.
He does his best to put his listener or his reader off wanting to know more, but, as he is both wittingly and unwittingly quirky and amusing, no doubt the reader, or the listener, will stay involved for the ride
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They’re quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They’re nice and all – I’m not saying that – but they’re also as touchy as hell.
The push-away, draw-in, sullen whateverness of this complex teen – not to mention 
teen-age itself makes for a read which is moving, funny – and deservedly has become an iconic book. Probably as much for those looking back through the mists of time feeling relief they are far away from its giddy heights and treacherous plummets.
The Catcher In The Rye Amazon UK
The Catcher In The Rye Amazon USA
Lady Fancifull 
I came to “Catcher in the Rye” quite late – in my 30s I think – but it still resonated with me, though probably in different ways than if I’d read it as a teen. I’m not sure how I’d find it nowadays…..
It was certainly very interesting to think about the different experiences I have had with it, and that it still works. I recently re-read something else which I had five starred, when I read it when it came out 5 years ago. Still a very good and interesting book, my book club were discussing it, and I was interested that it didn’t work quite as well for me on a second reading
I really question this book’s popularity in schools. I find that it works for about 10% of teenage readers. For that one in ten student it will be the defining book of their teenage years, the other 90% will be lost and frustrated (though hopefully they will revisit it later). I think it tends to be picked by teachers who were in the 10%… it can’t be denied that once you ‘get it’, it’s a book for life.
That is a very pertinent comment. I suspect it may have worked for more teenage readers at the time it was written, but I also really appreciated it so much more ‘looking back’. Maybe for a teenager, it only works well with those more naturally reflective and introverted. If what you want is a lot of action, drama and plot ‘what happens next’ it won’t satisfy at all. And not everyone wants to think about what they are thinking and feel about what they are feeling. It’s quite an uncomfortable book.
I agree, and, as you said, the language can be an additional barrier. On the other hand, the students who love it do really love it so it may still be worth it … there aren’t many books that have such a powerful draw for specific readers.
I read this as a teenager & I haven’t touched it since – you’ve inspired a re-read! I suspect I’ll find Holden somewhat irritating now, but as a teenager I definitely identified. I completely agree this has to be a first person narrative – there’s no way a third person objectivity would ever work to capture the self-centred teen!
This is one of my favourite books of all time, by one of my favourite authors. Have you read his others? Particularly – Seymour: An Introduction & Raise High the Roof Beam Carpenters. I just absolutely love them all. So funny, so slick & yet devastatingly sad & touching. He does tragicomedy so well – one line you’re laughing & the next is heartbreaking. A literary hero of mine. 🙂
Yes, but not for many years and I think a re-read is well overdue!
Well, this is on my never-ending GAN list – one of the more dreaded ones. I must say you have made it sound a good bit more appealing, so have a gold star! I reckon the books they pick for kids to read at school are actually a form of punishment – jealous ancient 30-year-old teachers victimising yoof for being yooffull. That can be the only reason they made me read Memoirs of an Infantry Officer surely, like, whatever.
Sorry FF I did my reply to yo as as reply to Susan. The challenge of doing one finger tap tap on a phone rather than grown up 5 fingers on the PC
I read that when I was in my 30 mostly because I was curious about why I wasn’t supposed to read it when I was in my teens. Yes, I had a repressed life growing up. I did not find it as interesting as I thought it should have been since it was on the no-no list.
Well, FF it is also quite SHORT So that should appeal. I can’t remember what it is, but I’m sure I read something somewhere about an 8000 page novel. Now that would have to be on Kindle. No doubt the marketing would be ‘ if you read only ONE novel in your life it will be this one’. Thinking about ‘ what is the most horrible book marketing idea – and I bet it has already happened – a novel written entirely in txt spk.
I feel sick, just thinking about that.
Short is good! I’ve never read an 8000-page novel but I’ve read a fair few that felt like it. Re Marianne’s comment The Cone Gatherers is the last one of the Scottish ten that I picked for the summer challenge – didn’t get to it in the end, but should be coming up soonish. Oh dear! Still it looks fairly short too…
I’m clearly having very short term memory moments, I must therefore have read the title ‘The Cone Gatherers’ as I read your summer challenge post, NonfictionFin
How did you discover that I’m a fish?! I thought I had hidden it so well… *flicks tail and swims off hurriedly*
Sorry Susan I replied to FF on your reply by mistake. It’s interesting seeing the different viewpoints about this book. I’m reading a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful ( I clearly like it a little bit) book by Tim Parks at the moment, The Novel, which is arguing for a way of looking at novels, and lit crit itself in the light of family dynamics, and psychology of both writers and their readers. It has crystallised and developed everything I have felt about my own reading. My own reviewing, and my general worldview. Reading it seems to me is absolutely a relationship we have with a writer, and though there might be objective analysis which can be made about books, much of our response comes from our individual dynamic. And of course part of my excited appreciation of Parks book comes down to the fact that there is some similarity in his family dynamic story, the subtext, and mine.
That is an interesting thought. I know that there books that I read multiple times in different times. Then I never read them again.
My son read it at school a couple of ago and thought it was really boring, tedious, self indulgent stuff, but he prefers books like Enders Game so possibly just not his cup of tea – he did enjoy Animal Farm too so he doesn’t just like sci fi fantasy. Meanwhile, my daughter had to read the Cone Gatherers by Robin Jenkins at school – written in 1955 and likened by some to of Mice and Men (but not by me) – and was equally unimpressed. It occurs to me that the only reason schools make kids read certain books is because they are the only books they have class sets of (bought way back) and no money to buy any others, which is a pity as there are so many good books out there that could speak better to teens. Anyway, I can’t remember what I thought of Catcher when I read it – I vaguely remember doing so. Your enthusiasm for it is catching though, so I may well get it out of the library and give it another go … or maybe I won’t ;o)
I’ve never read ( or heard of) The Cone Gatherers) but that is probably a very accurate assessment, finance and class sets, of why you are made to read certain things. I can recall hardly ANY twentieth century texts, from my own schooling. It was all classics of English Literature. But I was had come from a family where that’s what I had been reading for pleasure. It never occurred to me that there were people who didn’t enjoy reading and that dense literature might not be the way to get them to begin to enjoy reading! Though not having the other distractions available for time spent on your own eg computer games etc, reading WAS what I did if I wasn’t in company. Not to mention what WE did, each in our own book!
Oh, it has been years since I read this. But the voice is what grabs and holds me. So many writers do a first person that is pure snark—and that’s it. Holden’s snark masks some real pain. And therein, I think, lies the difference. I’m not sure it’s the best reading choice for many teenagers. I read it when I was in my 20s, I think, when I had enough distance from my teenage years to appreciate his point of view.
Yes. It’s a fairly compelling voice and, as I’ve discovered, works at different ages.
I first read it when I was about 16: its language and its attitude quickened my own emergent writing voice – not my speaking voice (grew up in London – `wouldn’t work), or even my thinking voice (`actually, I’m not sure I have a thinking voice, rather muffled cavernous echoes), or even my emotional voice which grew up remaining 8 years old – the one that stumbles assuredly through a sentence, or even between one word and the next, and only finds the clear spark when it trips and recovers itself at the same time; the happy-find of no-mind
A good way of putting things!