You’re welcome to write about anything in the novel that interested you, but here’s a prompt to get you started thinking:
Reaction to the novel and especially to the character of Holden Caulfield has been extraordinarily polarized over the years. An early commenter in The New Yorker called Catcher a “brilliant, funny, meaningful novel” and found Holden himself “tragic and touching.” The New York Times called the novel “unusually brilliant” and praised Salinger’s use of the first-person voice: “Mr. Salinger’s rendering of teenage speech is wonderful: the unconscious humor, the repetitions, the slang and profanity, the emphasis, are all just right.” Yet other critics strongly disagreed. Some early readers were “irritated” by Holden, finding him “completely self-centered” (The New Republic). Many later readers concurred with this opinion, with one high school teacher reporting a typical student reaction to the book in 2009: “We all hated Holden in my class. We just wanted to tell him, ‘Shut up and take your Prozac.'” Jonathan Yardley, reassessing the book in a 2004 article for The Washington Post, was especially vitriolic, writing that Holden is an “unregenerate whiner and egotist,” that the novel is overly sentimental, and that certain scenes made him want to “puke.”
In the light of how the novel has produced such strong and contradictory responses over the years, what was your own reaction to Holden? Did you find him believable? Did you feel sympathy for him? Did you like him? Do you think he works as a character? Can you speculate about Holden’s influence on later fiction and why he might be so beloved or so hated?
I am a firm and enthusiastic fan of Holden. I do find him a believable and sympathetic character, and would argue that he is not genuinely “self-centered” or an “egotist”. He seems to me a bright and highly sensitive teen, almost too sensitive for this world and hence, he is spending time at the institution on the west coast. Yes, he’s intolerant of anyone and anything he perceives as “phony”, but I find this trait endearing and potentially transient. His inability to put up with or overlook behavior that offends him feels tied to his age and circumstances (living at a boys prep school). Despite his irritated observations, his conduct belies his intolerance: he finds Ackley obnoxious and kind of repulsive but he goes out of his way to include him (invites him to the movies). Holden feels bad upsetting his mother because he knows she’s not over the death of Allie; he helps the nuns with their suitcases and gives them a donation; he hides his suitcase because it’s more expensive than his roommate’s. All of this kind and sensitive behavior, plus his absolute love for his little sister, is the opposite of self-centered and its poignance “kills me”, as Holden would say.
I totally agree with you, Lennie.
I read the novel many years ago and, although I was already a huge fan of Holden back then, I had missed a lot of details that make me deeply love him rereading it now. I have very strong feelings in his favor, and I was very surprised when I discovered that he had been considered psychopathic and egotistic. I am pretty sure that the same people who judged him so negatively are the same people that he defines “phonies” and that “make him puke”. Even more preposterous is to me that the book had been banned for decades. Coming from a country that lived through Fascism, I have a natural repulsion toward any type of censorship, especially toward books banning. But I found even more ridiculous, or even concerning, the banning of this novel in particular. In fact, banning it equals to me to the victory of a certain hypocritical and tragicomical middle-class respectability and the mediocrity that characterizes it, which, by the way, is what nourishes Holden’s livor and irritation.
Something that his detractors missed is that Holden has a very powerful and revolutionary voice that has certainly deeply influenced, as far as what concerns me, my own writing and personality. However, not to sound too egotistic, it has definitely influenced a good portion of the literature that followed, too, by overtly not caring about the abovementioned middle-class respectability, in favor of some authenticity that’s pretty much totally absent in our society. His vision of the world is very peculiar and, no matter how much a common place it may sound, I think it’s necessary to re-state every once in a while that the world desperately needs people who see it from a different perspective, and who are not afraid to share that perspective. His sarcasm is brilliant and certain hyperboles that he uses denote what a genius he is. For example, when he says, “It was the last game of the year, and you were supposed to commit suicide or something if old Pencey didn’t win,” “killed me.” A highly sarcastic scene that also made me burst out laughing was the encounter between Sally and the Andover guy. The lucidity with which he analyzes phony social interactions like this, highlighting how grotesque they are, is unquestionably ruthless, smart, and hilarious at the same time.
Rereading the novel after so many years, I really can declare that Holden has ranked to the top of my best literary friends and role models, together with Ignatius Reilly and Myrna Minkoff. And god bless the misfits!
Holden Caulfield is such a complex character due to his mere simplicity and the way that one perceives Holden. Holden, modern enough to be relatable but vintage enough to feel timeless works as a character because it is not Holden who ages—but the reader. I recall reading this Novel in the 9th grade. I was trying to pick out a book for an independent books study and he handed me Catcher in the Rye and said “this one” with a knowing smirk on his face. As I read aloud the novel, I kept looking over at my father—can I say damn? Can I say hell? In reading as student Holden felt like a bad boy I could fix (red flag). Leaving school, roaming around New York, hiring a prostitute but being “too deep” and just wanting to talk to her, rebelliousness was appealing to a young me. Now, rereading it older, I think the frustrations people have with Holden is what makes him a character that “works.” Holden doesn’t fight dragons, or he doesn’t save a damsel. Holden’s conflict is one that we all struggle with, and until we become adults do not have the retroactive understanding to identify—Holden is simply fighting time. Some may say “Dang Holden, take some Prozac and lighten up!” but the complexities in which Holden struggles with (grief, neglect, protection of youth and post-war adolescents) are monstrous clouds of awareness that even adults today struggle with. Finally, I think Holden “works” at a character because frustrated, annoyed, and irritated one finds his choices, there is an underlying feeling (for me at least) of a want to help. A small voice saying, “If only someone helped me the way I could help Holden.” The same way Holden wants to help his sister the way his brother helped him.
I am an unabashed fan of J.D. Salinger, Holden Caulfield, and Catcher. While some of Holden’s language and slight beliefs – homophobia and misogyny – have not aged well, the novel is, to me, as influential, groundbreaking, and provocative as it was upon its release in the early 50s. The character of Holden endures because of his relatability to generations of disaffected youth.
The teenage angst that Holden displays is timeless. Every generation of young people shares a certain disdain for older people, authority figures and “phonies.” While the language changes, the modes of communication evolve, and the sources of ire are always shifting, the same underlying apathy and anxiety remain constant across the ages. He is the classic outcast and underachiever. In another era, he might be the type to shoot up a school, his anger and contempt seething below the surface until a slight sends him over the edge. His dislike of everything is counter-balanced only by occasional expressions of sympathy and tenderness. His heartwarming interactions with Phoebe, the nuns at the train station and his love for his dead brother are as genuine as his hatred of small talk, show-offs, and the schools he keeps getting kicked out of.
What Holden’s generation referred to as feeling “blue,” is what we refer to today as mental illness. Yet he lived at a time when depression was not openly discussed or well-treated. So, he self-medicated with alcohol and acted out in school. The loss of his little brother at an early age traumatized him, and his parents failed to adequately support him in his grief. Holden struggles to find his place and purpose in the world (and he may never), so he hides behind indifference and sarcasm to maintain emotional distance from those around him. Holden could walk off the page today and be right at home among an entire generation of entitled, apathetic and anxious youth. Instead of relying on phone booths and sympathetic adults, he would disappear, over-medicated, into an iPhone screen.
The varied reactions to Holden – both at large and my own – make me wonder if how we read him reflects as much or more about ourselves than the character himself. I HATED Holden the first time I read this book; I was in early college, I think, and had no patience for someone I read as a self-centered / self-obsessed spoiled little rich boy. Didn’t I spend enough time around his sort in real life? Much later – in my late 30s, I think – I revisited the novel after reading (on the recommendation of a friend) some of Salinger’s short stories, and had a much more moderate reaction to Holden. Reading it now, honestly, he sort of breaks my heart. He’s so broken, so clearly drowning in grief and depression. And Salinger presents a very believable voice – a smart kid who can keenly observe and maybe begin to analyze his surroundings (there’s perhaps the beginnings of some critique of social class in his young mind?), but has no tools for turning that mind inward. And why should he have those tools? He knows how a boy his age is supposed to behave; he knows he doesn’t fit into that model. He’s not living in a time when mental health is something to consider, or when young men should be talking about their feelings. You could read his desire to be the “catcher” in the rye as a wish he could have saved his brother, but I think it’s also his desperate wish to be saved, that he cannot express any other way.
I didn’t like Holden as much as many of you did, but I did find him sympathetic and compelling. I can understand both reactions– Holden is an intensely relatable teenager, dissatisfied with his life and culture. He struggles to work hard in school because he cannot see or want the future for himself that the adults in his life are so concerned about. I think some of this is aided by privilege (he is able to spend a lot of money without caring because he knows that money is waiting for him at home, much as he is able to throw away his education with the ignorance of financial insecurity) but it speaks to the very relatable feeling of leaving childhood behind and finding adulthood performative and empty. That being said, I did find him tiresome—he judges everyone and everything around him through the worst-faith lens, as shallow and phony. I found this to a bit hypocritical, considering how much time he spends with people he does not like, or lying about his age and circumstances. His obsession with phonies says more about his own inability to authentically connect with others than with their character, but like many people, he finds it much easier to see the things he hates about the world than the things he likes.
Hey Catherine,
I completely agree with your point that Holden’s obsession with judging everyone and everything around him is hypocritical; he constantly is referring to people as “phony,” when in fact, he is an individual who is not secure with who he is, therefore projecting his insecurities onto others. However, after reading this book for a second time, I am now more aware of his internal struggles, specifically the grief he is suffering from after the loss of his brother and his depressive tendencies. An example of this can be found whenever Holden writes about his brother Allie’s baseball mitt when working on Stradlater’s composition. Essentially, he is not angry with Stradlater for berating him about doing the assignment “wrong.” His grief, which he has repressed, overwhelms him in that moment, causing him to lash out at Stradlater in the process. In addition, Holden repeatedly mentions feeling depressed throughout the novel, even stating once that he felt like committing suicide after the conflict with Maurice in the hotel. It can be argued that his grief and depression are connected- he has been unable to find healthy ways to cope, which in turn has led to his self-destructive behavior and depressive state. Therefore, aside from his hypocritical nature and his repetitiveness, specifically thinking the same thoughts over and over again, I can somewhat sympathize with Holden’s inability to become secure in himself and cope with his trauma. If anything, Holden is the phony, repressing his true self and true abilities. In response to the critics who said “Shut up and take your Prozac,” I find that to be a little harsh. Depression, along with other mental illnesses, are not just “cured” by prescriptions. Holden’s issues are deep-rooted and would not disappear just with the ingestion of a pill. While I do find him somewhat annoying at times, as mentioned previously, I do feel as if he is misunderstood and dealing with severe repression, causing him to appear immature, unlikable, and essentially fake in the eyes of readers.
The dichotomy of Holden is a really fascinating and frustrating!
I totally agree with your point that he was tiresome – being judgmental of everyone and, how I read it, forcing himself into everyone’s lives and then being really crass, hypercritical, and kind of offensive. And then, of course, being angry at his companions for being angry at him for his behavior. However, almost immediately, Holden does kind, selfless things – like assist the nuns and give them $10, or pay Sunny (the sex worker) just to talk to her. Or his brother – Holden enjoys D.B.s writings, praises his talent, but criticizes him as being a “sell-out”, basically. I want to shake Holden and ask him what his true feelings are about these people and their lives. I am left wondering what Holden actually believes in.
But, then again, as a 16-year-old boy, is that the point? He has no beliefs or is there something deeper there?
I haven’t read The Catcher in the Rye since high school. I remember back then being a fan of Holden. Rereading now, over fifteen years later, I did not find him compelling or entertaining. I wavered between finding his character to be, as stated above, irritating and also pitiful. I think the age and life stage of the reader and a larger comprehension of the world/adulthood/relationships allowed me to view Holden very differently than I did when I was a teenager. I found myself strongly empathizing with his clear, deep need to connect with others in any way he can, and then, kind of, failing! Something as simple as talking to the cab driver about the ducks in the park to trying to reconnect with his old classmates and girlfriends in various ways or talking to strangers in a restaurant (the nuns) – he works hard to connect and fit in – even though the reader sees in his inner monologue that he is incredibly critical of the people he encounters. Even given his harsh view on others and the world, he proves himself to be kind and generous – despite it all (giving money to the nuns, paying Sunny just to talk to him, etc.).
I approached Holden, during this reread, with more empathy and less admiration (for lack of a better term). I appreciated returning to the novel as an adult. The nuances of Holden’s character were clearer than trying to comprehend at 16 – the same age as Holden!
(248 words)
At first, I hated Holden. He was crass, immature, and frankly, his character sometimes read as the prison published autobiography of a serial killer. Coincidentally, this book was cited as the favorite of the shooter of John Lennon, Mark David Chapman, and the attempted assassin of former President Ronald Reagan, John Hinckly, both who stated their resonation with the main character. I think that if I were reading this book in middle school or high school, I would have fixated on how much I disliked the attitude and actions of Holden. However, reading this book for the first time as an adult, I moved past it. By the end of the book, I found Holden believable,, worky of sympathy, and while not necessarily likable, loveable. Salinger created what I felt to be a very realistic portrayal of a child struggling to cope with trauma including the death of his brother, witnessing the suicide of a fellow student, and suggested sexual trauma. He is scrambling, doesn’t see the point in schoolwork, and makes believe worlds in which others can understand his pain. I think Holden’s conversation with Phoebe about wanting to be “a catcher in the rye,” encapsulated his character: he, a child, wants to save other children from hurting the way he was and continues to be hurt. For this reason, he works as a character and contributed to the rise of morally gray main characters and perhaps the antihero.
What I felt was interesting about this novel was that it really did feel like I was listening to a diary of a moody teenager. I actually read this novel when I was a sophomore in high school and I recall finding it to be a bit bland. But reading it now, I absolutely love the style that Salinger chose for the narrative. Holden doesn’t take anything too seriously except trying to entertain himself in a world that he doesn’t really feel he fits in to. He’s too young to drink, but he’s too old to be asking a cab driver random questions about geese and frozen ponds the way a child would. Salinger’s use of repetition in the narrative with words like “Boy” and “Anyway” I think was wise because this is how a lot of teenagers sometimes spoke in the 50s. I wonder if it had any influence over stories like “The Outsiders”. I haven’t read many novels from the 50s and 60s, but the idea of being a teenager was relatively new with the invention of the automobile in the 20s so I can see why something like this would have been exciting to read if you were sixteen years old in 1951. Not to mention the fact that many teens were being sent to Korea only five years after their parents got back from the war in Europe and the Pacific. In those days, being sixteen meant you were old enough to die overseas but not to be taken seriously.