The Praises and Criticisms of J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye

Ever since its publication in 1951, J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye has served as a firestorm for controversy and debate. Critics have argued the moral issues raised by the book and the context in which it is presented. Some have argued that Salinger’s tale of the human condition is fascinating and enlightening, yet incredibly depressing. The psychological battles of the novel’s main character, Holden Caulfield, serve as the basis for critical argument. Caulfield’s self-destruction over a period of days forces one to contemplate society’s attitude toward the human condition. Salinger’s portrayal of Holden, which includes incidents of depression, nervous breakdown, impulsive spending, sexual exploration, vulgarity, and other erratic behavior, have all attributed to the controversial nature of the novel. Yet the novel is not without its sharp advocates, who argue that it is a critical look at the problems facing American youth during the 1950′s. When developing a comprehensive opinion of the novel, it is important to consider the praises and criticisms of The Catcher in the Rye.

When studying a piece of literature, it is meaningful to note the historical background of the piece and the time at which it was written. Two J.D. Salinger short stories, “I’m Crazy” and “Slight Rebellion off Madison,” were published in periodicals during the 1940′s, and introduced Holden Caulfield, the main character of The Catcher in the Rye. Both short stories were revised for later inclusion in Salinger’s novel. The Catcher in the Rye was written in a literary style similar to prose, which was enhanced by the teenage slang of the 1950′s. It is a widespread belief that much of Holden Caulfield’s candid outlook on life reflects issues relevant to the youth of today, and thus the novel continues to be used as an educational resource in high schools throughout the nation (Davis 317-18).

The first step in reviewing criticism of The Catcher in the Rye is to study the author himself. Before his novel, J.D. Salinger was of basic non-literary status, having written for years without notice from critics or the general public. The Catcher in the Rye was his first step onto the literary playing field. This initial status left Salinger, as a serious writer, almost unique as a sort of free agent, not bound to one or more schools of critics, like many of his contemporaries were. This ability to write freely, his status as a nobody in the literary world, was Salinger’s greatest asset. Rather than to scope inside Salinger’s mind and create a grea tness for him, we are content instead to note him for what he is: “a beautifully deft, professional performer who gives us a chance to catch quick, half-amused, half-frightened glimpses of ourselves and our contemporaries, as he confronts us with his brilliant mirror images” (Stevenson 217). more…

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Patrick S Rogers  On 18/06/2009 at 8:45 pm

    “The first step in reviewing criticism of The Catcher in the Rye is to study the author himself.” I stopped reading at this sentence. If we have learned anything from aesthetics over the past fifty years, it is that studying the author himself is exactly what you do not want to do when criticizing (or in this case reviewing criticism) a novel.

    To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, the work should stand for itself. Who cares what JD Salinger is like and what does it have to do with his novel? Does studying the author change the meaning of his words, and if you answer in the affirmative (which should stand as a huge red flag), why would studying the author change the meaning of his words.

    Much like affective criticism and intentionalism, the suggestion that studying the author is necessary to understanding the novel misses the point by putting the focus on the wrong subject, the author, rather than the correct subject of criticism, which is the work being criticized.

    The problem with such a criticism of The Catcher in the Rye, is that it may appear to be better if one focusses on its reclusive (and presumably interesting) author (by the way, that’s not a presumption I would make).

    Standing on its own, the novel is more like a drunk staggering down the street or a punch-drunk boxer, barely able to return to his corner. That is to say it barely stands on its own. It is hopelessly sappy, manipulative and is written in a style that is not really a style at all. Salinger’s voice of adolesence rings false on most occassions and the main character’s defining characteristics seem to be self-pity and egotism, neither of which are compelling or flattering.

    Perhaps the paucity of work by Salinger is best attributed to the fact that the work that he did produce is not worthy of the attention it has gotten over the years and pehaps too, the fact that such a poor novel has remained in the limelight is due to the ironic attention-grabbing recluse that is its author.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: