Book Review: J.D Salinger's Catcher in the Rye

I was interested in this book because I heard so many references to it - there was Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson, who plays a nutball who buys Catcher in the Rye every week to keep sane (clearly though, it didn't work). I came across this "top 100 fictional characters since 1900" on the net and Holden Caulfield, our protagonist from Catcher, came in second, just after the guy from The Great Gatsby. It was in the "staff recommendations" section of Dymocks. If I knew this was a postmodern book, though, I would never have read it, let alone buy the damn thing - I can't stand self-reflexivity, to me it just stagnates the act of reading. Quite frankly, I don't want to know what colour pen you're writing the fucking book with, just tell me the goddamn story, for Chrissake.

I'm not sure if I even like Holden, either. Someone said on some online review site, Salinger's young characters are too intelligent for their age. Also, apparently this book has been criticised because Holden is being used as a vehicle to express his own views rather than Holden's, that Salinger is "placing the author's preconceptions squarely in the mind of the character at the expense of realism". I can relate to both criticisms.

Firstly, Holden is just too intelligent, and it's annoying. He reminds me a lot of Dawson from Dawson's Creek in this regard. I've got nothing wrong with an intelligent young person, but the intelligence should have repercussions. With Lisa Simpson for example, we get the social isolation and frustration which I believe goes hand in hand with intelligence in a young person (and I'm not talking about mathematical intelligence, I'm talking about reflective, philosophical intelligence, the type which Holden possesses). The problem with Holden, though, is that he's a normal kid, a jock, who still manages to be reflective at the same time. I'm not sure if the two are compatible, so I think realism has been compromised as the guy I quoted has said. This is closely related to my second criticism of the book - that Salinger is shoving his own thoughts down Holden's throat. A good example of this is when Holden goes on his rant about Mr Vinson and the digression exercise he made the students do. It's clear that Salinger tried to disguise his transparency, putting it into context by making it part of an exercise which Holden had to do for English class, I just think he failed in his intentions.

There are things I liked abuot the book, though - Holden is essentially likeable, despite his frustrating self-reflective writing. His encounter with his younger sister Phoebe at the end is really sweet, and real, too, I think. Social outcasts often do have a close connection with a sibling or parent (if I may digress for a moment, I think this is because they are inherently likeable people, although they don't feel comfortable expressing themselves in social situations).

This leads me to ask, why on earth did Salinger not spend more time exploring the relationship between Holden and his sister?! The groundwork was done, the foundation was laid, and what does he do? He ends the damn book. Why? Because Holden just "doesn't feel like writing any more". What a farce, what a cop-out. I hate cop-outs, I really do. I give this book: ** (2 stars).

PS - I'm aware of the ironies in my criticism of postmodernism and self-reflexivity.

Song of the Week VIII

Acid Rain by Liquid Tension Experiment. A kind of side project from Petrucci and Portnoy of Dream Theater, as well as future DT keyboardist Jordan Rudess and high-profile prog bassist Tony Levin. If you like Dream Theater, you'll love these guys. If you like instrumental rock such as Satriani and Vai, you'll love these guys. I chose Acid Rain because of that awesome keyboard riff with the changing bass and rhythm line underneath it - it sends shivers down my fucking spine.

Movie Review: Saw 2

I saw this movie without having seen Saw 1, and with a desire to see a different movie: Wolf Creek, which was sold out. I wasn't expecting much, I thought it would be another dumbass teen horror movie, that I would have to sit through an hour and a half of unrealistically good looking young people getting ripped apart by some maniac with a wood saw.

The first scene of the movie was not only gory, but also psychologically disturbing. I couldn't help asking myself what I would have done in that situation, with a death mask on and 60 seconds to cut out my right eyeball in order to get hold of a key which would unlock the mask and save me from having it crush my face in. This would be a recurring feature of the psycho's killings - he always gave his victims a means for survival, a way out, although that way out is often more painful and debilitating than death itself.

We then come across a bunch of people who wake up in a locked house, with a taped message from the psycho who gives them instructions on how to get out. How nice of him. One of the people, who have been hand-picked by the psycho, is the detective's son. What detective? The detective whose name was written in the blood on the wall where our first victim was found. The detective who was responsible for framing all nine of the people locked up in the house. The detective who had a bad relationship with his wayward teenage son. The detective who reluctantly agreed to accept this case.

The movie is based around this "game", and switches intermittently from the events in the house to the events in the psycho's house, which a SWAT team has raided to find the man himself sitting cooly by as the cops try desperately to subvert a situation which they are apparently watching live on a set of security cameras in the house. The situation involves nine people locked in a house, one of whom is the detective's son. The psycho, who wants to be referred to as "John", informs the detective, who he seems to have a preoccupation with (ultimately he is the primary target and victim of this whole operation), that his son will die in two hours, as a lethal gas is seeping into the house. A two-hour timer is set next to the security cameras, and the cops assume (as I did) that it is timing how long before the gas kills off everyone in the house.

The stage is set, then, for a pretty cool movie. I must admit, this is a good storyline to base a movie on. I think the viewer is meant to relate to detective Eric Mason, the main character, in that we just want to pound the shit out of John as he sits by and calmly watches chaos unfolds. It should be relieving, then, when Eric does pound the shit out of him, almost to death. Somehow, however, it's not - John never loses his cool, nor his upper hand. In fact, being beaten to a pulp was seemingly a crucial part of his plan, a plan which at every step unfolds exactly how he wanted it to. There's even a twist in the plot at the end. Normally I hate twists, they're cheesy and usually ruin everything you just saw, but this one worked. I think it was because at the end of "the game", there were still a lot of unanswered questions, and the twist serves to answer those questions as well as fuck up (in a good way) all the preceding events.

Was this movie too psychologically fucked up to be called a horror movie? Personally, I'd say yes, and call it a thriller. Maybe it's a horror-thriller. I give it 4 stars.