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.