Oh, Holden. Life Is Still So Hard for You
There's a story in the New York Times today repeating the tired notion that Holden Caulfiled is 'losing his grip on the kids." (And that therefore Catcher in the Rye is somehow less good.)
The article implies that there was some recent moment in which Holden seemed fresh and new. I'm sure there was such a time, but it's been a while. I am what teenagers would call "old," and yet when I was a teenager, Holden did not seem to be my historical peer. His slang was different, for one thing. Also, he had phone numbers of prostitutes, which was apparently common in the late 1940s but seemed rather exotic to my teenage self. It is not news that books published 59 years ago read differently than books being published now.
The thrust of the NYT story is that kids don't like Holden, that they find him whiny and immature and want him to get a life and take his prozac and engage in the world.
This is not news either. In fact, I'd wager that readers have always felt the need to (at least publicly) disavow all association with Holden Caulfield, in precisely the same way that Holden himself refuses to acknowledge the truth of his situation to any of his peers.
To sympathize publicly with Holden is to acknowledge that you feel unacknowledged, that you have a difficult time escaping the prison of yourself, that you are unsure of how to be a person, that you are lonely and dishonest and feel reviled. Adults can do this in a way that teenagers cannot.
Also, look: Teenagers hate lots of really good books. So what? English classes are not in the business of providing enjoyable reading experiences. English classes are in the business of A. teaching children how to read critically and thoughtfully, and B. teaching them how to be people.
Teenagers have always hated the books they read in school. I hated GATSBY! I did! I wrote a paper (no, I won't show it to you) in which I argued that Gatsby was just a dumb book about rich Yankees and their uninteresting rich Yankee problems, and that all that stuff about the billboard and the eyes was a bunch of English-teacher hooey.
I was wrong, of course. I was wrong in precisely the same way that students who dislike Catcher are wrong. And I got an D on that paper, which was the appropriate grade, even though of course I was furious at the time. I'd read the book! I'd shared my feelings! What else could a teacher want?!
I know that I am, like, annoyingly old-fashioned about this, but it seems to me that a big part of the problem is that we have lately empowered students to think that their reading of a book is inherently good and/or interesting.
Too often, we teach kids that all readings are created equal and that there are no bad ideas and etc.
But kids are not in school so that they can tell us what they think about Holden Caulfield. They're in school to learn what to think about. And whether or not you like Holden is not, imho, the most important or interesting thing you might be thinking about when reading Catcher.
It's not Holden's fault if people read him poorly.
UPDATE: I'm not saying that there's only one good reading of a book; I'm saying that not all readings are equally good. More in comments. Also in comments, Scott points out that according to this link, Catcher is the fifth most popular book on college facebook profiles (behind Harry Potter, The Bible, Angels and Demons, and To Kill a Mockingbird). Since the NYT report was based totally on anecdote and that site contains actual, you know, reporting--I think I'll rest easy that Holden is still speaking to "the kids."
posted by John Green @ Monday, June 22, 2009
92 Comments
92 Comments:
word. stop empowering the damn kids.
There should be a "like" button for these posts, like on Facebook.
I read "Catcher in the Rye" for the first time, actually, while pursuing my undergraduate degree. We read it in a class called Contemporary American Novel and there were about 3 or 4 (out of 25, or so) who did not actually hate/dislike/forcibly loathe Holden.
I think people need to rethink their approach to Holden.
You're not being old-fashioned, you're being... right.
And I don't know what the hell they're talking about -- I read somewhere (wish I had a source for those NYTimes assholes) that Catcher was not only still a favorite among people (including teens), but is the most commonly listed "favorite book" nationally.
I used to verbally pimp-slap people who didn't like Holden.
Constant conversation:
"Ugh, we're reading Catcher in the Rye..."
"I love that book!"
"I hate Holden."
"Hmm. That's interesting. Why?"
"He's annoying/whiny/needs his Prozac."
"Right. Can I point something out to you?"
"Sure."
"Everything whiny and hateful Holden says about people; he never says it to anyone. The whole book is basically an inner-monologue. I mean, he's a perfectly normal guy on the outside. Are you telling me that you're this charming, totally likable guy on the inside? That Holden's not allowed to express his malcontent for people... on the inside?"
"Hmmm... I never thought of it that way."
"You fuck with Holden, you fuck with me."
I STILL don't like Gatsby, and I'm an English major. Owl Eyes, though, he's a character worthy of his story. He's the only reason I reread the book.
Interesting. I've re-read the Catcher in the Rye every decade or so, and I was astonished that it no longer spoke to me as a 54-year-old. What's with that? In my teen years, I *was* Holden. How could I ever get over loving that book? Oh, well. I much prefer the opposite situation where a book that I hated as a teen actually turns into a book that I like as an adult. That happened with pretty much everything that Dickens wrote (although now that I'm 54, maybe I'll no longer be inspired by Dickens either).
I just walked over to my bookshelf and grabbed "Catcher"--I book I haven't read in 15 years. Great post.
I'm always shocked to hear that kids don't like Catcher. My class LOVED it! Holden didn't use the same slang that we did, but he had the same attitude and the same propensity for cursing that we did. Honestly, it was the only book we read in high school that I feel confident saying the whole class read.
Kudos John, Holden always gets a bad rap. Maybe because so many serial killers claim that the book spoke to them, or else they have it on their person when caught i.e. Mark David Chapman. I have read the book numerous times and depending on my mood get something from it each time...though I have never had the urge to kill :)
I know you've written about this in the past, and I've generally agreed with you, but I can't help but think at this point that you're not so much right as you are just getting older. And I don't mean that inn any bad way, but let me try to explain just briefly.
I know that what you're saying is theoretically correct, and as a teacher of English, I try to show kids that there's a right way to think about things, and I agree that they need to be shown that, for their own sake.
But, I have to disagree when you say that's what kids are in school for. They're in school to learn how to think about thinking (as DFW says in your favorite speech) more than anything else! Sometimes we need to foster these ideas (Gatsby's symbolism should be open to interpretation!) more than force the accepted ones down their collective throat.
It's dangerous to say, "Only this interpretation is valid." And I hope that I'm misunderstanding you, because that seems my translation of your text.
I'm an English teacher. Plenty of kids still love Holden. The NYT is simply wrong. The same kids like Holden that always have - the ones who relate to him.
Catcher is my favorite book of all time (your Paper Towns is on the list, btw), but I have accepted that people generally either love it or hate it.
Thanks for this. Holden is amazing. :)
Michael, I am not at all saying that there is only one good or interesting reading of a text.
I'm saying that not all readings of a text are _equally_ good or interesting.
So for instance, it's very interesting (and defensible) to argue that Holden is the author of his isolation.
And it's interesting (and defensible) to argue that Holden is not the author of his isolation.
Claiming that Holden "needs to take his Prozac" is not interesting, because it shuts off lines of thinking instead of opening up.
I agree with you that English class is about learning how to think (and learning what to think about). But I think when we say that all readings are equally good, we're not teaching people what to think about; we're teaching them that they already know how to think and what to think about.
And of course that isn't true. It's never true, for teenagers or for adults.
What people tend to forget is that while society and all that is conected to it has changed in the last 100 years, people are still the same people. With the same problems, the same kind of loneliness and the feeling of not belonging. Holden can still teach us and the children many things about himself and thereby about themselves that they might not realize in the beginning.
I didn't like Holden when I first read the book, not because I thought he was whiny and annoying, but because he was like me. I didn't want people knowing what I was like on the inside. I wanted everyone to think I was pleasant and always thought great things about everyone. In reality I loathed most people in my high school and had a view of the world like Holden's (minus the catching falling kids).
It's a good book. People just don't want to admit their inner thoughts.
Thank you so much for this defense on Holden Caulfield's behalf. I wrote my own on facebook, but it pales in comparison to yours.
People need to realize that yes, this book is going to seem dated, for it was written over 50 years ago. The language and customs will not be up to speed, much like how it is with every other "classic" high school english classes are forced to read.
In my opinion, those who "hate" Holden, and therefor Catcher simply misunderstood him because they did not read the book well enough/at all.
So thank you for pointing these things our, and having Holden's back. Even though, no matter what any paper may say, I will still forever be trying to date him.
Also, I enjoyed Gatsby immensely, but can see where you're coming from on hating it.
Best wishes, Colleen
According to "Books that make you dumb"*, which is a pretty funny site to begin with, Catcher in the Rye is the fifth most popular book on college Facebook profiles, after Harry Potter, the Bible, Angels and Demons, and To Kill a Mockingbird.
So, basically, Holden comes right after two of the biggest recent book phenomena (J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown) The Bible, which has maintained a pretty strong publishing record for quite some time, and Atticus Finch.
College Facebook profiles aren't quite the same as ninth-grade classrooms, but since that's where most people in college were first exposed to Catcher, it's obvious that it's still resonating with plenty of teens.
*http://booksthatmakeyoudumb.virgil.gr/bookdetails.php?book=The+Catcher+In+The+Rye
That the NY Times is assuming that you have to "like" the main character in order for a book to have meaning is kind of mind-blowing. Hamlet spends a lot of his time whining too, but that doesn't mean he's not important.
It's not new for people to dislike Holden,
he's just not a very likable person.
like you said in that video, Holden is not Edward Cullen.
But that doesn't say anything negative about the book as a whole, it's still my favorite book.
I know an adult that still hates it because he says that all Holden does is whine.
But if all someone notices when they read the book is the whining, then they just aren't reading it right.
I'm in high school and about a quarter of my grade hated the book. It was really frustrating, I was arguing about it with my old biology teacher, that also hated it (the adult mentioned before) and walking down the hallway someone yelled "it's a bad book Adela, just get over it!"
Whenever people dislike something it's probably only because they don't understand it. Whether it's an idea or a person or a book. We just like to make up excuses about why we don't like it.
Scott, that's an amazing link. Thanks!
I've never read "Catcher in the Rye" and therefore can't comment on the book itself. However, I do have some teaching background and like every one here personal experience.
Granted not all interpretations of a book are correct or "good". I remember teachers always telling me what books meant and what was there reasoning, but not necessarily showing me how to reason my way through the book myself. We aren't all born literary wizzes and some of us need help learning how to construct and voice our opinion. Often the problem in schools is there can only be one right way to envision a certain novel.
Really, unless the author tells you what he or she meant, I don't see having varying or opposing views as a problem, as long as you can explain and defend your interpretation and are willing to learn more.
For example, my "Catcher in the Rye" type book in highschool was "The Diviners" by Margaret Laurence. You should read that. I'd like to see your opinions.
Gosh, I can't disagree with you more. Not in regards to Holden himself, but in how dismissive you seem to be about readers reading him.
I firmly believe that no reading is wrong that is properly supported. Yes, saying that Holden should shut up and take his Prozac is limiting and ends the conversation right when the conversation should be beginning, but disliking Holden for his own destructive and dismissive behavior isn't wrong so long as it can be supported in the text. The moment we tell children that the have to read Holden a certain way and that only readings that view him as a sensitive outcast are correct, we stop teaching them how to think and teach them only how to memorize.
Teachers should not be teaching children how to think about Holden Caulfield, but how to think critically. Students should be taught how to read so that they can come up with their own interpretations. Some of those interpretations might be really terrible, but getting things wrong is how we learn. Maybe you would have never learned the value of Gatsby if you hadn't tried to tear it down.
That's why it's literature and not math. There isn't one right answer. You're not right because you believe that Catcher in the Rye is a great book, and people who hate it aren't right either. But nor are either of you wrong. Hate it, love it, it doesn't matter, what matters is that it has inherent value, as does any interpretation that is well thought out, well supported, and well written.
For instance, I despise all the works of Hemmingway. Can't stand the guy's writing. I think he's terrible. Yet, in order to come to that conclusion, I've read practically everything he's ever written. I spent entire semesters in college debating professors who loved him, and writing critical papers about his work. I'm in the minority for not liking him, but that doesn't make my critical analysis any less valid. It also doesn't devalue Hemmingway's work. His work is hugely valuable.
Anyway, great blog post!
I would like to say that although I am not a teenager (I'm 21) I've recently finished catcher in the rye and loved it... but you know i bet if they plastered the book all over MTV and made a blockbuster movie out of it, while surely changing almost every thing that made the book great (can you say Holden getting in a huge gun fight with the pimp?), then it would probably be considered worth reading or cool. Kids these days are way too influenced by the idea of whats in and whats not. It gets pretty discerning to know that my generation and generations after me won't even try and get something out of the classics. They think its boring because there is no major fight scenes, no love triangles, a mystery labyrinth or a giant robot, while not being able to see the depth of the real story. The way i interpreted Catcher In The Rye was that i think that as we grow up we get this notion "wow no one in the whole world thinks THIS way and is as messed up in the head as me" we end up feeling isolated if we are the least bit set apart when it comes to the way we see things and mold them in our imaginations. I honestly just couldn't envision that my inner monologue could mirror anyone else. After reading the book i think that i realized that more people really do think about a million miles a second. I really didn't get any kind of... dislike of Holden. He made me feel not so alone in the great expanse of the universe.
but that is just how i see it.
I have a strange feeling that if you spent your blogging time writing and revising you stories, your books wouldn't have to have so many "New Moon" moments.
what's a new moon moment?
People keep saying that my blog post is implying that texts must be read a certain way, which is not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that not all readings are equal.
And I'm saying that liking (or not liking) Holden is not finally very interesting. The book isn't about whether Holden is likable, imho.
First, I think Catcher is an important piece of work but not Salinger's best. Reading and understanding the novel was interesting and definitely a learning experience. However, I think Salinger's other works are a lot better, and reached me in a way few books do.
Second, Holden is whiny and immature but so are all of the teenagers reading his story. So are a lot of adults. We might try to show the world we're level-headed, mature and have it all together but inside we're just like Holden is to some extent.
Third, I don't think students are in school to learn how to think a certain way. In fact, I think that's contradictory to your statement that English classes teach kids how to be people. Thinking 'outside of the box' and looking at books like Catcher or Gatsby in non-traditional ways can be rewarding for student and teacher.
Lastly, Statements like "kids are not in school so that they can tell us what they think" are what get kids to stop participating and learning. I don't know if I have to expand on that anymore..
This isn't the thorough response I had in my head but I don't want to write an essay on your blog post. Sorry if I sound like an asshole, I don't mean to.
John - Thanks for the clarification. I definitely agree that not all readings of a text are equally good or bad, and I think you, Shaun Hutchinson and I are all saying the same thing insofar as, it's important to learn to read critically by railing against something in order to eventually appreciate it? (Question mark b/c that started off as a declarative sentence but I ended up saying something that I realized would be putting words in your mouth if that wasn't what you were actually saying.)
It's important for all readers, not just kids, to realize their interpretations and opinions on books, characters, etc. must be defensible. If this is the point, we're definitely on the same page.
P.S. re: Kasey T's comment, I thought that was called Igby Goes Down? Not trying to be snarky at all, honestly, I just have always, quite literally, thought of it as an updated version of Catcher in the Rye.
"New Moon" is the name of the second Twilight book. You know, where they remove the most interesting character in the entire damn series for most of the book. Basically, it was a waste of trees and the Republican blood they use as ink.
Sorry for the consecutive comments, but had to ask this question of Ashley:
I'm not sure to whom you're speaking in your second-to-last paragraph. (This one: "Lastly, Statements like "kids are not in school so that they can tell us what they think" are what get kids to stop participating and learning. I don't know if I have to expand on that anymore.")
I haven't seen anyone say what you've quoted.
I read The Catcher in the Rye over the summer. At the same time, I think, you were reading it with the nerdfighters (Though, I wasn't a nerdfighter yet, not until October).
After reading the book, I adored it, but I found it really hard to explain why I loved it so much. A lot of my friends hated it and thought Holden was whiny and stupid, and I couldn't manage to explain why he wasn't and why I liked it. It wasn't until my English teacher started to teach it and then I watched your videos about The Catcher in the Rye that I fully understood the book and how good it was.
Post has been reworded to address Ashley's concern about the phrase "what to think."
Also, obviously I am not a teacher and don't claim to know how to engage students in a classroom. But I do think I have some sense of why school exists, and it isn't so children can have a forum to say the things they think they already know.
We have to find ways to engage kids, but appeasing them isn't the way, imho.
As has been said, you don't have to like the protagonist in order to critically think about the book and love it. In fact, the reason The Catcher in the Rye is so great is because we don't necessarily like Holden. We're not supposed to. And despite this, we can't help identifying with him, at least in part, which is what makes the book so relevant to our lives.
And those who say this identification is decreasing as times change just do not seem to understand the novel. I mean, yes, teens may not identify with being rich and hanging out in NYC with prostitutes, but it's not like most teens ever did anyway. It's not about the specific experiences themselves, but the universal themes found therein and what they reveal about Holden as a lost person who doesn't have all the answers. While the slang may change with time, one's ability to identify with that feeling does not, and it is something most everyone has felt to differing degrees at one point or another, whether they want to admit it or not.
He may be whiny at times. He may be immature at times. As we all are at times, both in our actions and in our thoughts.
But he's also much more than that. And that's kind of the point.
I'm a twenty-year-old college English major, and I love Catcher. I've read it twice, the second time along with the Blurbing Book Club, and I loved it more the second time around. Just look at the discussion in the nerdfighter ning forum to see how hundreds of teens still identify and are able to critically read and understand the story and Holden.
Holden isn't "losing his grip on the kids." "The kids"-- which is quite an ambiguous grouping to begin with-- they are referring to are losing their grip on Holden. A fact that gives all the more reason for English teachers to teach it in the classroom and push teens toward better ways of thinking, as you have said.
DFTBA. Although you never do.
Whoa, Johnny actually responds? Trippy as shit, man.
re. bellaziel and the 'new moon' moments in Alaska and PT: This can't be put down to lack of revising. It's a choice you don't like, but I made it for a reason.
Anyway, if there's a timesuck issue in my life, it isn't blogging. It's vlogging. :)
As a 15 year old who loves this book, articles such as the one in the NYT really get to me. I know most kids in my grade would automatically dislike the book if they even open it too begin with. I think the problem with teens today is that they aren't very open minded...at least at my school. They won't relate to Holden, not becasuse he is unrelatable and "old-fashioned", but because they won't try. They'll pick up on him whining and talking differently, but they won't truly read it or take in the symbolism. The last thing I want is to be condescending to teenagers since I am one and I hate that, but this is based on those I deal with each day.
John, Thanks for the clarification. I might have misinterpreted what you were getting at. I just think that even bad readings/opinions/interpretations of a book have value insofar as they can be used as a learning tool.
Kids can hate Holden and believe they don't relate to him, and then teachers can use that as a jumping off point to show kids all the ways he DOES relate.
Shaun: I agree that it can be a learning tool. I wouldn't, like, go into a classroom and just say, "You are wrong! You are stupid!"
I know, I know. And pulling New Moons actually helped further the plot and all, but it's just annoying. Hey, I never said I was rational. And, since I'm already way off topic, does anyone want to tell me why my sister keeps crossing her arms and saying "HooHaa Nerdfighters?"
As a high school English teacher, I must thank you for pointing out that our job is not to make students love a particular book. No matter how many times I tell students, "I want you to read it, not marry it!" they never seem to get the picture. I've also noticed that their writing seems more and more like advertising every year ("It's a great book; go out and read it today!!")
anyhoo, thanks again.
PS while I have really enjoyed your videos on Catcher, I have to share my favorite ever review, from a friend who read it for the first time while in his 30s: "Suck it up, pussy!"
Well said, as always, Mr. Green. The merit of the book in a classroom is that someone tells these students that the author made Holden unlikable ON PURPOSE. His awkwardness does not exist for students to judge as "interesting" or "uninteresting", or to judge the book as "good" or "bad". It exists as a literary device, something not even noisy teenagers can control. The NYT must know that.
For example, I didn't really like Margo or Alaska. And that was kind of the entire point.
I am a teenager and even though I have not as yet been forced to read the book critically and for education, I have read it for pleasure, and it remains one of my favourite books.
Obviously not many will admit, but we all feel outsiders at times, and therefore we can all really relate with Holden's feelings at least, if not his life. Which is definitely why he is such a great and well-written character, because he has that emotion and feeling, that connects all of the readers.
So, if people are saying they don't really have or have had any these feelings that Holden expresses, all it means is that they're liars.
I was a Holden-hater when I first read the book two years ago. Since then I have matured considerably and began to look at critical reading as a vehicle to a deeper understanding of literature, instead of annoying high school hooey. This revelation was in no small part thanks to you, John, and your videos in defense of Catcher and critical reading. Thank you for continuing to decrease world suck!
Flannery O'Connor put it best:
"The high-school English teacher will be fulfilling his responsibility if he furnishes the student a guided opportunity, through the best writing of the past, to come, in time, to an understanding of the best writing of the present. He will teach literature, not social studies or little lessons in democracy or the customs of many lands.
And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."
I don't understand how anyone can not like Holden. Then again, I also don't see how you could dislike Gatsby.
Well said.
Awesome post.
I'm 15 and have read Catcher atleast 12 times in the past year. I think kids who don't Like Holden generally have a very hard time accepting the fact that people aren't superheros and have emotions. A lot of my friends (who've never read Catcher but if they did they probably wouldn't like it because they are in denial) spend a lot of their time pretending to be happy about everything and ignoring anything serious or anything that'll make them feel. Like, they actually pretend what's going on in Iran or anywhere else doesn't exist because it doesn't make them happy. I think Catcher is actually uplifting, you look at how Holden feels and you can relate to the feeling of alienation and then you figure out how to actually live a life where you're aware of the bad and still can find the good. A lot of kids, the ones I know, don't even want to acknowledge tough things or the way Holden feels to keep themselves happy and that, to me, seems like a very superficial form of happiness.
One thing that bothered me about that article is that it doesn't recognize that whether or not people like Holden is COMPLETELY NOT THE POINT ANYWAY.
That's another thing they need to teach in English classes: stupid book club discussions about books - "I like this character! "I hated it when this happened!" - don't matter at all. Books aren't there for your personal enjoyment, especially books like Catcher. They're there to teach you something about being a person.
john green, PLEASE stop using the abbreviation 'imho'. If you want to say "in my humble opinion", just SAY so.
As a current high school student, I have to say that I think (atleast in my cross-section of society) that Holden is as influential as ever. My friends and I all regard Catcher as one of our favorite novels out of all our years in school. I don't know if a good coming of age novel ever really goes out of style. No matter what year it is, teenagers still go through the same identity crises that they always have. Holden is an awesome character. For me a whining, annoying character is embodied by Emil Sinclair from Demian. Compared to Emil, Holden is a totally sympathetic character.
I got John's point right off the bat. It is hard to have any sort of meaningful discussion with people who say "holden needs to go kill himself" - which is what I experienced in my Grade 12 english class when we attempted to learn about Catcher. If they could back up what they were saying then it might have been possible, but the majority of 17 year olds were unable to comprehend the idea of a personal or critical opinion. So myself and another girl in the class were left making futile attempts to state our thoughts while our teacher wanted to talk about prom. So I wanted to say thanks for posting your videos/blog posts about Catcher because I feel like I missed out on the experience of getting to critically analyze the book.
@ Bellaziel - I find it a little odd that you would have such a negative outlook on New Moon, as I find it to be one of Meyer's stronger novels. It deals with human emotion, strength of character, and loss. Instead of getting pages upon pages of physical description of Edward Cullen, you get some real honest character development.
Well that turned out longer than anticipated...
"It's not Holden's fault if people read him poorly."
That may be, but empathy and understanding don't have to mean you like it. I think you're right to bring readers to task for a wholesale disregard for a piece of lit based on like/dislike, but not liking Holden doesn't mean I don't understand him.
Though, I think you're dead on with an English teacher's job. It's so easy to forget that, to want the kids to like you and like what they do because it makes the day to day easier.
But Holden is still a jerk.
My English teacher killed a bunch of excellent books for me. The way she taught things did not teach us how to read critically...all we did was fill in charts with the traits of each character. When we studied the Canterbury Tales, we never read more than the beginning when all the characters were introduced. Instead, we had to memorize and were quizzed on each character and their description.
It sucked. I've learned infinitely more about how to read things critically from your discussion videos of Catcher than I ever did in school.
OK, so maybe I'm misinterpreting you a little bit here, and I understand what you mean by "not all reading is equal" but I sort of take umbrage to your statement "English classes are not in the business of providing enjoyable reading experiences." I get where you're coming from and I can see your point-of-view, but at the same time, always making reading an altogether miserable experience isn't going to turn students on to learning. There needs to be a happy medium of empowering students with choice and also making them read books for their own good.
As a teacher, I want kids to get that. I don't want to say, "You're reading this because I said so." Instead, I want them to have some choice and also later reel them in and say, "OK, now that you've read for enjoyment, let's see what we can get from this book as a group."
Forcing "education" down kids' throats is not going to make them lifetime learners and at the end of the day, that is my ultimate goal as a teacher - to create in my students their own curiosity, compulsion, and initiative to learn so they can use that gift and skill throughout their lives.
I know I am still a teenager and I LOVED Catcher in the Rye. In my opinion it's not Holden who's out of touch with the kids these days...it seems it's the people in the New York Times.
I'm 13 and I read Catcher, and I loved it. Holden didn't bother me much either. The different use of slang and the blunt observations of other people gave Holden more life.
His observations actually made me like him more, because I, being the angsty 13 year old I am, hate liars. Holden's observations of the obvious show he doesn't hide from the truth- honesty, something I value.
That, what I just said, actually had no relevance, but it's my reason why I like Holden, per se.
I also do agree that you shouldn't hate a book because you dislike the main character. This has happened with me in a book and it makes the book more interesting, IMHO.
I was reading through grad comments in my yearbook the other day and one was a quote straight out of Catcher. The girl didn't add anything else to it, just chose that one quote to sum up her four years of high school. I think that speaks heaps about the book's relevance it today's high school society.
Right on, John Green.
Oh, The New York Times. In so many instances have they written awfully wrong things about great books. They gave Infinite Jest a generally bad review, for Pete's sake.
And does anyone else find it a little funny that Holden Caulfield is being dubbed whiney right now, in 2009, when Bella Swan is the most popular literary figure these days? Kind of sad.
Catcher in the Rye rocks. Holden Caulfield is inside all of us humans and there he shall remain.
Catcher in the Rye and Gatsby have two things in common, each requires reading more than once and every time you read them they mean something new. I think your age gives you perspective that is gained through life experience.
I love it when you talk about Catcher, John. It's one of my favorite books, and has been since I read it in high school about 13 years ago. I re-read it at least once a year, and I always get something new out of it.
And I like your point about how appeasing kids is not the right way to engage them. I completely agree, and it frustrates me when I see kids get their way from teachers/parents just so the adults don't have to "deal" with them. Appeasing kids is no way to help them learn or grow.
(On the New Moon front, that's actually my favorite book of the Twilight saga. But then again, I've always been partial to the werewolf boy. :-D )
Hey John and commenters,
So I think I understand what you're saying in regards to what school is meant to do. Here's my paraphrasing your disagreement with the idea of appeasing kids in regards to literary interpretations: If teachers were there to merely confirm the understanding of student-readers, instead of challenge, inform or expand their understanding of a text, then there would be no use for English class. It would just be a book list. I agree with this statement.
Many students choose a stance on a book or character that is very limiting and doesn't allow them to further explore the piece. A teacher or classmate's perception can reopen the discussion and the examination of the text. Not all opinions are equal; some are unsupported, some are shallow, and some are from a place of unexamined bias. A good English teacher teaches students to challenge these opinions. However, I do agree that many, many interpretations can be supported and can be "right".
(P.S. My statement about opinions holds true with all opinions, not just those on books, imo.)
I am 16, and (my horribly defaced and stolen copy of) Catcher in the Rye is my favourite book.
(Then again, I am Canadian, and it's a well known fact that us Canucks are infinitely more sane than any American could ever hope to be. This is also extended to our taste in literature. :p)
I read Catcher when I was in my sophomore year of high school. I recently just transfered and felt like an outsider. This may be why I loved Catcher when I frst read it. In my English class we tackled the book through a factual means. Who did Holden say this to? The book became my favorite when one day I was walking home from school. There is this park (still) that exists between my old high school and where I used to live. Young kids are always playing there and to me the place seemed unaffected by "reality." So this one day I was walking and on one of the concrete walls of this park was the word "Fuck." Suddenly, I felt like nothing was sacred anymore, not even children. It was a whipflash emotion. I was angry and then smiling. I got it! Since then I have not looked back. I probably should.
Frank Portman said it all in King Dork. A boomer conspiracy, a cult.
Of course Holden Caulfield seems dated. But, as you say, whether we 'like' a character or book, is not always the point. Rather, how do we engage with it? What do we make of it? Where could a novel take us?
When my English class was covering Catcher, I would have loved to be told what to think. I didn't understand it. Not until you made the vlogs about Catcher did I realize how great a book it is or any of the meaning behind it.
Thinking about it, I'd say Catcher is the book that has stayed me most. Growing into a Holden-like thought process (self-contained and entirely the product of the Ego) is so much different than identifying with Nick Carraway's personality.
I think some teenagers have trouble seeing Holden because they haven't hit that "I'm alone" moment. The difference between knowing about that feeling and truly feeling it is immense. Everyone I've talked to about the book has talked about how their loneliness was almost justified, explained by Holden's. And when everyone hits that moment at different points, teaching Catcher in schools will always be a miss for someone.
I don’t think you have to like the main character; I don’t think you even have to relate to the main character. I definitely don’t think you have to be hip to the slang and style to enjoy a book, although I do think that it often takes more concentration, or maybe dedication, to get something out of a book that seems foreign to you.
I don’t understand all this judgement. We read Gatsby in my English class and we kept having discussions about whether Nick was a “good person” or a “bad person”, which blew my mind because I was, and still am, under the impression that he was simply a person. When I read a book I like to wander around in the book-world and look at the people there, but I’ve never had this compulsion to label them.
And now for a new trick where I argue both sides of a statement:
Michael said “books aren't there for your personal enjoyment” but I think they kind of are. Deep musings on humanity told largely through symbolism are awesome, but in this super-quick world of activity and distraction there are a thousand different mediums someone could be learning that life lesson from. When someone no longer has to abide by the curriculum something is going to have to pull them into the book for them to make time to read it.
Which is not to say that I think everyone should only read things they enjoy, especially when they’re learning. I think that teachers should show us how books are understood, because the enjoyment of some books comes from thinking deep thoughts about them and understanding them in different ways, and we don’t innately know that.
I agree with you John, in that I would love to have someone lecture me on the highly regarded views of others instead of asking me about my feelings. As much as sometimes it makes me feel unoriginal I like to have stepping stones to build my own opinions off of, especially when there is so much literature and I have read so comparatively little of it that sometimes, I feel a bit lost.
Finally, and a bit off topic, I think something should definitely be done about education in general, because honestly I feel that I learn very little of anything at school.
Also, I have to say I agree with Megan, us Canuck teens are the finest :P
So sorry this post is so long!
-Amanda
As an English major, there are a lot of books I have to read for my classes that I don't particularly enjoy reading. John's right, though. Enjoying it isn't the point. Learning from it is the point. I'm not a huge fan of "Holden from about a year ago" that "Holden in California now" is talking about, but I do like "Holden in California now." People always think Catcher in the Rye doesn't have any kind of closure. It doesn't really end. False, it ended on the first page when you found out that FINALLY Holden has found someone to talk to - you. He's still not the happiest yuppie in the world, but he's come pretty far from where he was about a year ago. Just rambling. The point is, stop trying to LIKE Holden. Instead, try to figure out what J.D. Salinger wanted to say by writing the book.
Students in my high school are required to read "Catcher..." I love it as they are familiar with the book and I can then entice them to read "Looking for Alaska." They love the book and come back for more!
I read it in school. I hated it. That was also during musical season, when I had little sleep. I'm going to give it another try this summer. See if Holden "speaks" to me at all. Thanks for the encouragement.
Funny, John mentions kids hate Holden because they don't want to admit they relate to him. I actually hated Catcher for the exact opposite reason -- I totally related to Holden, so reading the book was like being in my own head, where I already am all day, so I really don't want to have to continue to be there & then take quizzes on it.
I'm actually giving Catcher another chance this summer, just because of you , John Green. I know you love the book, yet (I think) your writing is infinitely better than Salinger's. Let's see how it turns out!
I think the problem that a lot of readers have with Holden is that he's annoying and self-absorbed. Um... who isn't? Should we only read books about terrifically well-adjusted people? Of course not. Holden may be annoying, and he may be wrong about a lot of things (like Al Pike being strictly a bastard-- very few people are strictly bastards), but he's also RIGHT about a lot of things, and we can't dismiss him just because he's immature.
The thing about Holden that makes me sad, though, is that he's never quite able to get out of himself, or gain any perspective. He can't "read" the people around him compassionately, and as a result, he gets stuck in the mire of his own alienation. So that's sad, but it's not a reason not to like the book.
What "irritated" me most about the book wasn't Holden - it was the stream of consciousness narration. It was the first book written like that, that I had ever read & it confused me for a while. After a while though, I realised how good a book it was :)
I am currently between my first and second year at SF State U and a high schooler I really enjoyed that book, then again I liked all but two high school reads, Their Eyes Were Watching God and Romeo and Juliet. I could not force myself to read those books and I am a big reader.
I think that the reason most people hate Holden because he reminds teenagers of what they hate most about themselves at times.
I really like him as a character because it reminds of when times were much more trivial and we did not worry about adult things like money and sex. I agree that teenagers need to take another approach to understanding Holden.
I agree that some readings are more interesting than others, but I think you might be giving too much credit to the teachers.
I think a significant percentage of intelligent kids end up hating the books they studied at school because their teacher's reading of the books is less sophisticated than theirs.
What a fun cerebral discussion John has spawned here. Too bad we aren't all in a coffee shop, I need a muffin.
Probably I missed this point already being made somewhere above, but the NY Times thrives on putting out Controversial Bullshit articles like this. The injunction story from last week no doubt spurred this crack analysis, i.e., either a senior editor or the author herself, Jennifer Schuessler (a NY Times Book Review editor), came up with a basic story idea to expound upon the injunction story for the bulky Sunday Times, and this emerged per their preordained hypothesis.
Its not hard to find a few people who will say American teens today are somehow vastly different than in 1951, though I posit that in all the ways that truly matter they are fundamentally the same. And Scheussler, a 1990 Harvard graduate, is no doubt far less in touch (in both age and actual contact) with teenagers than John Green. Indeed, as a wise tweet noted, she didn't even talk to a single teen in writing the essay.
My teaching point to the teens: Don't be afraid to call bullshit on the NY Times -- exercise those critical thinking skills.
OK, muffin time.
The six year old part of me want to jump up and down at the whole-hating-what-you read in English class, but the decade older me is saying “Not really, you just didn’t like the teachers..’
Which brings me back to the whole ‘Teachers are supposed to teach critical reading skills.’ which already spawned a blog post during BEDA (from my comment, incidentally.) It seems that some schools do….and some don’t. Prime example being MY school. I can only think of one teacher, my ninth grade teacher who tried to teach how to read critically, and as much as I’ve tried to hold onto that way of reading, I’ve lost it. I can only name maybe two works I’ve read recently that I read that way, and those were The Crucible by Arthur Miller and Paper Towns by Whatshisname OH! John Green. Oops. >.< But the discrepancy between my freshman year English education and my education Sophomore and Senior years is HUUUUGE. Which makes my AP English assignment a thing of terror for a grade-whore as myself.
Back to not liking books-in-English-Classes….I saw that rereading certain books after the class made me LOVE them. All of Poe, The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, The Crucible, 12 Angry Men, LOVE LOVE LOVE
Sorry for rambling, and thanks as always for your time!
~Wynn
I am a high school student--a junior in the fall. Last year I was assigned Catcher in the Rye for summer reading. I had read it a few years before, and although I had liked it during that initial reading, it hadn't resounded with me like it did last summer.
What I would like to say is that, as someone who has gone through this experience quite recently, it is really difficult (especially in a class discussion in front of your peers) to admit to empathizing with Holden. Even so, a lot of kids still really "get" him, in spite of what many adults today seem to think. And the thing is, not everyone has to love Holden to understand what he is feeling. Now, I don't speak for all teenagers, but I can say with confidence that said understanding is true for a good deal of my peers. This is because teenagers still go through a lot of the same problems Holden goes through. We still feel the pressure of having to become and adult, of having to make something out of ourselves. We still reluctantly recognize that the grasp we have on childhood is no longer as firm as it once was. I, personally, really related to Holden's connection with innocence, how he wanted so badly to preserve it in the children around him. And we sure as hell still know what its like to be lonely. Just because he uses different slang, or goes to see a play instead of going to a multiplex, doesn't mean we can't still grasp what he is feeling.
Also, this article sort of makes teenagers out to be these blasé, jaded Holden Haters who are immune to the emotions in the book. Apparently, we are all so competitive and goal-oriented that gosh! only the triumphs of Harry Potter could possibly catch our attention these days. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely rereading Harry Potter this summer, but that doesn't mean that anti-heroes are unpopular or hard to relate to.
This isn't to say that there aren't a good number of teenagers who still think Holden is a whiny nutcase. But can we expect anyone to love every book thrown at them? You said yourself, John, that lots of kids hate lots of books that are accepted as "good." I hate A Separate Peace. Can't stand it. But you don't see a 'Get a Life, Gene and Finny' anywhere, now do you?
John,
Did you read KING DORK?
I attempted to teach Catcher this year as a first year teacher. I could have done better.
I didn't know what to say to those kids that called Holden whiney/crazy/annoying because... well, he is. But does that mean that we can't learn something from him? No! I love your youtube videos about Catcher especially when you address this issue of Holden being a real person ("He's not Edward Cullen"). I showed my kids your videos (I saw you in OKC and told you that... not that you'd remember out of the 1,000,000 people you met, but still...) and I think some of them got more out of your three videos than anything else I did all semester.
I really want to try again with Catcher, but I've since moved to Virginia and I'm going to be teaching 7th grade now. 12 might be a bit young for the prostitutes.
Anyway, thanks for your post. I'm trying to rework my teaching frame of mind for next year so I can attempt to do better during year 2. Keep your fingers crossed for me.
~ Steph
I have never read catcher in the rye so I really have no opinion on whether it is a good or a bad book. But there was one point John in your post where you said that teachers teach that there are no wrong ideas.
It's funny because my english teacher would say that ALL the time and then if you were to say something in class that wasn't exactly what they were looking for they would say no that's not right even thought hey had just said there are no right or wrong answers. I think that's why I hated english so much in High School. Could never get the damn teachers to say what they meant.
I love how in the article someone comments that the language is "dated". Well, duh. Holden, however, is not dated or out of style. The world is filled with just as many, if not more, lost teenagers as before. Even those people who don't seem lost are lost sometimes. I thought Catcher in the Rye was great, and I'm sixteen and not a big fan of most of English class kind of books--though I really liked Gatsby!
I am astonished that so many of you folks don't seem to understand that Holden is grieving for his brother Allie, and this is the background to everything he says and does in that wild weekend. He's hurting, not only for selfish reasons, but with the eyes of grief he's just realized how unfair the world is to everybody, and how "phony" most people are. And look how compassionate he is--he feels bad for the prostitute when she folds her dress so carefully and he is sad when he imagines her going into a store to buy a dress to wear for customers. So he tries to show her respect by attempting a real conversation with her. His heart hurts for the girl who is too kind-hearted to bring her kings out of the back row in a checker game, and he is outraged when his brutal roomate takes advantage of her. And he adores his little sister Phoebe ("she knocks me out") for her stalwart innocence, and wants to protect her and all the other innocents in the world (hence the title). How could anybody call this whiny?
You know, the only book I had to read in high school that I actually liked was The Catcher in the Rye.
I never liked Catcher in the Rye.
Maybe it just caught me at the wrong time.
I'm 14 and Catcher in the Rye is my favorite book of all time. i have read a lot of books.
kids who don't like catcher in the rye are kids who don't understand it. Catcher in the Rye made me feel less alone, it's still relevant today.
I'm 17 and I love Catcher. I don't think its widely read among my classmates but those who do read it seem to like it. We don't do it in school though, we do Mockingbird, Speak, Lord of the Flies and a good deal of Shakespear. Do Americans read it in school?
I'm 17 and I love Catcher. I don't think its widely read among my classmates but those who do read it seem to like it. We don't do it in school though, we do Mockingbird, Speak, Lord of the Flies and a good deal of Shakespear. Do Americans read it in school?
By amazing coincidence I just started reading 'The Catcher in the Rye' for the second time, yesterday. I think it's a great book...
although I also think Holden's a bit of an idiot.
"Perhaps Holden would not have felt quite so alone if he were growing up today." This is so untrue. There always have been and there always will be people, especially teenagers, who feel "so alone"! What about "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", published in the 1990s - Charlie couldn't possibly have felt lonely according to this article.
Moreover, it doesn't really matter if students today find the language "grating and dated". The plot is set in/around 1946, NATURALLY the language will sound "dated", it's slang from more than 60 years ago! Read any book using some kind of slang published even a couple of years ago and it will sound dated. So what, we shouldn't read any of them anymore??
I sent this to my senior English teacher on Facebook and he "like"d it. :)
John and All:
One Swedish author thought H.C. was important enough to write a sequel with a 76-year old "Mr. C." (Caufield) escaping from a retirement home to roam New York once more. Salinger took the dude to court and a U.S. Judge just banned the unauthorized book in The States (it's already been published in the U.K.). Here's the BBC's link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8129782.stm
Trying to steal some dough from the 'Rye'. Sheesh.
--Angela Orr (a.k.a. @AngelOrr)
catcher is behind angels and demons? i am ashamed for my generation. seriously. i'm so, so sorry.
I read The Catcher in the Rye in eighth grade. Not because I had to, because I wanted to. I fell in love with Holden. (Of course, I fell in love with Salinger in general shortly after. I have a Franny and Zooey based tattoo) I think Holden's struggles are universal to anyone who takes the time to look at the world. I'm about to enter my freshman year of college and I still love Holden. Not that this relates too much to what you wrote. Only that I, personally, found Holden timeless.
I can't understand why any teenager would say they don't like Holden Caulfield. He is the quintessential teenager. Of course, not every teen is the same, but for the most part we ARE whiny and would like to think we really are different from the next kid. I'm not really sure if we are, but I know that Catcher in the Rye has really helped me like literature should. When I picked it up in Barnes and Noble I'll admit I had no clue what it was about. I knew it was considered a classic, but not much else besides that. I read the first page and knew immediately this was going to be my favorite book. And now on the inside of my copy it's underlined everywhere, there are little notes in the margins, and the cover is quite a bit more worn than when I started. I firmly believe every book is written for a reason. I think those who don't like Holden aren't really listening to what he's saying. I always thought that he was an iconic symbol when it comes to identifying with teenagers. Maybe NYT was misinformed, or perhaps Catcher in the Rye really is losing it's grip with this generation. I don't know. All I know is I love Holden and without sounding too "phony" he really helped me out when I turned to him for guidance.
P.S. I hated Grapes of Wrath in school. Now that I'm a few years older and in college, I appreciate why it was written and I do believe it's a great book. It just wasn't the book for me and that's okay.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home