No one hears about the third baseman in the rye
Just so you know, I'd much rather be posting yesterday's brilliant insight into the Potterverse, but I can't remember it, so instead I'll talk about my streak of perversity. John Scalzi's talking about books he didn't like or never read, like Harry Potter (which he hasn't read) and Catcher in the Rye (which he didn't like). He reposted a long essay entitled "Holden Caulfield at 50," in which he explains why he didn't like the book, dissects Holden's character, and predicts the future arc of his empty life. It's a view with which I should identify, since I disliked Catcher in the Rye for many of the same reasons.
Reading the article and the comments ripping the book, though, made me want to reread it. This is stupid. As my friend sciwitch says, "Life's too short for bad books." Catcher in the Rye's not a bad book, per se. It's just not one which holds any appeal to me. Despite being something of a fuckup myself, I had no patience for Holden's whining or empathy for his problems. I found him the wholly unappealing protagonist of a book in which nothing happens. Yes, I know it's describing the arc of Holden's mental journey, but it's really not a long trip from pretty unhinged to totally insane, and that's the trip Holden takes. Thrilling.
Somehow, though, other people ganging up and expressing what is essentially my opinion makes me want to reread the book and prove them (and by extension, me) wrong. After all, it's a literary classic, loved by generations of young people. There must be some value to it, right? But this isn't me not getting The Last Unicorn at fifteen, then coming back later to find the book's subtle joys. I read Catcher in the Rye when I was supposed to, and didn't like it. There's no reason to think fifteen more years are going to bring me closer to Holden's nihilistic point of view. So the only thing I can conclude from this (besides that rereading would be a waste of time) is that I'm a weird dude. But you knew that.
Reading the article and the comments ripping the book, though, made me want to reread it. This is stupid. As my friend sciwitch says, "Life's too short for bad books." Catcher in the Rye's not a bad book, per se. It's just not one which holds any appeal to me. Despite being something of a fuckup myself, I had no patience for Holden's whining or empathy for his problems. I found him the wholly unappealing protagonist of a book in which nothing happens. Yes, I know it's describing the arc of Holden's mental journey, but it's really not a long trip from pretty unhinged to totally insane, and that's the trip Holden takes. Thrilling.
Somehow, though, other people ganging up and expressing what is essentially my opinion makes me want to reread the book and prove them (and by extension, me) wrong. After all, it's a literary classic, loved by generations of young people. There must be some value to it, right? But this isn't me not getting The Last Unicorn at fifteen, then coming back later to find the book's subtle joys. I read Catcher in the Rye when I was supposed to, and didn't like it. There's no reason to think fifteen more years are going to bring me closer to Holden's nihilistic point of view. So the only thing I can conclude from this (besides that rereading would be a waste of time) is that I'm a weird dude. But you knew that.