Written in the conversational patchwork of a 17 year old boy, filled with the musings, trepidations, and often banal interests that strike his fancy, this book has propelled the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, into the front row of American novels by the interplay of interesting characters, novel situations, and classic adolescent dilemmas. Yet, it may only be fair to point out that stylish sentences, intricate analysis, and memorable phrasings will only be found in another novel.
This is a book that was written in a chronological, stream of consciousness flow of observations that neither peels away the layers of Caulfield's personality, nor piques the pretensions that unravel the purpose of his journey. In this reviewer's opinion, Holden Caulfield is no more an iconic figure of literature than Batman or Superman; we root for him and ascribe to him a set of super insights but, in the end, are left with only his alter ego which is not nearly as interesting nor as successful as the superhero we would prefer.
Populated with a stream of unique and unexpected acquaintances, "The Catcher In The Rye" is intriguing for its tireless quest into the meandering experiences of its protagonist while stumbling to find relevance in the shallowness of his discoveries. He seems neither to learn from his experiences nor to enjoy them. Yet, he moves from one to the next like an anteater sampling termite nests; one seems to be the same as the next, and none seems to satisfy the hunger that drives him to look in the first place.
His observations are often unnecessary or without purpose. As he seems, absentmindedly, to point out in one chapter: "I passed by this playground and stopped and watched a couple of very tiny kids on a seesaw. One of them was sort of fat, and I put my hand on the skinny kid's end, to sort of even up the weight, but you could tell they didn't want me around, so I let them alone." Was there purpose in this remark? Did it add to our understanding of Holden Caulfield, or was it just a random comment tossed in to make it appear to be a full accounting of his actions even though I'm sure he may have also looked at a bird in a tree, or stepped over an ant hill that could have as easily been included?
I am actually dumbfounded as to why this book has become an American classic. I see no elucidation, no discovery, no insight, no imaginative plotting, only a clueless boy drifting from one aimlessly haphazard situation to the next without satisfaction, without illumination, without growth or resolution. Can it be that even the title of the book, "The Catcher In The Rye", misleads us into thinking of Holden Caulfield as an active player in life while actually being no more than a doorstop to adventures that perplex and even disinterest him? At one point in the story, as he attempts to answer Phoebe's, his young sister's, question about what he would like to be in the future, he says that: "I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around nobody big, I mean except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be." This sounds more like an aimless lament than an energized choice in this reviewer's opinion.
His persistent use of the word "old" as an appellation attached to every name and acquaintance referred to in his story - as in "old Stradlater", "old Antonini" and "old Phoebe", to offer a few disparate examples - seemed to be more of a lazy, unnecessary convention than a notation of any significance; more like someone interrupting their speech with "ahs" and "ers" than with someone striving for an accurate description. Even his continuous need to clarify his comments with remarks like "to tell you the truth", or "if you really want to know", seemed to weaken the strength of his observations by having to reaffirm his honesty rather than bringing some conviction to his comments.
Perhaps more is made of this novel than I can fathom because surely it is a revered story used in countless classrooms to capture the ambiance of young adult intransigence while allowing Holden Caulfield to symbolize someone who would be a "catcher in the rye" for those who have lost their way. Instead, I think it should be recognized that Holden Caulfield is a "searcher" more than a "finder", and a "jumper" more than a "catcher". We would do well, as observers, to avoid his quandaries while also averting the impulsiveness of his ill-conceived conclusions.