Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Catcher in the Rye Revisited

From " An occasional series in which The Post's book critic reconsiders notable and/or neglected books from the past." (This is a pretty good series, we usually learn a lot from Yardley).

Anyways, turns out Yardley absolutely HATES the book. One thing he claims is it may have invented adolescence as we know it today. Is that true, or was the book more a product of its times? It is certainly a book that appeals mostly to teenagers: you read it in 9th grade and think it's great but read it at 25 and it seems pretty silly.

Yardley says "The Old Man and the Sea" is also a terrible book. But he doesn't say why it's so bad, which is a shame because we'd like to hear more. We had to read this book in school and didn't like it that much, but knew it was supposed to be really good and Hemingway is a genius and all that. Maybe we were right all along!

J.D. Salinger's Holden Caulfield, Aging Gracelessly (Washington Post)


The Keoki said...

That man is an idiot! He cannot read "Catcher" and feel the same way. That book captures the essence of the pain and anguish and anger that comes with that time in your life. But now at 30 I would be a fool to belive that reading it again would illicit the same response, it's the same reason Morrissey doesn't have the same weight now for me that he did when I was in my teens. Similarly, I couldn't enjoy the Rabbit series as a teenager, it seemed like a bunch of old man crap! Whereas I've since revisited them and they have a resonance due to my life and experience.

Canowine said...

Michael Schaub at Bookslut has more hate mail for Jonathan Yardley. That's what happens when you pan the treasures of other people.

So Yardley, beware. You trash the Hardy Boys and Archie Comics, and you will find yourself dealing with my deadly eagle claw style.

The Keoki said...

that sum bitch better not say a bad word about Judy Blume 'cause i'll rip him a new corn shoot!!!