Cindy wrote:whc03grady wrote: I'm curious as to the inclusion of Catcher in the Rye as well; most of its impact was in the 1950s, not 60s as I recall from the many things I've read about the book.
It took place in the 50s, but the disillusionment Holden felt led, in part, to the later social "revolution."
I asked about it because Holden struck me as a young man set apart--not willing or even able to identify with larger trends. He was dangerously introspective. He seemed to have lost his faith in society, in any form (culture, counter-culture, or otherwise). And the book itself was written as a human story--not a political message. Salinger wanted nothing to do with the effect it had on "the masses," God bless him. It's more soulful than a political movement could ever be.
Cindy
Cindy,
I thought your question deserved a more detailed response than the one I gave in my longer post ~
I would argue that Holden's disillusionment is more direct in two ways; the first is that the anxiety that post-war America felt about itself was fairly widespread, and started earlier than most would give it credit for. The widespread success of both the book and the film
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit by the mid-50's suggest that the "American Dream" that many experience post WW II was an illusion ~ a fiction that paper over much that was amiss. Now we know about things like PTSD, and can look back and see the cracks forming early; I would put
The Best Years of our Lives in this same category.
The second is that his real problem with society centers firmly on an issue that is represented in both of those films (and Kerouac's
On the Road I think): the wide gulf between the mouthed solemnities of the adults who proclaim that "all is well" while all the while underneath the mask of social order, things were falling apart. References like The Rolling Stone's "mother's little helper" suggest that it was apparent to the kids that Mom n' Dad weren't as happy as they made out to be. The youthful anger at the difference between what parents said, and what was really going was, I think, a real anger ~ and emerged right along with the more adult disaffection that Flannel and Lives express. This anger is essentially the source of a film that I would love, LOVE to watch in this class:
Rebel Without a Cause. The real irony is that he does have a cause, but society doesn't take him seriously ~ they are, in Holden's terms, "Phonies".
I don't think it's too much of a jump to move from the more local, personal rebellion of Holden and Jim to the larger rebellion of the 60s, in which popular youth culture gave expression to the vastly larger number of kids in the Baby Boomer generation ~ and once they recognized the power of numbers, what was personal became political; what was rebellion became a movement. So, given that I couldn't think of a book that expressed the personal experience of disaffection from the perspective of the youth from the 60s, I chose Catcher because I feel that it links strongly with the theme of personal rebellion.
Some of the other issues in the book seem relevant to me. Holden's conflict between his physical desires, more easily fulfilled by sex without emotion, and his emotional desires, more easily fulfilled by companionship with emotional connection, suggest to me a precursor to the sexual revolution that was to come in the 60s ~ how to balance physicality against the needs of social stability, trust, relationships, etc. It seemed like a nice thematic link that moves from a local issue in the book, to a social issue in the 60s.
I also knew that Catcher was an important book for people in the 60s. It's not by chance that Salinger is the inspiration for the Terence Mann character in
Field of Dreams, one of the most powerful films about the 60s,
as an time period that affected people, to emerge in my youth. Salinger is actually the author being sought in the novel
Shoeless Joe written by W. P. Kinsella. Kinsella felt a connection I guess, with Salinger, because Ray Kinsella was a character in a Salinger short story, and Richard Kinsella is a character in
The Catcher in the Rye. When you see how they talk about "Mann" in the film, it's clear that Kinsella, at least, thought Salinger was an important writer to the people in the 60s. I quote the Sparknotes entry on the context for the novel, not because I think it's awesome, but because it can be considered to be so conservative as to represent a widely accepted view:
"Though controversial, the novel appealed to a great number of people. It was a hugely popular bestseller and general critical success. Salinger’s writing seemed to tap into the emotions of readers in an unprecedented way. As countercultural revolt began to grow during the 1950s and 1960s, The Catcher in the Rye was frequently read as a tale of an individual’s alienation within a heartless world. Holden seemed to stand for young people everywhere, who felt themselves beset on all sides by pressures to grow up and live their lives according to the rules, to disengage from meaningful human connection, and to restrict their own personalities and conform to a bland cultural norm. Many readers saw Holden Caulfield as a symbol of pure, unfettered individuality in the face of cultural oppression."
That's pretty much how I'm going to approach it too, though I'm open to further discussions about it, especially if we hit on something that might fit better. I might add, that in writing this, it was the first time I considered
Rebel Without a Cause ~ that's worth thinking about, though it's not 60s
per se.
Thank you for your thoughts ~ I'm interested to hear what you think of my approach that I've given here. I don't hold it as "right" but rather as an explanation of how I'm thinking. Feel free to peel away the bits and pieces and see if you agree, disagree or think we might look in a different direction.
I need to go to sleep now, thanks for wading through this. I await your insights, and thank you for your willingness to take up these questions.
Michael L
