Skip to content
About these ads

Archive for September, 2010

Sep 30

1 Comment

And so it begins: Gone With The Wind

I lived in metro Atlanta for most of my life but never read this book or watched this movie. But the 1,000 page journey has begun.

To this point, my strategy has been to read relatively short books, 300 pages or less, so I can get some early momentum. But after reading four books in about a month, I’ve decided to tackle my first beast of a book–Gone With The Wind is just over 1,000 pages.

I haven’t read the book nor watched the movie. I know, I know…for a boy who has lived 90% of his life in Georgia, almost all of it within a 1 hour drive from the Gone With The Wind setting, this is inexcusable.

But after reading about 70 pages, I can’t say that I’ve made a mistake not reading the book until this point.  I’m having a hard time getting into the romantic life of a 16-year-old girl in the mid 19th century. Where’s Billy Pilgrim when you need him? I’m hoping my opinion will change sometime within the next 900 pages.

Anyway, this book will likely take me a while to read. Don’t expect a review this weekend or anything. But, as always, I’ll have related posts on the blog that aren’t just a book reviews.

Sep 27

23 Comments

Book #4: Lord of the Flies

Quick Facts

  • Lord of the Flies only sold 3,000 copies before going out of print in 1955. But by 1962, the novel had sold over 65,000 copies and was required reading at many colleges.
  • Stephen King has been heavily influenced by the novel. In fact, “Castle Rock”—the town that appears in many of his novels—came from the island landmark in the book.
  • The connections between Lord of the Flies and the television show Lost are too many to count. To name a few: the island, the monster, two dueling leaders (one of whom is a hunter), the overweight comic relief character. The first season of the show drew heavily from the novel.
  • Lord of the Flies author, William Golding, won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1983.

My Thoughts

Lost drew heavily from Lord of the Flies.

I find it interesting that three of the first four novels I’ve read during this project involve adolescent protagonists. But that’s really all Lord of the Flies has in common with The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird.

The story is a bit depressing. Set in World War II, a group of schoolboys–who have been evacuated out of England—crash onto a deserted island. What starts as freedom and maybe every boy’s dream (an island to explore, without grownups!) slowly devolves into chaos, mutiny, and even murder.

Two leaders emerge: Ralph, who is intent on getting off the island by keeping a signal fire going no matter the cost, and Jack—the more aggressive and vocal of the two—who becomes the group’s face-painted hunter and eventually overthrows Ralph as leader.

In a nutshell, the story demonstrates two of man’s competing tendencies: order versus chaos. At first, the boys follow Ralph’s lead. He blows a loud conch to summon everyone when he chooses to have an assembly. They discuss matters of the island—food, shelter, and fire.

The longer the boys stay trapped on the island, the more chaos that follows. Jack and his group break away from Ralph and Piggie, who is the voice of reason, and begin painting their faces, hunting pigs, and participating in “tribal dances”—during which one boy, Simon, is killed. They begin hunting—to kill—Ralph and any other stragglers that haven’t joined their club. It’s no longer play time on the island.

There’s an interesting tension between this disjointed civilization the boys have created for themselves and the fact that they are in fact still young boys. You almost forget that you are reading about a bunch of kids. They exist in a world of life and death, but issues like imaginary monsters still haunt them.

One of the youngest  sees a “monster” early in the story. Slowly, they all begin to believe a monster lives on the island. This beast turns out to be the dead corpse of man who parachuted onto the island and got hung up in a tree. The wind knocks the parachute around and, at night, seems to be a breathing beast.

Jack offers a sacrifice, a severed head of a sow, to the imaginary beast. This
sacrifice is “The Lord of the Flies,” a smiling head that attracts flies, of course. But, more than that, it represents the evil that has overtaken the island. In one scene with Simon, he imagines the head talking to him, telling him that evil lies in all of us and to have fun with it:

There isn’t anyone to help you. Only me. And I’m the Beast. . . . Fancy thinking the Beast was something you could hunt and kill! . . . You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? Close, close, close! I’m the reason why it’s no go? Why things are the way they are?

There’s a load of symbols here that point to Satan’s influence on man. We all have the potential to be evil. Simon resists, but ends up being killed by Jack and his savages.  But Jack gives in, illustrating how out of hand we can get when we follow that path.

Golding’s writing is memorable. If you’re not into overly-descriptive writing, you may find the novel a bit tedious at times. I’ll be honest, I did.  It’s not uncommon for Golding to take a couple of pages just to set up a scene. Here’s an example:

The edge of the lagoon became a streak of phosphorescence that advanced minutely, as the great wave of the tide flowed. The clear water mirrored the clear sky and the angular bright constellations. The line of phosphorescence bulged about the sand grains and little pebbles; it held them each in a dimple of tension, then suddenly accepted them with an inaudible syllable and moved on.

My favorite novels have a fair amount of dialogue with descriptive paragraphs seamlessly woven throughout. With Lord of the Flies, I felt like Golding was almost too descriptive. Some critics may laugh at a statement like that, but I’ve read a lot of novels and sometimes I get bogged down by rereading sentences two or three times. That was the case, at times, while I read this novel.

Other Stuff

The Meaning: As I mentioned above, the decapitated pig’s head on a stick is the Lord of the Flies and symbolically represents the presence of evil on the island.

Highlights: I loved the final scene of this book. It’s a beautiful exchange between Ralph and the naval officer who rescues them. Maybe it was the officer’s patronizing tone, but, for the first time in the novel, I became vividly aware that these really were just kids.

Lowlights: I’m not a fan of some of the overly descriptive sections of the book, but who am I to question a Nobel Peace prize-winning author? Kurt Vonnegut says every sentence in fiction should advance the story. Sometimes, I got bogged down in Golding’s descriptions, anticipating the next set of dialogue or forward movement in the plot. It was distracting.

Memorable Line: I thought this piece of dialogue, quoted by Piggie right before he died, sums up the main tension of the novel: “Which is better–to have rules and agree, or to hunt and kill?”

Final Thoughts: I enjoyed Lord of the Flies, but I wasn’t overwhelmed by it. Would I read it again? Doubtful. In just 200 pages, Golding tells an involved and layered story. At times, I couldn’t put the book down. And, at other times, I was just ready to finish it and move on to the next novel. The story is a half a century old, but it still influences both literature and television today. It’s definitely worthy of Time‘s list, but maybe it’s just not my cup of tea.

Up Next: Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Question: Lord of the Flies fan? Why or why not did you enjoy the novel?

Sep 23

1 Comment

Two Signed Copies of the Top 100 Up For Auction

I rarely, if ever, ask for autographs. But if I ever paid for an autograph, I’d want to see the person sign whatever it is they were signing.

The book up for auction. Credit: Charity Buzz

That’s why I’d have a difficult time buying these two books. An extremely hard-to-find signed copy of The Catcher in the Rye (first edition) is up for auction. The current bid is just over $3,700. JD Salinger was a reclusive man, so to find anything that he signed is special.

Charity Buzz is auctioning the book, and all proceeds will to the Cure For Cancers organization. According to the Charity Buzz website, the “Salinger signed book has been certified authentic by Steven Rocky, founder of PSA and Global Authentication. The winner of this auction will receive authentication paperwork from Mr. Rocky’s appraisal firm.”

In other auction news from the list, a first edition copy of Jack Keroauc’s On The Road is currently priced at just over $4,600, with the next minimum bid at $4,901. The same appraisal firm has authenticated this book as well.

Neither of the bids on these two books have met the reserve. I would hope that any charity auction is 100% sure that books like these have legitimate signatures. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I couldn’t drop that chunk of change on something that I can’t be certain is authentic, no matter what a piece of paper says.

Sep 18

15 Comments

Book #3: Slaughterhouse Five

Quick Facts

  • Lost fan? Desmond Hume’s time travel sequences were largely inspired by Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five. Desmond himself quoted Vonnegut when he said he had become “unstuck in time.” The idea behind pushing a button in the hatch “to save the universe” was also based on the alien race in the novel.
  • The book is also known as The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death, which refers to the age of many of the soldiers.
  • A movie, directed by Guillermo Del Torro, is scheduled for release in 2011. A 1972 film version of the book was a box office flop.
  • Slaughterhouse Five author Kurt Vonnegut passed away in 2007 at the age of 84. He was known for being passionately anti-war and an ardent critic of the Bush Administration.

My Thoughts

Slaughterhouse Five is one of the strangest novels I’ve ever read. It simultaneously manages to be extremely profound, highly political, and incredibly humorous–especially if you are into dark humor.

The novel was based on author Kurt Vonnegut’s own experiences as a prisoner of war during World War II. After being captured by the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge, Vonnegut joined a slew of other American and Russian soldiers in Dresden, where he was one of the few survivors of the American and British-led fire bombing attack on Dresden.

Vonnegut’s writing style is simple–short, declarative sentences. But the content of the book itself is quite complex. Slaughterhouse Five seems like a quick, easy read, which it can be. But if you read it took quickly, you may miss some of the author’s signs along the way.

There’s no doubting that Slaughterhouse Five is anti-war novel. Vonnegut was an American on the ground–or, more accurately, under the ground in the Slaughterhouse–when his own military bombed the city to hell and back. It’s one of the more controversial bombings in American history.

But while the novel may be anti-war, it also includes a heavy dose of time travel, optometry, and  alien abductions. Yes, you read that correctly.

I’ll try and sum up Slaughterhouse Five as quickly as I can. The protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, is a war veteran who, on the night of his daughter’s wedding, became “unstuck in time”–enter time travel.

The story is told through hundreds of small episodes that jump between different periods of Billy’s life–periods that Billy himself is traveling through: his military days, including the Dresden bombing, his life as an optometrist, the alien abduction, his time on the planet of Tralfamadore, and his final days as the crazy lunatic who talked about aliens all the time.

The aliens, you see, lived in four dimensions–the fourth dimension being time. Time, for the Tralfamodorians, wasn’t linear…it just was. Billy explains:

“When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes’.”

To the Tralfamadorians, death was just one part of life…one small event in a sequence of unordered events. In keeping with this philosophy, the novel’s narrator, who was an unnamed soldier (Vonnegut?) who experienced many of these events alongside Pilgrim, says “So it goes” following the mention of any death. The short phrase appears 106 times.

Kurt Vonnegut passed away in 2007.

Ultimately, Slaughterhouse Five explores the relationship between fatalism and free will. The aliens believe in fatalism–what’s meant to happen is going to happen and there’s nothing that can be done. Contrast that with many of Vonnegut’s characters who believe in free will, especially evidenced during war time.

But the effects of war and, especially the Dresden bombing, eventually weigh Billy down. The fatalistic philosophy eventually affects him:

There are no characters in this story and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters.

There are so many intricacies of this novel, it’s hard to do it justice in a few hundred words. Slaughterhouse Five manages to be a World War II novel and a sci-fi novel at the same time–which shows Vonnegut’s talent in bringing those two worlds together.

The Tralfamadorian race and their philosophies play an important role in the novel, but it all comes down to the events at Dresden, which end up shaping Billy Pilgrim’s world view. So it goes.

Other Stuff

The Meaning: Slaughterhouse Five was simply the slaughterhouse in which the American prisoners of war, including Billy Pilgrim were placed in Dresden. The location, below ground, saved them from dying with tens of thousands in the Dresden bombing.

Highlights: I loved Vonnegut’s blunt admission in Chapter One that it was pointless in writing an anti-war novel. Check out the following exchange between him and another character:

“You know what I say to people when I hear they’re writing anti-war books?”

“Yes,” I said. “I guess.”

“I say, ‘Why don’t you write an anti-glacier book instead?”

What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that, too.

And even if wars didn’t keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death.

Lowlights: The novel is iffy on the facts–granted, it’s a fiction novel. And, granted, at the time Vonnegut wrote the novel some people believed the casualty count at Dresden was well into the six figures.

In a later chapter, the Dresden bombing is said to have been worse in casualty count than Hiroshima. In recent years, it’s been revealed that the maximum number of people killed in the Allied attack were 25,000. Still an horrific number, but no Hiroshima.

Memorable Line: “So it goes.” — Narrator (Vonnegut) Said 106 times.

Final Thoughts: This is an anti-war book. If you’re not accustomed to, or don’t  enjoy, reading alternate viewpoints, then you may not want to read Slaughterhouse Five. But that’s a shame. It’s a great book. Having experienced many of these events first-hand (sans the alien abduction), Vonnegut has the experience and credentials to back up his philosophies, whether or not we as readers agree with them.

Up Next: Lord of the Flies by William Golding

Questions: Your thoughts on Slaughterhouse Five? Are you a fatalist or a free-will believer? Why or why not?

Sep 15

3 Comments

Why Read?

So what’s the point of this blog quest? Several reasons, really.

Self Improvement: I’ve been on a self-improvement kick over the last few years–taking public speaking classes, running half-marathons and marathons, and now I want to read a ton of books. I think it’s just continuing a trend in my life. Of course, I’ve still got a lot of stuff to work on.

Do I have the time? Not really. I’m at work 45 hours a week, at least. I have a three-month old. I’m training for a marathon right now. In between all that, I can find an hour at lunch every day, and maybe an hour at night while the baby is going to sleep to read. That’s all I got, max, on an ideal day.

But I feel like reading just makes me smarter, and it makes me a better writer. It’s like eating healthy or exercise–you can come up with a lot of reasons not to do either, but if you really want to do it then you will make time for it. If reading makes me a better writer–and I believe it does–then I need to make time for it, no matter how hectic life is.

Why fiction? I used to be one who rarely read fiction. I was a non-fiction guy–memoirs, creative nonfiction, biographies, inspirational Christian stuff, self-help, whatever. Those books are all well and good; I’ve read them for years and will continue to read them. But the best writers are fiction writers.

Think about the greatest authors of all time. Who comes to mind? Probably not a lot of nonfiction guys. And this comes from a guy who spends his week writing nonfiction articles. You can learn a lot from fiction when you read the good stuff, not the grocery store paperbacks. It’s not just escapism.

And, then…why not? If I’m going to read books anyway, why not read the best? I’ve always loved lists, so this just gives me one to follow for a couple of years.

Why Time Magazine? In 1998, The Modern Library published a list of the best 100 novels since 1900. I could’ve gone with that one. But while researching this idea, I found a lot of people on the internet were blogging about reading through the Modern Library list. There truly is nothing new under the sun. But I wanted to do something different. Plus, I honestly like Time‘s list better…it has a few more books that I haven’t heard of, and there’s some mystery in that for me. So Time it is.

There you go. Just a few random thoughts on this little quest.

Sep 13

69 Comments

Book #2: To Kill A Mockingbird

Quick Facts

  • To Kill A Mockingbird (published in 1960) has sold more than 30 million copies, been translated into 40 languages, and won the 1961 Pulitzer Prize.
  • The novel was made into a hugely successful movie in 1962, starring Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch.
  • In a 2006 survey of librarians, To Kill A Mockingbird was second only to the Bible in a list of books everyone should read before they die.
  • Dill’s character in the book was based on Truman Capote, a childhood friend of To Kill A Mockingbird Author Harper Lee.
  • To Kill A Mockingbird is Harper Lee’s only novel, and one of only a few of her published pieces.

My Thoughts

I’ve had quite a few people ridicule me for never having read To Kill A Mockingbird. My wife said I should be ashamed to be a southerner. It’s true; I should be ashamed. That’s why I put this book second on list of the 101. Thankfully, now that I’ve read it, no longer am I a loser southerner.

Some books are just good as books. Maybe they are well-written, with beautiful prose and creative imagery. The authors do their job—which is to entertain you. But To Kill A Mockingbird is a different kind of book. Not only did Harper Lee manage to do all of those things, she also made a social commentary that has impacted millions of people over the last five decades.

You know the story. Or, if you don’t…it’s time you read it. The book is really broken into two parts. The first part centers on the narrator—a six-year-old girl named “Scout” Finch—her older brother, Jem, and their best friend, Dill, who visits every summer. The three spend their summers in the dusty old town of fictional Maycomb, Alabama trying to figure out a way to get the reclusive, rarely-seen “Boo Radley to come out” of his boarded up house across the street.

The second part of the novel follows Scout and Jem as they deal with the repercussions of their father’s court case. Atticus Finch is a lawyer who is representing an innocent black man, Tom Robinson, accused of raping the town drunk’s daughter. Atticus and his family endure all sorts of verbal, and even physical, abuse from white townspeople who are livid with him for representing a black man. When Robinson is convicted by an all-white jury, eventually getting killed when he tries to escape from jail, all hell breaks loose in Maycomb.

Very few books that I’ve read have painted such a picture of time and place like To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper Lee dropped me right in the middle of small-town Alabama in the 1930s—a town where everyone knows each other, some families are known to have “gambling streaks” and “drinking streaks,” and white folks love God and hate black people.

I love Lee’s description of Maycomb in the first chapter:

Maycomb was an old town, but it was a tired old town when I first knew it. In rainy weather the streets turned to red slop; grass grew on sidewalks, the courthouse sagged in the square. Somehow, it was hotter then: a black dog suffered on a summer’s day; bony mules hitched to Hoover carts flicked flies in the sweltering shade of the live oaks on the square. Men’s stiff collars wilted by nine in the morning. Ladies bathed before noon, after their three-o’clock naps, and by nightfall were like soft teacakes with frostings of sweat and sweet talcum.

In my dreams, I write like that.

The book is similar to The Catcher in the Rye in many ways. Both use an adolescent narrator who attempts to “fight the man”—Holden fights against he phoniness of the adult world while Scout, through her father Atticus, look to take a principled stand against a racist town who is bent on killing an innocent man.

Scout develops more as a character than Holden, making To Kill A Mockingbird more of a bildungsroman, which is a fancy literary term that means the protagonist is kid who learned a lot of stuff and grew up. The book’s timeline goes over a series of several years, and we see Scout and her brother Jem both progress as characters into young adults over this period.

Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch.

As a Christian, I would even propose that Lee’s book is heavy on Christian principles. To summarize the novel in one sentence, I’ll steal a line from Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view–until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”

I’m a Christian who does my best to follow Jesus, and that’s why I love the character of Atticus Finch so much. He didn’t care what the town thought. He didn’t care that he was the lone voice in the wilderness. He followed what he knew was right—even if it meant putting himself in danger. That’s integrity.

Other Stuff

The Meaning: The term “to kill a mockingbird” represents killing the innocent. Maudie tells Scout: “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”

Mockingbirds are innocent. Tom Robinson was a “mockingbird” who’s only fault was to try and help out a white girl.

Highlights: The prose. As I said above, I’ve never felt like I’ve been catapulted into another time and place quite like I did while reading To Kill A Mockingbird. I rarely re-read books (except for the purpose of completing this list), but when I’m done with the 101, I’ll re-read this one. It’s that good.

The book also has the Animal Farm feel. You know you are reading about something much bigger than the story itself.

Lowlights: On the flip side, it’s sometimes hard to believe the narrator is six-years-old. Her language and understanding of complex issues like justice and racism are extremely advanced. It’s an issue I noticed, but didn’t get too hung up on.

I disagree on this issue, so it’s not really a lowlight, but some critics believe the black characters are too one dimensional and are props to set up Atticus Finch as the hero. I thought main black characters like Tom Robinson and the Finch’s housekeeper, Calpurnia, were actually more complicated and complex than their white counterparts.

Memorable Line: “I think there’s just one kind of folks.  Folks.” –Scout Finch

Final Thoughts: Much like The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill A Mockingbird is a must-read if you really consider yourself an avid reader. You’ll take away a lot from this book. It really caused me to reset my mind and realize how far this country has come in terms of civil rights. No doubt, a far more subtle racism still exists here in America, but the type of angry mob that Tom Robinson faced, and Atticus Finch fought against, every single day is a thing of the past. Read it.

Up Next: Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

Question: Have you read To Kill A Mockingbird? Hate it? Love it?

Sep 10

3 Comments

Books I’ll Be Reading Again

Everyone I have told about this project goes through the Time Magazine list and counts how many books they have read. In my first post, I mentioned that I had read 12 of the 100 books (13 if you count Ulysses).

Here’s the list of  books I’ve already read, but will have to re-read to complete the list, with a brief comment on each.

  • Animal Farm: I think I read this in middle school/high school. Looking forward to it.
  • A Clockwork Orange: Trippy book. It takes several chapters just to get the hang of what the narrator is saying and what’s going on.
  • Beloved: Classic.
  • The Crying of Lot 49: Short book, but dense. Pynchon is not an easy read.
  • The Grapes of Wrath: Love it! Excited about reading this again.
  • The Great Gatsby: I’ve read this four times. Probably my favorite book. Another read can’t hurt.
  • Invisible Man: Great book about a black man in a white man’s world. Insight into racial stereotypes in the 1950s.
  • The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe: Doesn’t get much better than Narnia.
  • The Lord of the Rings: I’m putting this on here because I’ve read Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, but I haven’t read Return of the King. This one is going to be tough because the trilogy counts as one book.
  • On the Road: I read this book about a month after returning from a 3 month drive across the country. I thought I might become a beat poet. Doubtful.
  • The Sun Also Rises: I’ve always loved Hemingway’s style of writing.
  • Their Eyes Were Watching God: Read this in college but I honestly don’t remember much about it.

Of course, that list doesn’t include The Catcher in the Rye, which I recently finished as the first book in this challenge, and To Kill A Mockingbird, which I’ll be posting about it next. It also doesn’t include Ulysses, which I have already read and am adding on to Time‘s list as book number 101–just because it’s Ulysses and, screw the rules, it deserves to be there!

Revisit the list and tell me–how many of the 100 have you read?

Sep 8

31 Comments

Book #1: The Catcher In The Rye

Quick Facts:

  • The Catcher in the Rye is J.D. Salinger’s only published full-length novel.
  • Around 250,000 copies are sold each year, with 65 million copies sold total.
  • According to Modern Language Review Journal, the novel was the most censored book in high schools and libraries between 1961 and 1982.
  • The novel has influenced notorious criminals (Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley Jr.) as well as former presidents. George H.W. Bush said it was one of the books that inspired him.
  • Sean Connery’s reclusive character in the movie Finding Forrester was loosely based on The Catcher in the Rye author J.D. Salinger.

My Thoughts:

This is the first time I’ve ever read The Catcher in the Rye. How is it that a 34-year-old writer with an English degree has never read one of the classics of American Literature? I don’t know. It’s shameful, really. That’s why I thought I’d start this 101 book journey by reading this Salinger classic.

Published in 1951, The Catcher in the Rye is one of the most controversial and most-censored novels of all time. The controversy around the book is for a couple of reasons:

First, crazy people love it. John Lennon’s murderer—Mark David Chapman—was fascinated with the book. A copy of the novel was found in his possession the night he shot John Lennon—with the words “This is my statement” and Holden’s name written inside the book. John Hinckley Jr. was also a big fan. Police found the novel in his hotel room after his assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

Second, parents of teenagers historically hate it. It’s a book about a vagabond, rebellious, drinking and smoking 16-year-old boy, Holden Caulfield, who goes on a three-day romp through New York City after he is kicked out of an elite prep school. Since the protagonist is a teenager, teenagers would naturally be drawn to the book.

Until recently, though, when teachers assigned the book as school reading, all hell would break loose. That’s mainly because the language in the novel makes The Sopranos look like an episode of Barney. For a book published 60 years ago, that’s saying something.

The book is a quick, easy read. Holden narrates in a casual, stream-of-consciousness style, which adds to the authenticity of his character. He’s a teenager, and he narrates like a teenager.

Teenage angst. Loneliness. Relationship frustration. The no-man’s land that lies between childhood and adulthood. These are the themes of Salinger’s novel.

The Catcher in the Rye is punk rock in novel form. As a Generation Xer, the book feels almost like I’m reading through a Nirvana album—which makes it easy to understand how it’s been so successful through multiple generations. It’s timeless. Really, Salinger’s novel was punk rock before punk rock.

And what teenager hasn’t felt like Holden Caulfield? Holden is a teenager stuck between the authenticity of childhood and the “phoniness” of adulthood. He’s a rebellious kid with the mouth of a sailor and the propensity for dropping GD in every other sentence. He’s also holding onto his childhood—his favorite person in the world is his younger sister, Phoebe—while finding fault in almost every adult he encounters.

He reminds me of the person who is quick to point out the faults of others but never sees anything wrong with himself. For instance, he repeatedly points out the fakeness of other people (his date’s ex-boyfriend, his teachers, and adults in general), but he also admits to being a fabulous liar and seems overly concerned with his appearance (e.g. the orange hunter’s hat).

But that’s the beauty of the novel: Salinger wrote Holden’s character in such a way that he is always true to the complex nature of himself—an immature teenager trying to find his way in a fast-moving world (both literally and figuratively)—with all of his contradictions, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy in tow.

Other Stuff

The Meaning: I kept waiting on the significance of the term “The Catcher in the Rye.” Holden explains it in Chapter 22. In short, he’d love to save kids from the edge of a cliff that is adulthood.

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 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.

Highlight: I loved this bit of insight from Holden as he was getting ready to leave Pencey Prep after getting kicked out because of grades. Profound stuff, I thought. Do you ever regret not being able to tell a person—or, in this case, a place—goodbye?

What I was really hanging around for, I was trying to feel some kind of a good-by.  I mean I’ve left schools and places I didn’t even know I was leaving them.  I hate that.  I don’t care if it’s a sad good-by or a bad good-by, but when I leave a place I like to know I’m leaving it.  If you don’t, you feel even worse.

Lowlight: The fact that The Catcher in the Rye was J.D. Salinger’s only published full-length novel. He did publish many short stories and novellas, but he spent his last 50 years in near total seclusion from the rest of the world. This brings up the question: When you have a talent like Salinger, do you have a responsibility to share that talent with others?

Memorable Line: “All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” –Holden Caulfield

Final Thoughts: The Catcher in the Rye is a classic of modern American literature. If you want to consider yourself “well read,” you’ve got to read it—which means I wasn’t well read until a few days ago.

Up Next: To Kill a Mockingbird

Have you read The Catcher in the Rye? If so, what are your thoughts?

Sep 7

2 Comments

Breakdown of The List

I’ll be reading the 101 books in no particular order. Time didn’t rank them, and I won’t either. Whatever I feel like reading, I’ll read. Feel free to make suggestions along the way.

I’ve already read 13 of the 101, but I must reread them in order to complete the entire list. For the fun of it, I thought I’d write out some of my preliminary thoughts on some of the books in the list.

Can’t wait to re-read: The Great Gatsby–one of my favorite books.

Most anticipated first-time read: Catcher in the Rye ( I actually just completed this one as my first book and will review next.)

Oldest book on the list: A Passage To India by E.M Forster (1924)

Newest book on the list: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro (2005)

Most Intimidating Book: Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon and Ulysses by James Joyce

Why is this on the list? But I’ve got to read it anyway. Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret (1970) by Judy Blume

Ashamed I’ve never read, but will read now: Tie between Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Book I’ll finally get around to reading: Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace and Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

Perplexed by: The fact that The Lord of the Rings trilogy counts as one book…I guess it’s because Tolkien wrote it that way.

Most disturbing title: The Man Who Loved Children by Christina Stead

Click here to read the entire list.

Up next: Catcher in the Rye

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,136 other followers