Anne Trubek on Why We Shouldn’t Still Be Learning Catcher in the Rye
Why is The Catcher in the Rye still a rite of high school English? Sure, J.D. Salinger’s novel was edgy and controversial when teachers first put it on their syllabi. But that was 50 years ago. Today, Salinger’s novel lacks the currency or shock value it once had, and has lost some of its critical cachet. But it is still ubiquitously taught even though many newer novels of adolescence are available.
To this day, The Catcher in the Rye remains one of the most referred-to books on back-cover blurbs. Melissa Bank’s The Girls’ Guide to Hunting and Fishing is, “as a coming of age story … one of the best since Catcher in the Rye”; Douglas Coupland’s Generation X is “a modern-day Catcher in the Rye”; David Sedaris’s Barrel Fever is “a caustic mix of J. D. Salinger and John Waters.” Indeed, there are many tales of adolescent angst out there, and they all, it seems, need a wink to Salinger to claim a place in this genre. But Salinger’s novel no longer deserves the top spot in contemporary coming-of-age literature, even if most would still agree that it firmly occupies the X spot in the “X meets Y” publishing pitch (“It’s Catcher in the Rye meets Blood Diamonds”; “It’s Catcher in the Rye for gay teenagers”).
High school teachers got on the Catcher bandwagon in the early 1960s, in an effort to update their hoary reading lists. When it was first assigned, Catcher’s purpose in the curriculum was to offer students a contemporary, cool alternative to, say, something lengthy and dense like David Copperfield. Salinger had a prescient sense of his hero’s eventual cultural role: Holden starts his story by telling us he is not going to rehearse “all that David Copperfield kind of crap,” because it bores him.
If Salinger needed to acknowledge Dickens in 1951, today any new adolescent coming-of-age tale must go through “all that Holden Caulfield crap.” In the 19th century, a bildungsroman showed the growing maturity and self-awareness of a young person. That remains more or less true, but now the equation for the modern bildungsroman is more like, as a friend puts it: “Horny plus bored minus transportation divided by the whole of one’s interior life, multiplied by an inverse ratio of miles to a city or a place where there is anything at all to do.”
The publication of Catcher helped launch a “Salinger Industry,” as George Steiner described the phenomenon in a 1959 article for The Nation. Released in the summer of 1951 by a 32-year-old writer with a modest reputation as a short-story writer, Catcher was a mid-summer Book-of-the-Month Club selection, and by fall it was fourth on The New York Times Best-Seller list. A scant eight years later, the critic Granville Hicks thought twice about including Catcher on his New York University Contemporary American Literature syllabus, because 18-year-olds had already read it.
One reason for Catcher’s instant-classic status was that is was—to employ that overused neologism—“relatable” to those who had the power to write about it. In 1961, The New York Times Book Review credited the popularity of Catcher with the “shock and thrill of recognition” it gave readers: “Many of my friends and this writer himself identified completely with Holden.” Those few well-known critics who did not look like Holden tended to have a different perspective: Joan Didion, who thought Salinger’s work slight, mocked the “relatability factor” of Salinger’s novel in a 1961 essay, in which she describes a “stunningly predictable Sarah Lawrence girl” who declared Salinger “the single person in the world capable of understanding her.” Like Didion, Steiner considered Catcher of minor literary merit. Its main appeal to students, he argued, is simply that the young like to read about the young, prefer short books, and ones without too many references to other books. Salinger, he says, “flatters [their] very ignorance and moral shallowness.” And it helped English professors get promoted, Steiner grumbled, since writing about Catcher “requires less research and has less competition than writing yet another essay on Shakespeare.” The Salinger Industry proved that there was something “seriously wrong with contemporary American criticism.”
American criticism may have been in trouble in the 1950s, but it is in even worse shape now. Today, there is far less overlap between what teachers, scholars, and the public read. Rare is a combination of scholar, public intellectual, and pedagogue who publishes—as did Steiner, or Lionel Trilling or Edmund Wilson—across our increasingly specialized publications. And rarer still is the common reader (say, a high school teacher) who peruses scholarly journals, educational publications, and general-audience magazines alike.
Despite critics’ disapproval, Catcher is now canonical. It is a part of literary history. Holden is our contemporary American David Copperfield, our 20th-century Huck Finn. He’s part of our common conversation, our cultural literacy. You have to admire the guy.
Still, after half a century of new, equally “relatable” coming-of-age-stories, don’t some of Holden’s younger siblings deserve the end-of-the-year spot in sophomore English? Since a syllabus is a zero-sum game, adding means knocking something off the list (“Scarlet Letter!” yell my undergraduates). But not to worry: Given that a higher population of Americans now attend college than they did in the 1950s, most will be forced to read the old classics a few years later.
A revised syllabus:

Freaks and Geeks (1999)
NBC’s series, produced by Judd Apatow, deftly portrayed the tenderness and anxiety of high school.

Speak, Laurie Halse Anderson (1999)
Anderson’s Speak tells the story of Melinda, a high school freshman and teenage outcast whose struggles with adolescence cause her to fall mute.

Drown, Junot Díaz (1996)
This book of short stories (by this year’s Pulitzer Prize winner) is told from the perspective of Dominican adolescents struggling with family, sexuality, and identity. The lyrical, inventive prose makes their stories all the more memorable.

Project X, Jim Shepard (2004)
Shepard’s bold novel tells the story of two eighth-graders in a Columbine-style school massacre. Shepard tackles one of the scariest aspects of 21st-century adolescence.

American Born Chinese, Gene Luen Yang (2007)
This graphic novel tells that age-old story of trying to accept who you are. Taking up Asian-American themes, Yang breaks new bildungsroman ground.

Old School, Tobias Wolff (2003)
Set in a prep school in the early 1960s, a scholarship boy with literary ambitions tries to find his voice. Wolff reworks Salinger’s terrain without sentimentality.

The Virgin Suicides, Jeffrey Eugenides (1993)
The first novel by the author of Middlesex plays with the horror genre, and tells us that not all is at it appears in suburbia. Unflinching and masterfully written, Suicides is not easy, but that’s the point.

Anywhere But Here, Mona Simpson (1986)
A mother-daughter story about life on the road and a child’s desire to be rooted. Simpson reminds us that sometimes a teenager’s rebellion against a parent is warranted.
Like this article? Tell the world It's Good!





3 votes
Wrong, wrong, wrong...
I first read Catcher in the Rye three years ago when I was a freshman in high school, and I honestly believe that Catcher in the Rye is far more appealing to adolescents than any of the books that you have listed.
No other book can resonate with so many adolescents. Look at the books in your "revised syllabus." The characters of these books are "Dominican adolescents," a "teenage outcast" who falls mute, "two eighth-graders in a Columbine-style school massacre," a daughter who must deal with "life on the road," "a scholarship boy with literary ambitions," etc. How could any of these characters be 'relatable' to a wide range of teenagers? Having experienced the displeasure of reading these books, and others like them, I can firmly state that none of the characters within them resonated with me, or the majority of my peers.
Holden's problem is simple. He isn't ready to accept the world for what it is. That is the essence of adolescence, and the reason for his timelessness.
Posted on August 21, 2008 — by spillz
1 comment
not yet rated
Sadly Irrelevant...
Anne begins her piece: "Why is The Catcher in the Rye still a rite of high school English? "
Answer: It's not.
The only exposure I had to Salinger's work in my teens was through the media, such as the Mel Gibson movie "Conspiracy Theory." It was never even referenced in high school.
Also,as a guy with a BA in creative writing from a prominent Michigan university who has read his share of books in and out of school, you can take my word on it that the book is all but ignored in college-level courses as well.
Anne makes a point in terms of literary criticism - not every story of a disillusioned youth needs to be compared to "The Catcher in the Rye." Aside from that, I feel her post, while written well enough, is sadly irrelevant.
That said, Salinger's best work in my opinion is found in his short stories anyway, particularly "A Perfect Day for Bananafish."
Posted on August 24, 2008 — by s6thalmann
0 comments
not yet rated
couldn't disagree more
I haven’t read all of the alternate coming-of-age options listed here, but I have read/viewed some, and the biggest problem with the list is none of them is nearly as good as A Catcher in the Rye.
I first read it when I was a teenager in the late 80s. That’s around the same time I first heard the Sex Pistols. I heard the Beatles way before I’d ever heard the Sex Pistols, and now as a guy in his mid-30s, I still prefer the Beatles. But what the Sex Pistols did for me that the Beatles never did was they made me think about WHY I liked them. Why do some songs speak to us and others don’t? The fact that the music WAS so simplistic and stripped down is exactly what forced me to think about that. It’s not something you think about much as a pre-teen—you pretty much just like whatever your friends like. But it’s a good thing to start thinking about when you’re a teenager, and I think Salinger has a similar impact on me in the realm of literature. It didn’t matter that neither Salinger nor Johnny Rotten was my contemporary. I think I preferred that they weren’t. Green Day wasn’t around yet, but if they or some other modern imitation had been, I would’ve felt like I was being marketed and pandered to.
Of course, some people just don’t like Salinger--Anne Trubek seems to be one—and everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But for me and all my friends, Salinger was it. Junot Diaz just wouldn’t have cut it.
Posted on August 26, 2008 — by sek
0 comments
1 vote
Missing the point
I'm afraid you have missed the point. I am one of those "teachers who got on the band wagon", although in my case it was in the '70's. I change the books I teach yearly, but I have taught Catcher every year of my career and every year students find new things in it. It works because it is full of extraordinary poetic structure and symbolic language. As my twenty four year old son who forwarded this article to me said, it has, " a simultaneous density/brevity that even Hemingway never quite touched." That, Ms. Turbeck is why we continue to teach it.
Posted on August 27, 2008 — by mpollak711
0 comments
not yet rated
Yay Anne!
Yay Anne for questioning the status quo! And yay for the suggestions you have made. I agree with everything you have said about Catcher in the Rye. Of the books you recommend, I have read Virgin Suicides. That book is so much more about THIS world, for all it's eery and surrealistic tone. Now to start ordering the other books you recommended.
Posted on August 27, 2008 — by ScotterMonkey
0 comments
1 vote
Utterly absurd.
Maybe it's because I myself am just a "stunningly predictable Sarah Lawrence girl" (and a New School girl, for that matter,) that this essay made me want to puke. But my extremely high opinion of Catcher and Salinger is not even the point--the point is that the author's arguments/opinions are unconvincing on more general levels. Do we stop teaching kids certain literature because It's not new enough? Would we not teach one of your pieces in the 'revised syllabus' in the future because some Joan Didion of today didn't like it? Is the fact that a young reader probably has no idea who the Lunts are something that makes this book less timeless? I think the reason the book is still such a dominant figure is because it DOES resonate with so many people, young people included. I never related to it in the way that I thought Holden described me or that Salinger understood me. I just treasure this book because it is a masterpiece, and if you think that modern literature doesn't owe it much, then you're deluded. Not to mention if you think that Jeffrey Eugenides is a better writer than Salinger...
Posted on August 27, 2008 — by SarahParadise
0 comments
2 votes
Nice.
How nice. You have suggested a revised syllabus that includes a television show.
Has it really come to this? Discarding art and literature for television?
I am now dumber for having read this tripe.
Posted on August 27, 2008 — by ellzey
0 comments
not yet rated
The Problem with Required Reading
No list of books can be appealing and relevant to all students. Can't we lose the idea that all kids in a class need to read the same books? Let students choose for themselves what novels to read, and have them present their books to the rest of the class, or keep a reading log. Require them to learn the plot of the "traditional" English class books without having to read the whole thing. That way they'll gain the cultural literacy, and get practice reading full length books, without getting turned off of reading completely.
Posted on August 29, 2008 — by CClio333
0 comments
not yet rated
One Question.
When did we agree that the point of a syllabus is to please the students? Students are perfectly capable of pleasing themselves, in their freetime. I, like many normal high-school girls, read Catcher in the Rye because my boyfriend told me to. I was entertained but not impressed, but that's not the point.
University-level education is already commercialized enough for the entire system. Kids can take whatever nonsense they want to for courses as undergrads, so they really need to be "forced to read the old classics" for every minute that the educational system can still control their curriculum.
I also strongly object to the assumption that highschool students can only enjoy or relate to relatively recent stories about adolescents. I know that when I was in highschool, we all very much enjoyed Waugh, and the boys (who thought a great deal of themselves) had no trouble at all relating to the Scarlet Pimpernel.
Posted on August 30, 2008 — by elletrice
0 comments
not yet rated
Down With Catcher!
Although I spent a fair amount of my high school years obsessing about J.D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye (which was NOT taught at my school), I agree that schools should expand their reading lists. Salinger was also a bit of a misogynist, wasn't he? Maybe that should at least be included in the discussion.
As for Freaks and Geeks, that show pales in comparison to My So-Called Life. What a beautiful show about teenagers... from different backgrounds and sexual orientations. This show should be added to your list!
Posted on September 2, 2008 — by mousercat
0 comments
not yet rated
Perhaps you should retire
Holden Caulfield, is arguably, one of the most relatable protagonists in American literature. The "arguably factor," makes him a relevant point of discussion, which is critical in a class environment, especially during a time when this is most lacking. "Catcher in the Rye," is a classic, assigned for this reason, because it has the greatest chance of promoting relevant discussion among a demographic who have very different reasons for relating, or not. I am by no means suggesting that newer literature should not too be assigned. I am an advocate for the most diverse of reading lists, because I believe that they yield the most comprehensive knowledge in the end. Having said this, I don't think that newer, or more popular literature necessarily equates to more relevant literature. This point has been greatly overlooked in the article. My question is, when proposing to take "Catcher in the Rye," off of school reading lists, in order to make room for newer, "more relevant" works, what possessed you to list "Speak?" Not that I would ever assign any of these proposed alternatives to an entire class. But "Speak?" really? why? how? Not only was it a wretched book, it was then turned into a poor excuse for a film, which is occasionally featured on none other than Lifetime, TV for Women. I'm baffled.
Posted on September 3, 2008 — by sestantonse
0 comments
not yet rated
There is a gap between criticism and readers, educators and students
Excellent point about the gap between criticism and what people read.
And fantastic description of the modern bildungsroman.
Perhaps the real issue here is status quo. It is hard to promote change when an oldie-but-goodie can be a guaranteed success.
And too, there is now a saturation of available texts, which can be overwhelming to time-pressed educators. It's easy to just go with an old stand-by.
Catcher in the Rye may have more resonance if assigned as a "classic" and read in conjunction with a more modern coming of age tale. While the emotions of Catcher in the Rye may still be relevant, I think the characters and settings presented in your revised syllabus would offer a better range of pertinent discussions.
Literature needs to be presented as a dynamic and current art. Not as a "classic" time-capsule from the past - which I think only alienates young readers and discourages young writers from experimenting with language and content.
Posted on September 5, 2008 — by kt1eighty
0 comments
not yet rated
Broaden your mind!
I read Catcher in the Rye in 1980 when I was in High school. Not because it was assigned, but because my big sister said it was a good book. Memories of it made me curious to pick it up again this last spring.
I agree that the setting will be foreign to many adolescents today, but the internal dialogue, Holden's worries and comments about the world DO resonate today. And Phoebe is irresistible!
The books recommended by Trubek, while they may better catch the attention of a particular demographic, will not necessarily speak better to today's readers.
A common mistake in education today is that teachers think kids only want to read about kids just like themselves, and that kids need to read about characters just like themselves in order to work though their issues. Children in any one of Trubek's demographics may feel even more alienated if the only literature that they are exposed to show kids like themselves in difficult times. In contrast a Dominican girl for example may get a lot more out of reading about a white boy who ALSO has issues.
Posted on September 6, 2008 — by lufi
0 comments
not yet rated
Missing the Point?
I read Trubek as arguing for questioning Catcher's sacred status in the canon, not for throwing it out with the bathwater. She makes good points about what has made and still makes Catcher important. I read it in high school, and again recently in my late 30s. I can't remember how I felt as a teen, but I didn't relate to Holden at all on my latest reading. I found him (and possibly by extension, the author) to have a strangely hyperidealized image of children.
In contrast, I can and did very much relate to the narrator of Speak, Lindsay of Freaks and Geeks, and Angela in My So Called Life. Because I related to them, should they be on the list? Maybe yes, maybe no. Just like Catcher. I don't agree with the PC stance that we have to try to include everyone's voice. But I do think it makes sense to include more than one, and to acknowledge that one, particularly of a wealthy white male, isn't universal.
For anyone interested in questioning Catcher further, Frank Portman's King Dork, a YA novel, makes an entertaining, if not high art, case.
And what is wrong with including television shows or a movie along with books? One well-written show or movie as a complement to a dozen books might provide a different window to similar themes.
Posted on September 8, 2008 — by Girl_Detective
0 comments