Must Read My Ass!!

If you're even semi literate, I'm sure that you have heard that the 'oh so great' J.D. Salinger died a few days ago.  He was the author of the classic book Catcher in the Rye, and also spawned a small collection of various short stories in a short early burst in his 91 year long life.  I don't know the exact details of his death, but I can only assume that he died of boredom in some reclusive cabin in the woods that's very reminiscent of the one in the Evil Dead films.

In case you didn't know, according to every literary critic on God's Green Earth (ie New York), Salinger's literary work was some of the most iconic and transformitive writing that was ever blessed upon mankind.  That work of course being the one book he published, Catcher in the Rye.  Since it was published in 1951 the book has gone on to sell oodles upon oodles of copies to angsty, alienated teenagers, and snobby university types who feel it is required reading for anyone to progress further in life.

I myself have read it only once, and found the book to be a piece of utterly boring nonsense.

When I first heard about the book it was of course about the psycho who shot John Lennon who was also at the time desperately holding onto a copy of Catcher in the Rye as well.  Also, I had read about other wierd psychotic types out there in the world who for some reason or another, had professed that their madness was caused by reading said book.  I'd also read that at one time the book was considered dangerous for it's time, that it broke certain boundaries.  As a young man I wanted to see what all the hub bub was about and immediately went out to the library to find a copy.

I remember being terrified to actually read it.  What the hell would happen to me if I started to read this book?  Would I end up killing my whole family and boil the marrow out of their bones to use as bouillon for my Ramen?  Or go on a kill crazy rampage through my local supermarket because the book opened my eyes to something horrifyingly new?  Nope, not at all.  Instead I was just bored to death.

For those of you who are not in the know, I am going to spoil the entire book for you right now: Boy is on vacation from prep school, boy pouts all day and calls everyone phonies, boy goes and gets drunk even though he doesn't know how, boy buys prostitute and is too scared to have sex, boy goes home and cries, everyone is still phonies.  Amazing.

I literally spent the whole time reading the book waiting for something to happen, which was the only real reason I kept reading the book.  Instead it was like listening to my kid brother saying 'everyone's stupid' over and over again for three hours.  So basically, for me, Catcher in the Rye is like taking my kid brother to a bar.
.
Whenever I bring my opinion of this book up to anyone I only get one of two responses.  Either A) the person completely agrees with me, and cannot understand why they wasted their time reading the damn book when they could have done something more constructive like burn a bad book that shouldn't be read, such as the DaVinci Code, or I get B) the person who drops their jaw and says in an exasperated manner "You didn't like Catcher in the Rye!?!?", as if I had committed some kind of cardinal sin.

With the type B response I almost always get into an argument, bring up my valid points which cannot be argued, and then unreasonably expect said argument to be over with right then and there.  But things don't always work out the way you want them to.  The usual retort I get back is "Well, you have to take into consideration the time it was written".  I have always been the type of reader that has been able to take into consideration for when a piece of literature was written.  So yes, I understand the whole Post War generation thing, and that people were boring back in the fifties and were looking for something different, and that they didn't have High Definition Television yet.  It still doesn't change the fact that the book...is...boring.

There was an article on Newsweek.com, where the author said basically the same things I am.  I was surprised to read it, because usually when people like Salinger die all you will find is how amazing and awe inspiring said person was to the world.  What was even funnier were the comments left by readers of the article.  They posted some of the most spiteful things you could imagine, like this guy had just pissed in their Aunt's mouth or something.  All of them said something which read like "If you don't like Salinger then you don't like reading".  The overall tone was that these people just couldn't understand how anyone could not like Catcher in the Rye.

What this reminds me of is how upset people would get by me saying that I hate Romeo & Juliet, or almost all of Shakespeare for that matter.  I can't even transcribe in text the amount of flak that I received.  It was mostly along the lines of "He was the greatest writer ever" or "Romeo & Juliet is the best love story ever written" and so forth.

For me,  I could never subscribe to that way of thinking.  All of that man's writing is so horrendously boring it borders on self suffocation.  Every play, story or whatever the hell he wrote is the most simplest crap, that the only way to make it interesting is to have it shown in a theatre with everybody dressed up in garrish colors and feathers in their hats.  Which they did.  It's just that everyone is so drawn in by the unending supply of "forsooth" and "Yay, verily" that comes bound in every package, that it makes it seem so much more complicated than it really is.  Nobody can see the turd that it is because it's wrapped in so much green saran wrap.

For example, Romeo & Juliet is not a tragic love story of epic proportions, it's a story about two teenagers who need to get off as quickly as possible.  Out of fear of catholic damnation, and being grounded by their parents, they need to get married to bump uglies...in secret.  So after they do get married and make awkward first time love, in secret,  they realized that just once is not enough, and decide like all horny teenagers who just get married for sex, that they need to run away together.  Then when a strange little death/suicide scheme is concocted that makes absolutely no sense, one finally realizes that life is not worth living if there is no Taco Time, and kills himself on purpose/accident.  Like wise for the other.  This isn't storytelling at it's best, it's an episode of General Hospital.

Like I had written earlier in my brilliant Avatar review that needs to be spellchecked, and the now critically acclaimed Shakespeare review I just blurted out, the opinions people hold so high of J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye are not so much fresh and new opinions, but recycled views given by people over fifty years ago.  They're considered right, just and untouchable.  My own opinion is that the book was good for it's time, but any revelance it had for it's day is long gone. What's sad is that people refuse to truly look at this book anew and say 'Hey, this book is in fact pretty shitty.' They cling to dear life to the classic status of this title and will never let go, no matter how much proof you wave in front of their face. When it comes to the Arts, in any form, we tend to latch onto our opinions and stick to them. There is an almost absolute refusal to change when it comes to that opinion.

I, on the other hand, can provide you an outstanding example of changed opinion.  When I was a kid I loved Voltron more than anything else in the world, and for twenty some years I clinged onto that memory. As an adult I rewatched it expecting to have that same childish joy envelope my soul. Instead I got a sucky $5 anime that was edited with a hot butter knife, and sounded like it was voiced over by some cast rejects from the Care Bears.

In my opinion this is a great example of how things were good for the time.  But times change.  I would like to challenge all of you who read this, to take time and find one thing that you have read, watched or listened to that has been considered by millions of people to be the best thing since sliced bread, and reevaluate it.  Do this by yourself, with no outside influence, and let your own personal opinion loose.  I do this all the time.  Sometimes you'll be surprised how well a book stands the test of time, or how horrible a film is after only a few years, or why the hell you bought a CD in the first place.  It's always good to take a step back and evaluate things with a new set of eyes.

I'm usually right the first time though.