Here’s a thought. Teen angst, once regarded as stubbornly generic, is actually a product of each person’s unique circumstances: gender, race, class, era. Angst is universal, but the content of it is particular.
Emma_Sileshi
Holden continues to have a periodic hold on us, eg, 'Catcher' was only possession Mark David Chapman had, besides a firearm to shoot John Lennon at The Dakota (where Polanski filmed 'Rosemary's Baby').. - Are today's teens turning on The Catcher in the Rye?
The problem with Catcher is that the real source of Holden's anger is Salinger's experience in WW2, but Holden lacks that experience. So there's a disconnect: Holden can seem a spoiled brat because his problems don't seem to warrant so much angst.
There's a good chance the less intellectual teens who look at a book from 1951 through a 2019 social justice lens will turn away from it. Those with a greater understanding of changing beliefs and attitudes over time will understand its importance as a apiece of literature
Possibly because today’s teens have actual problems? (Even those privileged young white males you love to demonize)
How does one turn on a book? Candle lit dinners? Or? All advice welcome.
I remember first reading Catcher in the Rye in the 70s, at about 13, Holden was a pain in the arse, then, but it didn't stop me appreciating the novel. Still a great favourite.
I taught 'Catcher' many times to Amer. Lit. students. Like all stories from the past the novel reflects its times and its characters' circumstances and historical context is part of understanding. No different from Jane Austen or Dickens or Tom Wolfe or Sylvia Plath.
This article killed me, it really did.
unlewis As a teen today: I like it.
I didn't think it was that great. I thought the language was rooted in dialogue that was very of it's time and place, and it sounded less inately human and more social comment of an era that I don't know and doesn't interest me.
Did someone live tweet it while reading or what?