Через 75 лет после выхода «Охотник на оленей» остается культовым романом, скрывающим трагедию подростка и молчание автора

What can one say about “The Catcher in the Rye” after 75 years? The novel, J.D. Salinger’s most famous work, was released on July 16, 1951. In the story, lead character Holden Caulfield is 16 years old. But his youth hardly prevented him from engaging in underage smoking and drinking. Indeed, my take on Holden has always been that he is an alcoholic. But the more important point is that Holden is one of those characters in literature whom we treat like a real person. The saga of Holden is familiar. He has been expelled from a third prep school, prompting a two day bender and presumably a mental breakdown. The character’s entire dialogue throughout the book is an overview of himself he makes available to a therapist. But he is a stubborn patient, not exactly signing on to the program. He constantly premises the twists and turns of his story with the premise: If you really want to know. It’s clear Holden really doesn’t want to cooperate. And what about the book’s title? It derives from an 18th Century poem by Robert Burns. Holden explains to his little sister, Phoebe, that he longs to be a person in a field of rye catching children being plunged into oblivion. The notion of completing prep school studies and a future at Yale have no appeal to him. Such notions are real world, a concept Holden cannot embrace. Few American novels have the impact of “The Catcher in the Rye.” In its 75 years it has been a constant on college and high school reading lists (and the object of would-be censors). It’s also common knowledge that the author, J.D. Salinger (who died in 2010 at the age of 91…the same age Holden would be today) was reclusive. Salinger shunned interviews. And like his character, Holden, he detested Hollywood. He was completely resistant to any of his works being dramatized for either the big screen or television. (Salinger was not a fan of live theater either.) No less a director than Steven Spielberg was denied by Salinger the opportunity to make The Catcher in the Rye into a movie. That’s certainly the author’s prerogative. While most authors would jump at the chance of their work in the treatment of Hollywood, Salinger harbored an understandable defense against any taint to his work. My disappointment is that late in life, Salinger promised more work which had not been released and which was to be made available after his death. This work has not been forthcoming. “The Catcher in the Rye” is an important book. But the storyline isn’t entirely original. The 1951 novel resembles “Paul’s Case,” the 1905 novelette by Willa Cather which also features a teenager plagued by alcoholism, sexual uncertainty, and poor grades and who seeks solace in an urban cesspool. The story by Cather had an undeniable influence on Salinger’s novel. As stated, that more material from Salinger has not emerged is a disappointment. But another disappointment is how “The Catcher in the Rye” overshadows additional work by Salinger. It’s as if he wrote only one book. Those who haven’t read Franny & Zooey, Raise High the Roofbeams, or Seymour: An Introduction are missing out on literature immensely readable. “The Catcher in the Rye” has been called a story about growing up. In reality, it’s a tale of an adolescent resistant to growing up. Adulthood is about responsibility. Not booze and cigarettes. Salinger never clarified whether or not he condoned Holden’s delinquency. The author was as stubborn as his character. But this observation is not a breakthrough as to how Salinger really felt about Holden. We can only be grateful that “The Catcher in the Rye” has survived the test of time and has evaded the efforts of the censors. As for Holden Caulfield, we’ll never know what became of him. Salinger can’t help us now. And he wouldn’t if he were still here. John O’Neill of Allen Park writes a weekly review.