I first read “The Catcher in the Rye” four years ago.
Back then, I would have done anything to see a biopic about its author, J. D. Salinger. I would have loved to have learned everything about him. It’s not like I could call him up on the phone, like the infamous character Holden Caulfield talks about in the book. So why not gain some knowledge on him by watching it on the big screen?
But with that said, if you ask me to go watch Nicholas Hoult act out the early years of Salinger’s life in the upcoming “Rebel in the Rye,” I’m going to turn you down. What I understand now, which I didn’t understand four years ago, is that Salinger would have never wanted a movie about himself to be made and shown to the world.
As one of the most successful authors of the twentieth century, Salinger’s biography is not a secret. As a society, we already know a ton about him. Even someone who slept through most of their English classes will still know something about the man. More than likely, they’ll know how much Salinger despised being in the spotlight. He hated publicity so much that his last published work was in 1965 and his last interview, which were few and far between, was in the early 1980s.
Maybe it was because of this that we usually refer to him as a recluse and an eccentric, making him more marketable for the media. The less someone wants to be looked at, the more society tends to look at them; that’s just part of human nature. But Salinger was the type of author who wanted his work to speak for itself, rather than have to speak for his work. He once told a fan that even though he poses so many questions in his novel, he doesn’t “pretend to know the answers.”
I think that’s why he hid from the public eye. He said what he wanted to say, and we all just kept asking for more.
In a way, it feels like “Rebel in the Rye” is a replacement for the movie adaptation of “The Catcher in the Rye” that will probably never exist. Salinger never wanted a film adaptation, but it’s common knowledge that he himself closely resembled Holden Caulfield, the central character of the novel. They shared the same background, many life experiences and a hatred for movies. Many fans and literary buffs view getting to know Holden as getting to know Salinger. But we only get to know Holden through words, so that’s the same way we should know his creator.
“Rebel in the Rye” isn’t a bad idea from a business standpoint. I’m sure a lot of people are going to enjoy it, and I’m sure it will make a lot of money for everyone involved. But that doesn’t make it okay. And that certainly doesn’t make it smart. We’re always going to want more from this story, from Salinger, from Holden, but where we look for more is what matters.
“Catcher in the Rye” changes each time you read it. Four years ago, I read it and thought it was amazing that there was someone out there who felt as fed up as I did. Two years ago, when I read it again, I fell in love with the language of the novel; I learned that there was a lot to be said about what isn’t said. Next time, I’m sure I’ll learn something else.
So if society wants to learn more about one of its favorite authors, why use a medium we know he’d disapprove of? Why not turn to his body of work? It might have a lot more to say without being asked.
