Posted on 07/14/2026 10:39:13 AM PDT by Borges
On July 16, “The Catcher in the Rye,” by J.D. Salinger, will turn 75. Commemorating such a nice big number would surely strike its adolescent hero, Holden Caulfield, as the absolute nadir of “corny,” but maybe we could use a little corn, as the data centers invade our farmland.
Pour out a Scotch and soda — make that a malted milk — for this spry codger of a novel that’s stayed on the dance floor long past when might be expected, leaping over book bans from the right and dodging cancellation from the left. “Catcher” has somehow inspired artists as disparate as John Guare and Guns N’ Roses, its denunciation of phoniness presaging the social-media demand for “authenticity.”
Though set mostly in the sophisticated precincts of New York City where Salinger was raised but did not remain, “Catcher” might be the purest of the Great American Novels. (Partly because it has never been made into a movie, though everyone from Billy Wilder to Steven Spielberg tried to secure the rights.)
It’s also one of the dirtiest: ruffling parents and school boards with its fingernail clippings, shaving stubble, blood, flatulence, drunkenness, voyeurism, vulgarity, prostitution, profligacy and slang. Oh so much delectable lost slang.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It’s a ridiculous claim on its face. Salinger was apparently interested in Eastern Mysticism. Zen Buddhism, Hinduism...
The astute question would be: which literary works pushed onto our children by the deep state DO NOT HAVE ties to satanism?
The entire Western canon then?
“The entire Western canon then?”
No, and thank you for helping to sharpen the focus, which is a much needed thing.
It should be a scientific process. In the tradition of Aristotle. The process of knowing which of the objects in our experience should be set aside as distinct from the rest always starts with intuition.
The book is 75. Holden would be more like 91. It seems like he would have had plenty of time to straighten himself out.
Holden did have some interest in religion but was turned off by hypocrisy and empty formalism. I think the point, though, is more that writers have to write their “Inferno” or “Purgatorio” before they can consider “Paradiso,” that is, they have to depict a godless world before they can move on to a religious vision. In Salinger’s case, though, that vision would be as much Hindu or Buddhist as Christian.
To the contrary, I’d say writers should start with truth in order to illustrate the absurdity of falsehood, rather than starting with falsehood in order to create the facade that they’re seeking truth.
And my gut tells me Salinger could have been a satanist.
Stated by the NYTs without a trace of self-awareness...
But then, you aren’t a great writer.
You might not be a great writer, but you’d be the greatest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.