Have you ever heard of this book? I hadn't, either. But apparently it was a very popular first book in a series of books about the detective, Philip Marlowe, written in the 40's. This first one was published in 1939 and was made into a movie in 1946 starring Humphery Bogart and Lauren Bacall. So I guess it's kind of a big deal. (I also read somewhere that the movie "The Big Lebowski" is loosly based on it as well, or at least on the series about Marlowe by Raymond Chandler. I've never seen that one either.)
My senior year of college I took a class that was dedicated to the study of the mystery novel. It was my final English major class, and we read several mystery novels and learned about the development and history of them, starting with Edgar Allen Poe, who pioneered the genre, and culminating in Dicken's The Mystery of Edwid Drood, his last novel which he didn't even finish because he died. (Which is a really horrible thing to happen for a mystery novel. How do you know who did it?!? But inspires interesting discussion because everyone has a different idea about the ending.) We didn't make it in the the time of Chandler's writing, but I wish we had because I have a confession to make--I don't know what is so great about this novel.
It's interesting, to be sure. The writing is very cryptic and it leaves you feeling like the author/narrator knows something that you don't, and you want to find out but he's not going to tell you. He's pretty funny as well--when a woman in the novel says to him, "You're really tall" his response is "I didn't mean to be." There is humor, very dry and sarcastic, which must have been new at the time it was published. I feel like my experience with this book is tainted because I've read so many other mysteries (which is funny since it's not my favorite genre) and this one was nothing special. But it must have had some sort of significance or influence on all those other one's I've read. I just don't know what that influence is.
The title, The Big Sleep, is referring to death. Marlowe comments at the very end, "What did it matter where you lay once you were dead? In a dirty sump or in a marble tower on top of a high hill? You were dead, you were sleeping the big sleep, you were not bothered by things like that. Oil and water were the same as wind and air to you. You just slept the big sleep, not caring about the nastiness of how you died or where you fell." Which is kind of a blunt way to look at death. Even if it is true.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading this one, but I also wouldn't not recommend it. Maybe it's just not my type of book. I enjoyed reading it, even if I don't see it's greatness. I can see how someone like Janet Evanovich was could have been influenced by Chandler. And maybe that's why, to me, this book is nothing new. But I guess the egg had to come before the chicken, right? Or did it?
Oh Scarlett. Oh Rhett! Why are you so frustratingly stubborn and stupid?
I read Gone With the Wind for the first time when I was in 8th grade and I loved it. Just like with The Catcher in the Rye though, different things stood out to me when reading it this time around. As a 13 year old girl, of course I focused on the romance between Scarlett and Rhett, and I was furious at Scarlett's ridiculous deceptions against all her lovers. When she lies to Frank Kennedy about Suellen's engagement just to win him over for money I literally slammed the book shut and couldn't pick it up again for days, I was so angry at her.
This time, even though my heart still breaks at the love story, I paid a lot more attention to the history of the Southern experience with the Civil War. The perspective that Margaret Mitchell provides is definitely one of a kind. She does drag it out a lot. By today's standards I think the book could've been several hundred pages shorter just through some editing and none of the war or love plot would be missing.
So which is more important, the history or the romance? According to Margaret Mitchell, I would say the history. Here's what she said when asked what Gone With the Wind is about:
"...if the novel has a theme it is that of survival. What makes some people come through catastrophes and others, apparently just as able, strong and brave go under? It happens in every upheaval. Some people survive; others don't. What qualities are in those who fight their way through triumphantly that are lacking in those that go under? I only know that survivors used to call that quality 'gumption.' So I wrote about people who had gumption and people who didn't." (1936)
Scarlett certainly has gumption, almost to a fault. Hondo asked me why I love Scarlett. The truth is, I love her and I also kind of hate her. She drives me insane when it comes to her treatment of her children and the men who love her. But I still admire her strength. Her ability to do whatever it takes to survive in a world where women are expected to defer to the men is powerful. I feel like I understand her too. I understand her motives and even though I feel bad for the people who fall victim to her charms, I can't help but think "you go, girl" too.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. The first book on my list.
(Sidebar: It may be a little early in a post for a sidebar. But I feel like explaining. Hondo and I have decided to read Time Magazine's 100 best books of all Time, which are really only books written in English published since Time's first publication in 1923.)
I read this book in high school. It was during my junior year in Mrs. Hayward's advanced English class. We had a group project that we had to do, and each group was assigned a different book. I was in a group with a few of my good friends. I don't remember what the project was, but I do remember that I was the only one who finished the book. (Sorry my junior classmates who did this project with me. I'm not trying to throw you under the bus.) I also remember that I really did not like the book. But the details of reading it are fuzzy, so it must have just not really made any sort of impression on me either way.
Flash forward to today. (Actually Thursday, since that is the day I finished the book.)
-----WOW. I did not appreciate the brilliance of this book when I was in high school. Which is a bit ironic I think since it is supposedly a young adult novel. I think I understand much more now how it is a young adult novel than I did when I was a young adult.
The Catcher in the Rye is to this day on the banned book list, for various reasons. (Sidebar: I hate banned book lists.) If anyone took the time to actually read the book instead of being all nit-picky about a few swear words or whatever their problem is they might see how moral the story actually is.
Holden, the main character, is on some sort of undefined bender and he is freaking out about everything. He hates people, he misses them, he loves them for a moment and hates them the next. Robert Burns' poem that the title comes from, Comin' Thro the Rye, is misquoted by Holden but leads to his idea of becoming a catcher in the rye:
I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be.
Holden wants to keep these kids from going over the edge--into adulthood. He wants to save their innocence. I don't think that is immoral at all. It's a bit naive, but so is Holden.
What really struck me with this reading was how much Holden is grieving. I didn't even remember that he had a brother, Allie, who had died of luekemia. (Shows how well I read it in high school, eh?) Holden goes on this trip and goes crazy with grief. He makes a short mention of the fact that he was hospitalized right after his brother died because he broke all the windows in their garage with his fist and that he missed the funeral, which I read as him never really getting the chance to grieve for his dead brother. I felt like as I read it this time, and I saw how much Holden mentions Allie and even talks to him, I got it. I understood the story. He misses him. And it's because of this grief that he wants to keep his sister Phoebe, and all kids, innocent.
I enjoyed reading The Catcher in the Rye this time around. I feel like I had so much more understanding than I did before. I think it's the type of book that I could read again in 10 years and feel like I got it in a different way than I do now. Which is a great thing.
PS. I loved the writing. The book begs to be read aloud, simply because Holden is writing as though he is talking to you. It weaves through his thoughts quickly and randomly and realistically. Well done, J.D. Salinger.
