The item beside this text is an advertisement

QUILLBLOG

Filed under: Quillblog, ,

Related posts

No related posts.

And you thought you’d heard the last from Holden Caulfield…

Sequels are always difficult to pull off. Everyone pits your new effort against your old one, and rarely will your latest come out ahead (The Empire Strikes Back excluded). It’s even harder to succeed when you’re a) not the original creator, and b) a first-time novelist trying to follow up a literary classic.

Such is the case with the upcoming unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, the dreadfully titled 60 Years Later Coming Through the Rye written by Swedish/American travel writer John David California. The story picks up with main character Holden Caulfield when he is 76 years old and living in a nursing home. According to a report on The Bookseller, the book’s publisher, Windupbird Publishing, describes the elder Caulfield as a:

“bewildered old man who is suddenly and maliciously yanked back onto the page by his creator.” Caulfield comes to his senses and has an overwhelming compulsion to flee. He boards a bus and embarks on a curious journey through the streets of New York and “many poignant memories of his adulthood.”

This Quillblogger decently enjoyed Salinger’s original novel, but wonders if people really want to see an aging hipster reminisce about when he used to be cool. Based on the outrage spreading across the Web today, I’d guess the answer is no. An article in the Guardian calls out California on his audacity:

What I find fascinating is the sheer brass balls of the man. At what point did he decide that he, above all others, was perfectly placed to re-imagine one of the classic characters of 20th-century literature? Even if the thought occurred to you, wouldn’t you give it a wide berth? Wouldn’t any self-respecting author – published or not – simply say no? I mean what’s he got lined up next? Ulysses II: A New Day? Lolita Goes to College? The Crying of Lot 50?

Reports say that California decided to write the sequel after becoming “captivated” by Caulfield’s story upon finding an old copy in an abandoned cabin in rural Cambodia. California has not received permission to write this novel from the famously reclusive Salinger, and he comments on his desired reaction from the original author in an interview with the Guardian:

Maybe he will get upset, but I’m hoping he will be pleased. I’m not trying to lure him out of hiding – maybe he wants his privacy [but] it would be fun for me to hear what he thinks about this, and if he’s pleased with the way I’ve portrayed Holden Caulfield and his future.

  • Paul

    Whether the book has any literary merit or not, it’s pretty disgusting to see critics lining up to trash a writer simply because he dared to attempt to write a sequel to a classic.

  • http://www.robertjwiersema.com Rob in Victoria

    I’d totally read Lolita Goes To College.

  • Jean

    Sequels not by the author should be illegal while a book is still under copyright, unless the author gives permission.

  • michel

    I thought that was the case. The only reason anyone would read this, or pay attention, is because of the original work, which this guy, whatever his motives, is exploiting commerically.

  • http://www.blork.org/blorkblog Ed Hawco

    I think this sequel is in poor taste and is unnecessary, regardless of the quality of the writing. Holden Caufield and “The Catcher in the Rye” have both reached iconic status in the popular imagination. Imposing an ending on the story deflates that status, and yanks away the connection that many people find between the young Caufield and ourselves. The un-endedness is part of its beauty and, I think, part of the reason why it stays so long with those who have read it.

    This unauthorized sequel comes off as a publicity gimmick. If the author had simply used a different name, and had presented the novel as an “imagining of what could have happened to Holden Caufield,” that would be perfectly legitimate and would likely have garnered a lot of attention and publicity. But to boldly thrust it forward as the sequel to a known and loved story that is in the realm of popular mythology? I don’t think so.

  • http://www.blork.org/blorkblog Ed Hawco

    To clarify, of course any piece of fiction is an “imagining of what could have” been. What I meant is that if he gave the character a different name, then we (the readers) could have chosen to superimpose the character over the Holden Caufield myth, or not. But forcing the hand is in bad taste.

  • Paul

    How about the recent prequel to Anne of Green Gables?

  • Carole

    Hmm…What’s next? “Boo Radley Comes Out in Daylight”?

  • http://www.blork.org/blorkblog Ed Hawco

    It’s looking more and more likely that it’s a hoax. Damn, I’m so gullible. I know this because someone told me so, and naturally, I believed it.

  • Susan

    If Pride and Prejudice and Zombies can be a hit, nothing surprises me.

    I still think it’s in bad taste. I think it shows lack of imagination to piggyback on the work of another.

  • Wayne

    Lolita dies at the end of the original, so if she goes to college, it must be as a practice cadavre for medical students.

  • http://mannafrombrooklyn.blogspot.com/ Brooklyncodger

    People, who cares? Besides the copyright issue (I imagine it falls under fair use) dude can write what he wants, no?

The item directly under this text is an advertisement
Books of the year
Click to see Books of the Year 2011 package Click to see Books of the Year 2010 package Click to see Books of the Year 2009 package
Most shared stories this week
Book Pictures

Do you have great photos from a recent book event in Canada that you'd like to share with us? Submit them to the Quill & Quire Flickr pool and they'll show up here.

a congrats to all

Rage

Jenna Tenn-Yuk

breaktime interviewing

interviewing

Danielle K.L. Gregoire

Sepideh

Elle P

sound poetry

Anita

Frances

winning

Recent comments