I'm studying The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger in my English class at the moment, and one of the things that annoys me about the book is that there's not plot. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nil. The whole thing is made up of the ramblings and insight of a delusional 50's teenager as he goes about his life.
Sure, it's packed with fantastic symbolism and great characterisation, and there's even a chain of events. But the story is so lacking that I wouldn't dare call it a story at all.
Truth is, a chain of events does not make a story, and nor does simply change. There are changes all through The Catcher in the Rye, for example when the protagonist, Holden, runs away to New York from his prestigious boarding high school (which he hates). But this change isn't meaningful, and nor are any of the others - which is a problem considering that it is meaningful changes that create story.
For a change to be meaningful, it must be expressed in terms of a story value. Story values do not refer to virtues or morals, although they include them. Robert McKee writes in Story* that, rather, they are "the universal qualities of human experience that may shift from positive to negative, or negative to positive, from one moment to the next."
This means that one or more themes, if you like, must switch to their opposite. For example, freedom/captivity (positive/negative) is a story value, and can be used to create meaningful change when a character's experience moves from one side of the coin to the other - when they are freed from captivity or captured from freedom. Love/hate is also a story value, and so is justice/injustice, loyalty/betrayal, peace/unrest, hope/despair ...
... You get the picture.
So, if we look back at the change of Holden leaving his school, what story value switch(es) could we possibly apply? Loyalty to betrayal? There was never loyalty in the first place. Self-righteousness to guilt? He's always felt guilty about his lack of motivation in school. Captivity to freedom? Holden probably sees it this way, but reader doesn't buy it. After all, Holden's cynical perspective is not exclusively directed towards his school, but rather towards the whole world. So while he remains within his own mind, he'll never be free.
Hm. No meaningful change there.
The point is, in every scene of every good story there will always be a reversal in one or more story values. If not, why is the scene there? What does it achieve? Like all the scenes in The Catcher in the Rye, it may be exposition and character perspectives. But these can be worked into scenes that involve meaningful change. It may be difficult, but it's not impossible.
And finally, I'll leave Robert McKee with the last word, because he is pretty much a whole bunch of awesomesauce rolled into a ball of more awesomesauce: "No scene that doesn't turn. This is our ideal."
*There's a reason why I mention this book so often in my posts. Seriously, it's the best $35 I've ever spent.
Sure, it's packed with fantastic symbolism and great characterisation, and there's even a chain of events. But the story is so lacking that I wouldn't dare call it a story at all.
Truth is, a chain of events does not make a story, and nor does simply change. There are changes all through The Catcher in the Rye, for example when the protagonist, Holden, runs away to New York from his prestigious boarding high school (which he hates). But this change isn't meaningful, and nor are any of the others - which is a problem considering that it is meaningful changes that create story.
For a change to be meaningful, it must be expressed in terms of a story value. Story values do not refer to virtues or morals, although they include them. Robert McKee writes in Story* that, rather, they are "the universal qualities of human experience that may shift from positive to negative, or negative to positive, from one moment to the next."
This means that one or more themes, if you like, must switch to their opposite. For example, freedom/captivity (positive/negative) is a story value, and can be used to create meaningful change when a character's experience moves from one side of the coin to the other - when they are freed from captivity or captured from freedom. Love/hate is also a story value, and so is justice/injustice, loyalty/betrayal, peace/unrest, hope/despair ...
... You get the picture.
So, if we look back at the change of Holden leaving his school, what story value switch(es) could we possibly apply? Loyalty to betrayal? There was never loyalty in the first place. Self-righteousness to guilt? He's always felt guilty about his lack of motivation in school. Captivity to freedom? Holden probably sees it this way, but reader doesn't buy it. After all, Holden's cynical perspective is not exclusively directed towards his school, but rather towards the whole world. So while he remains within his own mind, he'll never be free.
Hm. No meaningful change there.
The point is, in every scene of every good story there will always be a reversal in one or more story values. If not, why is the scene there? What does it achieve? Like all the scenes in The Catcher in the Rye, it may be exposition and character perspectives. But these can be worked into scenes that involve meaningful change. It may be difficult, but it's not impossible.
And finally, I'll leave Robert McKee with the last word, because he is pretty much a whole bunch of awesomesauce rolled into a ball of more awesomesauce: "No scene that doesn't turn. This is our ideal."
*There's a reason why I mention this book so often in my posts. Seriously, it's the best $35 I've ever spent.
I read this book when I was in my twenties, and never understood the hype. I thought maybe I was too old for it. It's nice to see someone of the 'right' age coming to the same conclusions, (and articulating them a lot better than I ever did!).
ReplyDeleteThose conclusions aren't really that hard to come to at all. Part of the hype could have been over its controversy - naturally, if something is banned in schools all across the States, everyone's going to want to read it.
DeleteIf you don't enjoy Catcher, then I wouldn't suggest Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead....or maybe even Catch-22 (although I found both amusing).
ReplyDeleteI actually also extremely disliked Catcher in the Rye [Plot? And the stream-of-consciousness is annoying] but I totally loved Catch-22 and enjoyed Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead.
DeleteWell I'm not really sure whether I should read them or not, now! I guess I'll have to, eventually, and make my own mind up on them :)
DeleteI'm with you and Sarah--never got through this thing. Nothing but foul language and no stinking plot. Not my cup o' coffee, for sure.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. It has it's merits, they're just hidden deep under a endless sea of gunk.
DeleteHmm...nice point.
ReplyDeleteChange! :p
Absolutely, change! :) Meaningful change :)
DeleteThis is a very timely post for me. Now if only I'd had it sooner. Thank you so much!
ReplyDeleteNo worries, I'm glad you enjoyed it :) I found it very helpful, too, when I learnt it.
DeleteIn Hollywood, they measure an actor's age by stating "This actor is too old now to play Holden Caulfield" because they've been talking of a big screen adaptation of the Catcher in the Rye for decades. J.D. Salinger was notoriously difficult to work with on any front including publishing and interviews.
ReplyDeleteI actually think that Catcher in the Rye would make a horrendous screenplay. Most of what makes the book interesting is based on Holden's internal dialogue and the way he directly addresses the reader with insights into his character. Because you can't show these things in film, I think a film would do terribly.
DeleteI love that description of story, and it explains why I hated Catcher in the Rye so much. If anyone ever asks advice on how to make a story better, I'm definitely going to repeat this. You've phrased it so beautifully.
ReplyDeleteI don't hate it, because there *are* good aspects of it. But the "story" sucks. I think it's a lot like Animal Farm, which you reviewed that one time on your blog. The book doesn't exist to tell a great story, but rather to give insight into human nature.
DeleteStill, I don't see why such classics can't be thematically significant AND tell a good story.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate and say that a character who doesn't change is just as interesting as one who does. In real life, you get people who don't change no matter what happens to them. If written well, those characters can be absolutely fascinating. To use an example: my college just put on The Laramie Project, a play about how the beating and murder of a gay man affects the town of Laramie. Many characters change in their attitudes from start to finish, but the 2 murderers do not. Ten years later in high security prison, one is repentent and miserable, while the other is still a homophobic neo-Nazi.
ReplyDeleteI chose that play as an example because it is about real people and is actually composed from their interviews and words. Some people change; others don't. I do agree with you about Catcher in the Rye, though, because without change, it just feels like Holden exists to travel and drink, etc., for no other purpose than to comment on the world.
Great post Nick - I'm betting you go very far in life!
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm in your campaign group and I've tagged you on my blog! Stop by and visit and grab the questions I have for you! http://theresasmallsneed.blogspot.com ~Theresa Sneed, author of No Angel and its forthcoming prequel, From Heaven to Earth
Thanks very much Theresa! :)
DeleteHere's a thought: perhaps one of the reasons we are frustrated by The Catcher in the Rye is because we are conditioned to a particular type of narrative, and the satisfaction of a resolution. The dramatic irony in the novel, in the hypocrisy of so many things that Holden says, is consistent throughout, and he doesn't appear to learn anything from the consequences of his actions. The fact that he doesn't gain any insight into himself is genuinely aggravating when you have just spent 200 plus pages listening to him ramble about his jaded view of the world! I think there is value in this, however, if the author has authentically communicated the pressures and anxieties of being a teenager. That's a matter of opinion, though. Personally I think Holden is not representative of this age group at this time. I think this book's primary value is the fact that it broke through barriers and paved the way for more gritty and honest writing to be published in its wake.
ReplyDeleteWell I'm totally with you on the issues with Catcher in the Rye. I wonder, what are your thoughts on The Great Gatsby? Have you read it, yet?
ReplyDeleteI've not read it, no. Maybe I should add it to my to-read list?
DeleteI personally really enjoyed reading Catcher in the Rye when I was in high school. I'm not going to say its my favorite book by any means, but as far as what we had to read in class it wasn't bad.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason so many people say they didn't like it is because its not the type of read we've been conditioned to. The plot takes a backseat to the morals and metaphors of the story. The struggle between holding onto childhood innocence or going out in the adult world of responsibility is something everyone, or at least most people, struggle with at some point, and that is, at its essence, all the Catcher in the Rye is about. His week wandering through new york gives him an insight into what life in the "adult world" is like, and as he is wandering we see numerous instances when its obvious he is not ready to step into it (the run-in with the prostitute). When Holden makes the decision to go home instead of running away he is making the decision to hold on to his childhood innocence just a little longer, whether he realizes it or not.
I'm all for books with amazing battle scenes and complicated plot twists, I love them. But as far as moral based novels go the Catcher in the Rye is pretty damn good.