I got into a discussion this weekend about the 'greatness' of The Catcher in the Rye and here's where I stand (which I realize is in a lonely spot, but I'm still here):
if a book needs an explanation or validation - "you need to understand that when it was written this was groundbreaking" - because it doesn't hold up on its own through the ages, I don't think it's so great. Many people thought it was a great book then, but I don't think it has survived the test of time so well, unlike other books that were written then or long before that still move readers today, like: Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, Atlas Shrugged, The Awakening, Gone With the Wind, The Scarlet Letter, The Great Gatsby - just to name a few classics. Most of the above were indeed dissected in school, but I enjoy reading them all - for fun. Yes, I said it! I enjoy reading and look for books that take me somewhere, involve me with the characters, move me in some way. I read Catcher in the Rye to see what all the hoopla was about, and at the end, I was still waiting for the hoopla. And when I was given the 'explanations' for all the hoopla, my response was 'oh. I still don't like it.'
Jackson Pollack did a similar thing. Groundbreaking style that hadn't been done before, (unless another artist's pet monkey had done something similar but the artist just didn't think the public would go for it, and now isn't he kicking himself - and the monkey), but without the name attached, now it's just splatter paint. Unlike Van Gogh who did a different style - that the public did not go for at the time, ironic - and now generations recognize the talent that my monkey certainly cannot master, no matter how hard we practice.
Anyway, my question should anyone care to answer is, if you need to explain the work - literature or art - does it deserve to share a shelf - or wall - with the classics?
