J. D. Salinger_ A Life - Kenneth Slawenski [224]
• • •
It is the ambiguity of the ending of The Catcher in the Rye that often draws readers back to it. As the novel ends, Holden’s position is intentionally unclear because Salinger has deliberately left it to readers to insert their own selves, their own doubts, aspirations, and dissatisfactions, in order to complete his journey.
While the press concentrated on Salinger’s infirmities, readers’ input was revealing a very different concern. With increasing frequency, editorials and commentaries began to appear in newspapers and on the Internet that were written by people recalling the first time they had read The Catcher in the Rye and revealing how much Holden Caulfield had meant to them in their youth. Each memory involved Holden, yet no two Holdens were the same. There were many versions of Holden, each vivid and deeply personal, his image shifting for each individual. One man wrote that as an adolescent he could relate only to Holden and that the relationship had sustained him through a difficult time. Another recalled his admiration for Holden’s rebellion and how he had carried Salinger’s novel throughout college. There were also delicate memories, such as the woman who shyly admitted that Holden Caulfield had been her first crush and the young girl experiencing similar feelings even as she wrote. Within these commentaries the question arose of who actually owned Holden Caulfield and what would become of him after the trial. Few had much respect for Fredrik Colting, but a number of reactions exposed a rising disenchantment with Salinger for claiming to possess what readers plainly considered to be a part of themselves, a portion of their own self-image.
• • •
On July 1, Judge Deborah Batts delivered her decision, issuing an injunction against the U.S. release of what the court determined to be an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye. She had found for Salinger on every point of argument, ruling that the character of Holden Caulfield was indeed protected by his copyright and determining Colting’s book to be “a derivative work” rather than parody. She further found 60 Years Later to be far less “transformative” than the defense had claimed, noting that the more one borrows from the original, the less innovative the result.10
Although her judgment was couched in the law, not all of Judge Batts’s contentions were exclusively legal. She also insisted upon preserving the integrity of Salinger’s novel as he had designed it and, in doing so, attempted to defend the rights of readers. “An author’s artistic vision,” the court asserted, “includes leaving certain portions or aspects of his character’s story to the varied imaginations of his readers.”11
At the core of the case had been the question of whether Holden Caulfield, as a character of fiction represented only through words, was legally included in Salinger’s copyright of The Catcher in the Rye. Unlike famous images, artwork, logos, and movie characters, Holden had no physical representation. Still, he had managed to become an iconic figure, if only through the force of Salinger’s text. In fact, the court had determined that Holden was as recognizable, and therefore copyrightable, as any famous image or work of art. “Holden Caulfield is quite delineated by word,” the court ruled. “It is a portrait by words.”12
During the course of the trial, Colting had become increasingly defiant and was now incredulous over Judge Batts’s verdict. “If nobody gets angry you haven’t done it right,” he reasoned. “By all means, Catcher was and is a great piece of work, but