I watched Youth in Revolt this weekend with my boyfriend. The weekend was fabulous. The movie? Dry, pretentious and fucking annoying. And so, whenever I watch a bad movie I like to hit up RottenTomatoes to read nasty reviews which are easily my favorite kind of reviews. Why? Because I thrive on hatred? No. Because I like it when people agree with me.
Anyways I couldn't help but notice the numerous times a critic has name dropped Holden Caulfield in reference to any other rebellious youth in the history of rebellious youths. Quote: your average Holden Caulfield fanatic will find his tale fun
So in the name of any proper Catcher in the Rye defender, I have to say what the fuck. Seriously? It's offensive but most of all it's just lazy. I'm not going to get into details about why Micheal Cera's turd-faced character is nothing like The Catcher in the Rye's but if movie critics are going to claim to be writers than they should start acting like them. That means referring to literary characters with a level of intelligence beyond Spark Notes. You wouldn't write about how fans of Lolita will find the pedophile in Little Children familiar so don't fuck up with Holden Caulfield.
What I'm saying is if Nick Twisp is Holden Caulfield than that little black dog really is Albert Camus.