Caught in the Rye: Court Enjoins Sequel to Salinger Masterpiece

200px-Rye_catcherU.S. District Judge Deborah Batts in New York has enjoined the publication of a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye as a copyright infringement. She found that the sequel used the original work and was not a parody.

Salinger broke from his self-imposed seclusion to file an interesting lawsuit to block a novel based on Holden Caulfield, the hero from “The Catcher in the Rye.” The book, entitled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” is written by an author calling himself J.D. California and published by a Swedish company. It features Caulfield as an old man. The defendants include Swedish publisher Nicotext; its offshoot, Windupbird Publishing Ltd.; and California-based SCB Distributors as defendants.

For those of you that have not read the novel since high school (in cities where it was not banned by extremists), Caulfield is the narrator of the novel who relives the days following his’s expulsion from Pencey Prep. He is described in the novel as:

The boy himself is at once too simple and too complex for us to make any final comment about him or his story. Perhaps the safest thing we can say about Holden is that he was born in the world not just strongly attracted to beauty but, almost, hopelessly impaled on it.

Salinger’s lawyers moved to stop publication and sale of the book, stating “The Sequel infringes Salinger’s copyright rights in both his novel and the character Holden Caulfield, who is the narrator and essence of that novel.”

Salinger has previously insisted that Caulfield’s character must remain as he left it in the novel: “There’s no more to Holden Caulfield. Read the book again. It’s all there. Holden Caulfield is only a frozen moment in time.”

Nicotext hardly rivals Salinger as a literary source, producing such works as “The Macho Man’s (Bad) Joke Book” and “Give It To Me Baby” (an erotic “flick book”). This hardly looks like the outfit suited for this particular job. However, it is not the quality of the publication but the right to publish that is at the heart of the lawsuit. (“All morons hate it when you call them a moron.” ~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye).

The book is already available in Europe and the United Kingdom.

I have previously expressed concerns over this level of control of later works by authors. Salinger produced iconic figures and should not, in my view, be able to freeze the use of such character so long as someone is not plagiarizing or passing themselves off as Salinger.

The obvious comparison being drawn is to the litigation over the sequel to Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind.” The effort to stop the novel “The Wind Done Gone,” by novelist Alice Randall, was unsuccessful. In that case, a district court in the Northern District Court in Atlanta granted the Mitchell Trusts a preliminary injunction but the Eleventh Circuit found that it was not an infringement of copyright and lifted the injunction. In SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., the court found that the publisher had made a convincing case of fair use. In a view clearly relevant to the instant case, the court emphasized that the book was materially different and would not be confused with the original: holding that any effect on the original author was “strongly overshadowed and outweighed in view of its highly transformative use” of the work. The same can be said in this case.

Of course, his lawyers may have followed the advice of his protagonist: “It’s funny. All you have to do is say something nobody understands and they’ll do practically anything you want them to. ”

The court in the opinion below rejects the transformative use claim as well as the parody claim.

Here is the opinion: 070209batts

5 thoughts on “Caught in the Rye: Court Enjoins Sequel to Salinger Masterpiece”

  1. The Times reported that the injunction was vacated and remanded for a new look by the District Judge. “A United States appeals court on Friday vacated a lower court’s order to enjoin the publication of a novel described as a sequel to J. D. Salinger’s ‘Catcher in the Rye.’ The appeals court sided with a district court’s judgment that Salinger’s lawyers would probably prevail on the merits but sent the case back to that lower court to re-evaluate whether the injunction should be ordered.”

  2. Does the sequel tell us the answer to THE question:

    Where did the ducks go?

  3. I’d like to take moment to point out something about Catcher since it’s widely considered a handbook for sociopaths in addition to being a fine piece of literature.

    “It’s funny. All you have to do is say something nobody understands and they’ll do practically anything you want them to.”

    This is a dialectic and logical tool. In our house, it’s referred to as the Confusion Ray. I’m very good at it. Very. As in Olympics good. Like any tool, it can be used for good or evil depending upon the user and how they were taught to use the tool. The reason I bring this up is that I knew how to use the Confusion Ray long before I ever read Mr. Salinger’s work as a young man. I had studied at the feet of Confusion Ray Masters Groucho Marx and Mel Blanc (as Bugs Bunny) almost every Saturday morning of my childhood. I chose to use my powers for good because thankfully my original teachers were not as cynical as Catcher.

    And the moral of this story? None at all other than to point out the irony of a memetic and neurolinguistic device coming from a book being used a rational for some sociopath like John Hinckley is also the prime driving mechanism of a comedy like “A Night at the Opera”.

  4. This just goes to show you it ain’t no Happy Birthday to him. How long will he have to wait until the copyright infringement claims will no longer exist?

Comments are closed.