Rule of the Bone discussion

I finished this book two weeks ago and then ran across one review that described it as a "working-class Catcher in the Rye" for a "post-PC" society. What do you think of that description? Would you say that it's accurate?

I can definitely see the parallels to Catcher in the Rye. I don't think it is completely accurate. In the Rule of the Bone the main character is finally able to take control of his own life, Holden doesn't fare quite as well.

I also think that, having come from the kind of home he did, Bone had a hard time letting people get close to him and recognizing within himself that those people really mattered to him. Working through that helped him work on respecting himself; at the same time, working on respecting himself helped him work through his attachments to people.

What I saw going on with Holden was nothing like that, and I felt much more optimistic about Bone's future when I finished the novel than I did about Holden's at the end of Catcher in the Rye.

I was thinking the same thing and it's an interesting point. Also, does growing up poor teach you more about getting along in life than growing up rich? There is a real class distinction going on here.

I agree that the class difference is important. Holden was on a sort of wandering journey that he chose to take even though his parents had given him a lot of encouragement to do well in school and plan a solid future. Even if they would have been furious with him, I'm sure that Holden could have called home if he ever ran out of money out there or got into trouble. They'd probably have enough money to finance whatever he does next, so he always had a bit of a safety net.

Bone doesn't have all of those options. I do think that it's wrong to imply, as some who discuss the book do, that the dysfunctional nature of Bone's home environment is, in and of itself, a "lower-class" way of running a home. Not true. A lot of rich kids are abused by their parents; a lot of well-respected citizens are absolute monsters at home. But once Bone leaves his home, he immediately thinks about what he must do to survive and accepts whatever situation he can find. He misses his mother at times. But even when he imagines living with her again, he hardly ever fantasizes about returning to childlike security that he can count on someone to provide him with a nice home, all of his everyday needs, and extra support as needed. He's not even, initially, out on his own by choice.

I think it's definitely worthwhile to compare Bone & Catcher ... but what stood out for me were the analogies b/t Bone & Huckleberry Finn. In fact, I wish I'd read the Twain more recently so I could remember some of the specific incidents that Banks seemed to be commenting on.

Exactly. I felt so sorry for Holden because he was grieving for his brother and he suffered alone. At the end of the novel he's getting help but still seems to be struggling with feelings of isolation. I thought the book hinted at the coming apart of the nuclear family and the end of the novel predicts future consequences.

Bone is the product of a disastrous family situation yet the author chose to make him emotionally resilient. Bone leaves us with the idea that it is possible to survive.

I like the comparison: Bone to Huck. I felt for Holden too. I wonder if Bone is more resilient because though he had a tough upbringing, people in a working class family are less 'phony,' as Holden would put it; less concerned with appearances and more real about how they feel.