Rebel Without A Cause: A Literary Analysis

In today’s literature, there are books that tell it how it is and how it should be but it never seems to be in equal proportions. We as a group lose the truth because it is so entangled in idealism, in how things could be. But that’s just it, “could be” is not the same as “how it is”. The truth needs to be known and talked about before moving forward. Teenage literature shapes the young minds of its readers. This audience is in a vulnerable point in development where they can handle the truth and realism that actually occurs in today’s world. Claudia Mills said, “Children are children; they need to be introduced to the harsh realities of the world both gently and gradually.” (The Ethics of Representation: Realism and Idealism in Children’s
Fiction). Realism allows kids not only to learn the truth but also makes it more relatable. relatability is the key. When kids have no connection to the novels, there is the likely hood that information won’t be retained or learned.
History books are written from an idealist standpoint and the “truth” depends on the author’s regional perspective. However, these texts need to be written and taught from a realistic point of view; especially historians would argue to tell it how it is. When a war happens, the loser and the winner depict the events completely different (Germany and Israel don’t think the same about WWII). Too many times, events have been left out or “forgotten” to make a person/ side look only like the hero. History is written as “how it should be” and this takes all credibility out. History has a tendency to repeat itself so if history is not kept true, future decisions could be made wrong based on the inaccurate information students learned. Presenting history in an idealistic form geared to the author’s perspective, isn’t a true representation of what truly happened. For example, the Chinese hate the Japanese because the Japanese did awful things to them. However, the Japanese are removing this from their history books because it looks bad on them. Idealism can cloud the minds of young readers and not make them completely aware with what is actually going on.
Now a major fault with the idea of realism is that authors only portray what’s real as something that it negative. “Truthful” books are written about struggles from poverty, crime, and tragic deaths. Salinger writes Catcher in the Rye with a lot of negative components. To readers, it makes it seem more relatable, realer. So real that John Lennon’s murderer used this book as the reason for killing him. Some might argue that it’s too harsh and that kids should see hope and happiness too. But truth in books doesn’t have to be so negative. Salinger also writes the end in a positive outlook with Holden watching as Pheobe is riding the carousel. Like the carousel comes full circle, Salinger has Holden come full circle in realizing that it's okay to have change and forgive others of wrongdoings. Good happens just as much as bad in the real world and that’s a miss conception that must be taught to children. Maybe the problem isn’t with idealism vs realism but how realism is taught. With all the negatively based realistic books, there is always, at least, one piece of positive that gives people hope, idealism isn’t the only thing that can show hope.
“…no female character can ever be shown as anything other than strong and triumphant…” (Mills’s Essay). This is an idealistic view. Sure people hope that the young girl will speak up and stand up for herself, I do myself since I’m female, but what about that little girl that isn’t strong and triumphant. It’s okay for a male character to be weak but not a female. In real life females can be weak to, everyone can be weak. If literature tried to pretend that side of people doesn’t exist, it downplays the fragileness of humans. In a real world where books showed what it’s like, they would show strong and weak characters because there isn’t just one type of person. Kids should know it’s okay to be weak just as much as it’s okay to be strong.
“There is no one truth out there that fiction can be required to mirror.”(Mills) This quote refers to why readers can’t expect authors to “tell it like it is”.
However, realistic novels like Catcher in the Rye and Rebel without a Cause have similar story lines. Both pieces of literature have a “loner” type main character who eventually comes to grow into his or her own, or into society. These realistic fiction novels are so similar because they are both coming of age. In personal experience, all the books I’ve read, the character has grown. That’s a standard idea. Literature like this allows the reader to accept that it’s okay to different or out there and that they can still find their way. One might argue that Idealistic books do the same, which is partially true, but there is a distinct difference. The realistic books take time and conflicts to overcome to reach the point of coming of age. Idealistic books have characters that “are typically transformed instantly- literally instantly- by their very first glimpse of the garden.” (Mills’s Essay) In idealist books, there is no struggle to solve the problem, the author writes the character’s successes just as easily as his or her conflict. In Rebel Without a Cause, the coming of age for Jim was realistic. Jims grows and wants to tell the police what happened because Jim knows it’s the right thing to do, but his parents won’t let him because they want to protect him. If this part were idealistic the parents would have told
him to go because that’s what “should have happened”. A large majority of literature young adults read are coming of age stories. Realism and COA go hand in hand, idealism would not achieve the same effect. These books often miss the growth and morals learned that young adults need to learn.
In realistic novels, characters work out their problems, grow and overcome struggles.
These are important life lessons to young readers. More often than not, idealistic novels skip from the problem to the solution without ever having things get ugly. Teachers always say that the only student who benefits is the one who learns and does the work. Realistic literature shows the problem and challenges and how it can be worked through to be fixed. Idealistic literature simply tells you what things should be like. Fifty percent of students learn through action while only ten percent learn through listening (according to the University of Illinois). With numbers like this, it would make sense that novels with development and characters working through problems would be a way more effective style than characters telling it how it could be. At the end of the day, a mom would tell her child, “Actions speak louder than words.” Realism speaks louder than
idealism.