King Dork, by Frank Portman

Holden to Chi-Mo; Elitists to Hippies
Reviewed by Patrick Schoener
January 11, 2008

King Dork is a modern day version of Catcher in the Rye, written in the style of teenage skaz and with many of the universal ideas brought up by Holden Caulfield. The main Differences between the two books would be that Tom Henderson in King Dork has an obvious task he is completing unlike Holden, and that rock and roll is a main focus in the book.

The book King Dork by Frank Portman is a very enjoyable book which ironically portrays Tom Henderson, also known as “Chi-Mo”, as a modern day Holden Caulfield. The book is a great read for much the same reason that Catcher in the Rye has become a classic, but I believe some of the effect is lost if you are not knowledgeable of the seventies rock genre. Many references are made to rock groups of a past era, and even thought I knew of many of the bands, I still believe I have missed parts of the book due to an incomplete knowledge of the topic.

Many similarities have already been noted in Mr. Quale’s review such as the main style of writing as Teenage Skaz, as well as that both characters do not accept their surroundings. However, Holden and Tom Henderson do contrast greatly in many aspects.

Aside from the many negative references to Holden and the Catcher Cult, Tom Henderson appears to be participating in the same group bashing as Holden. Tom Henderson looks down upon all groups, even going so far as to include his only friend Sam at times, “Sam Hellerman is kind of friendly with him, as he is with everyone who is not a dangerous normal psychotic,” but Holden focuses mostly on the “phoniness” of the Ivy-Leaguers and wealthy girls, while Tom Henderson attacks the “psychotic normal kids” which appears to encompass everyone except the drama mods and himself. Holden has a problem with a distinct group of people who has been forced upon him by his parents. He attempts to wreak vengeance upon his parents by destroying his own future, which includes being dismissed from several schools. Tom Henderson does not attempt to be expelled from school and even tries to excel in AP classes while searching for a way to become closer to his dad. In this regard Tom Henderson drastically differs from Holden.

The purpose of the two books also greatly contrasts them, since no obvious goal has been accomplished in Catcher in the Rye. Holden simply walks around New York City attempting to drown his sorrows in various vices, and ultimately ends up in a mental institution. Tom Henderson is in a hospital during the final scenes of the book, but his works throughout the course of the book in attempting to find out about his father’s mysterious death led to the discovery of a pedophile. He also has become more active with girls, which it does not appear was a real goal at the onset, but it was a large portion of the last fifty or so pages of the book. Holden is just the opposite; he goes as far as to buy a prostitute for “a throw” but then refuses to do anything with her. Holden appears as though he still has feelings for Jane Gallagher, where as Tom Henderson does not want any girl in particular until he meets “Fiona” who is a girl in his English class who his best friend Sam is also attracted to coincidentally.

The sister-brother relationships of Holden and Tom Henderson are also very different. Holden has a very caring sister Phoebe whom he oddly cares for when he could not care less about anyone else in the world, including himself. “Okay. Hurry up, tough, now. You’re gonna miss your ride. You won’t get your own horse or anything.” Amanda, Tom Henderson’s sister, does not interact very much with him, but when they do it usually involves a fight over the phone. There is one Catcher-esque embrace when they are talking about their late father, but that is not the norm in the book.

Overall, I believe the book deserves four stars because it is an amazing read for the same reasons that Catcher in the Rye is, but that it loses some of its ability to reach people when Tom Henderson digresses into discussions about the seventies rock genre. I have only limited knowledge of this era’s music and desire to listen to this music. Nevertheless, I could still follow most of the book, and believe I understood many of the references, so it is still a much appreciated book, even for those with a limited knowledge of rock and roll.