The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Is this book anything like The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Michaela
(new)
Dec 03, 2012 10:51am
Thanks :)
reply
|
flag
*
In my opinion it's not even close. The Outsiders is a coming of age tale of Ponyboy. Catcher is a justification for a punk kid to keep acting like a punk kid.
Um, no because the outsiders is good and this book SUCKS. But that's just my opinion, I know plenty of people who love this stupid story.
Elia wrote: "Um, no because the outsiders is good and this book SUCKS. But that's just my opinion, I know plenty of people who love this stupid story."Elia, what did you like best about The Outsiders?
That has to be the cutest question I've heard all day! Akin to " Mommy, am I like Ke$hia?" No dear, SE Hinton is an innocent 15 year old girl, who carefully crafted a thoughtful if naive story of redemption. JD Salinger is a demented speed freak who, during a sweat soaked, 48 hour bender created a confusing beast of a story with no real central purpose. Now finish your crumpets, dear!
lol how funny, you all hate this book and love the Outsiders! Haha... Sorry, it's just so rare to have everyone who comments be of the same opinion :) I'm sorry I don't know much about this book... I just wondered :)
Oh, don't get me wrong. I actually like Catcher, but I'm an English teacher, so I tend to like things differently than others. My comment was only toward the comparison. As far as The Outsiders, rarely do I think a movie is as good as the book, but this time, I did. The book, and most of Hinton's work is more about the story than the craft of language. This is not a criticism as much as a personal preference of mine. There is a lot more to Holden than a lot of people get.
NO NO NO I despise catcher. Its a waste and 40 years of English teachers assigning this mess as an example of good literature is why teens hate reading.
Scott wrote: No dear, SE Hinton is an innocent 15 year old girl, who carefully crafted a thoughtful if naive story of..."Funny thats how catcher reads to me in hindsight like a babbling speed freak with no destination in mind and no clear train of thought.
Well, I did start it and I've read about 70 pages out of 214. I can definitely see the good in it, but really, the sexual talk is REALLY annoying me. I'm not sure if I'm going to continue. D: It's just a little bit too dirty. Hm. I don't know, I'm still deciding.
Lara's right---Sadly, It's much easier to tear down a work, than to understand it. The Catcher in the Rye is more a display of the restlessness of a whole generation, told through the first-person narrative of an out-of-center youth. The style and language is course, and the plotline only secondary to the purpose of coveying the angst of a post-war generation. The Cather in the Rye doesn't SUCK, it's just so different than the trite, easily digestible Outsiders that the question itself seemed obsurd. It's folklore that the story was written in a day, and the story is SUPPOSED to babble, as a first-person narrative. Michaela, set it aside for now, and wait for your curiosity to pique your interest later, if ever.
Scott wrote: "Lara's right---Sadly, It's much easier to tear down a work, than to understand it. The Catcher in the Rye is more a display of the restlessness of a whole generation, told through the first-person..."Nicely put, Scott.
CITR is a two-tier novel, or a one-tier novel with powerful psychological undertones. I recommend reading it twice, waiting at least six months in between. Maybe years.
No, the books are not alike though the same type of reluctant reader may love each or both of these books. Each of these books can make a reader out of a challenged reader.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
