Jean’s answer to “Am i the only person who fails to understand why this book is considered a classic, to me it was bo…” > Likes and Comments
199 likes · Like
What a beautifully phrased contextualisation!
Wow. What a nice compliment! I appreciate it!
Very well put Jean. I couldn't have said it better.
For a five stared book, it lacks the immortality and prolonged beauty that many books' shown. To be honset I am completely agreed with you, it is just a book for people of his time, and for someone like me (someone who did not experience the overall climate of those times) it seems something like BS (not offense, I just try to copy book's atmosphere ) ;)
Agreed Tom. This was an amazing answer and summary of why it is a classic. I was born in 1989 and read it last year for the first time. I couldn't put it down. Just loved how it was so real and a perfect insight into some teenage boys minds. Reading Jean's comments also made me think of Shakespeare. Teens struggle to relate to his plays now, but he was also starting a revolution in his time period. Poking fun at the society he lived in.
Thanks for this explanation. It will probably be lost on a lot more people going forward which is a shame. But then, I suppose that there are modern day books that we don't classify as "classics" which will be studied in future generations.
But if it's the context of the book that matters, why not wrapping it up in a good story? I mean, there's a depressed, obviously rather disturbed boy, doing close to nothing but telling you how depressed he is all the time. That's called life. We all live it without being so whiney.
Salinger could have made Holden a real rebell. Not just hating everybody (and being the same way), but openly fighting that system of society back then.
He could have made Holden kill himself. (Gotta say, halfway through the book I started wishing he'd finally do it, although that's nasty.) It would have probably ended up like 'Die Leiden des jungen Werther' by Goethe, so not really good, but better than what he wrote.
Or Holden could have really run away and start a good way of life, far from the society he hates.
All that would have not only been new back then, too, but it could inspire people even now. (Well, hopefully not the suicide story idea.)
Instead it bored my brains out. I've been depressive, too. That's why one should never ever write a novel about one's depression: Because it's usually boring and leads nowhere.
are you serious?! I'm a boomer. He's a whiny, self-entitled, shit! I hate Holden Caulfield and I hate his story. "Context of the era"? Not at all. Context of white-privilege in the era, maybe. There's nothing redeeming about this book
If what you say us the true message of the book, the writer does a terrible job saying it. Instead of being shown a culturaly and morally bankrupt society, all we see is a spoiled rich boy whining all the time. He says nothing of merit. (less)
Once again, goodreads won’t let me edit comment.
.....
You say the book is about being authentic in a repressive country in a repressive era.
Okay then. That’s what it should have been about.
Also, nothing has changed. USA is repressive as ever. Everybody's too plugged into the hive mind to see it.
Try to be an authentic individuel and you will be locked up, ostracised, or deported.
Unpopolar ideas and opinions are not tolerated. Everybody is phony as ever. Just look at the nasty and pretentious comments in this discussion or anywhere online.
In the 1950s other writers did a much better job at being authentic and criticizing society. The beat writers were among them . George Orwell . Karl Jung in other fields.
@Aelys The words of a cynic hold as much water as an Arabian desert in summer.
Also USA repressive?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...
What I think I meant by repressive is that in some places, people who try to do their own thing can end up getting bullied or abused or worse. In high school for example, depending on the school, a kid who is too weird or différént although harmless will be shunned, ostracised, or beaten.
In récent memory, homosexual students have been murdered. You would expect that in the middle east or parts of south America, but not in a place like Wyoming where people pride themselves in personal liberty, equality, and value freedom.
I dont recall the details but maybe repression is that contributrd to Holden's problem. He was weird. It sounds like it would have been hard to like him.
>we have just defeated 2 evil empires.
Just a remark that no need to make it sound like you defeated. You took a part in defeating and in terms of casualities you experienced much much less tragedies then some other allies.
Context or not, Catcher in the Rye still stinks.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tom
(new)
Nov 08, 2015 01:36PM
What a beautifully phrased contextualisation!
reply
|
flag
Wow. What a nice compliment! I appreciate it!
Very well put Jean. I couldn't have said it better.
For a five stared book, it lacks the immortality and prolonged beauty that many books' shown. To be honset I am completely agreed with you, it is just a book for people of his time, and for someone like me (someone who did not experience the overall climate of those times) it seems something like BS (not offense, I just try to copy book's atmosphere ) ;)
Agreed Tom. This was an amazing answer and summary of why it is a classic. I was born in 1989 and read it last year for the first time. I couldn't put it down. Just loved how it was so real and a perfect insight into some teenage boys minds. Reading Jean's comments also made me think of Shakespeare. Teens struggle to relate to his plays now, but he was also starting a revolution in his time period. Poking fun at the society he lived in.
Thanks for this explanation. It will probably be lost on a lot more people going forward which is a shame. But then, I suppose that there are modern day books that we don't classify as "classics" which will be studied in future generations.
But if it's the context of the book that matters, why not wrapping it up in a good story? I mean, there's a depressed, obviously rather disturbed boy, doing close to nothing but telling you how depressed he is all the time. That's called life. We all live it without being so whiney. Salinger could have made Holden a real rebell. Not just hating everybody (and being the same way), but openly fighting that system of society back then.
He could have made Holden kill himself. (Gotta say, halfway through the book I started wishing he'd finally do it, although that's nasty.) It would have probably ended up like 'Die Leiden des jungen Werther' by Goethe, so not really good, but better than what he wrote.
Or Holden could have really run away and start a good way of life, far from the society he hates.
All that would have not only been new back then, too, but it could inspire people even now. (Well, hopefully not the suicide story idea.)
Instead it bored my brains out. I've been depressive, too. That's why one should never ever write a novel about one's depression: Because it's usually boring and leads nowhere.
are you serious?! I'm a boomer. He's a whiny, self-entitled, shit! I hate Holden Caulfield and I hate his story. "Context of the era"? Not at all. Context of white-privilege in the era, maybe. There's nothing redeeming about this book
If what you say us the true message of the book, the writer does a terrible job saying it. Instead of being shown a culturaly and morally bankrupt society, all we see is a spoiled rich boy whining all the time. He says nothing of merit. (less)Once again, goodreads won’t let me edit comment.
.....
You say the book is about being authentic in a repressive country in a repressive era.
Okay then. That’s what it should have been about.
Also, nothing has changed. USA is repressive as ever. Everybody's too plugged into the hive mind to see it.
Try to be an authentic individuel and you will be locked up, ostracised, or deported.
Unpopolar ideas and opinions are not tolerated. Everybody is phony as ever. Just look at the nasty and pretentious comments in this discussion or anywhere online.
In the 1950s other writers did a much better job at being authentic and criticizing society. The beat writers were among them . George Orwell . Karl Jung in other fields.
@Aelys The words of a cynic hold as much water as an Arabian desert in summer. Also USA repressive?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...
What I think I meant by repressive is that in some places, people who try to do their own thing can end up getting bullied or abused or worse. In high school for example, depending on the school, a kid who is too weird or différént although harmless will be shunned, ostracised, or beaten. In récent memory, homosexual students have been murdered. You would expect that in the middle east or parts of south America, but not in a place like Wyoming where people pride themselves in personal liberty, equality, and value freedom.
I dont recall the details but maybe repression is that contributrd to Holden's problem. He was weird. It sounds like it would have been hard to like him.
>we have just defeated 2 evil empires.Just a remark that no need to make it sound like you defeated. You took a part in defeating and in terms of casualities you experienced much much less tragedies then some other allies.
Context or not, Catcher in the Rye still stinks.
