The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
Anyone else feel sad when you overhear people saying that they don't like this book?
I completely agree! In fact, most of the books I love have lead characters you can't help but dislike.
Marci wrote: "I completely agree! In fact, most of the books I love have lead characters you can't help but dislike."Exactly - and the great thing about that is that they're realistic because honestly who would be able to adore a protagonist who was perfect in every way. Them being imperfect and normal is what helps us identify with them.
I hated the book. I kept waiting to get to the good parts because it is deemed a great classic. Personally, I saw Holden as a whiny, self-absorbed, privileged kid with an ax to grind. Maybe because I am older, I no longer have patience with teen angst. I am sure many people love it and can relate to the book. I am not one of them.
It's up to the individual to decide whether or not they like the book. Most of my friends didn't like it but I'm not going to question them. I happened to love it and they're all okay with that. I have one friend who was excused from reading it because of all the swearing, which she doesn't handle well. It's just a matter of preference.
I think I understand why you were saddened - when you really love a book you sometimes become defensive of it like you would a dear friend. Catcher is by far, absolutely, my favorite book of all time. I read it for the first time in high school and there was something about Holden that just clicked for me. I do think, though, that if I read it for the first time today it probably wouldn't mean to me now what it meant to me then.
To me, it's a great book (and I am old). But discussing the criticism with a bookstore owner, he looked at me very intently and said "Oh, Salinger will always be a controversial writer." That about sums it up, I think. People either love or hate him, but I am with you on this one because I love that Salinger called out the American tendency to put on a happy, respectable, would-be admirable face rather than talk honestly about how one feels. Also, he is a great stylist/writer and reminds us in his own minimalist way that feelings are an essential part of life and ignored at great cost to one's psyche.
Ah, I hope nobody hates me when I say this but when I read it for 6th grade English, I didn't like it mostly because I couldn't exactly relate to Holden. Even now, when I think about it, I can't relate to a depressed teenage boy in the 1950s when I'm a happy teenage girl in 2013. My 11th grade english class is about to read this book so maybe when I reread it (now 5 years from when I last read it) I'll decide on a different opinion but I don't think I'll relate much still.
Vanesa wrote: "Ah, I hope nobody hates me when I say this but when I read it for 6th grade English, I didn't like it mostly because I couldn't exactly relate to Holden. Even now, when I think about it, I can't re..."That isn't a bad thing. I think part of the wonder of this book is that it's reality doesn't allow it to have universal appeal. And because Salinger never compromised on it, it's better for it, I would think.
I think it's okay not to like it, just recognize how real and valuable it is to others, which is seldom what happens.
Marci wrote: "Vanesa wrote: "Ah, I hope nobody hates me when I say this but when I read it for 6th grade English, I didn't like it mostly because I couldn't exactly relate to Holden. Even now, when I think about..."
I can definitely see why so many people like the book and why it means so much to them. I also love the people who value the book because of legitimate reasons rather than them liking it because he's just "talking **** " (quoting my current english teacher.)
I just don't like to be the person to bash on others because we have different opinions. We're all entitled to our own opinion.
I can definitely see why so many people like the book and why it means so much to them. I also love the people who value the book because of legitimate reasons rather than them liking it because he's just "talking **** " (quoting my current english teacher.)
I just don't like to be the person to bash on others because we have different opinions. We're all entitled to our own opinion.
It is sort of disheartening to have a book that really speaks to you (as this did for me) and have people bash it and generally not get into it. I don't know if it's the emotional realism of the book, or what...but it is sort of shell shock when someone says they didn't like it.I get it to some extent. It's not really a traditional book...idk...maybe some people like a lot of action and that's what it was missing? I guess I'd have to see their critiques to know.
Presticles1981 wrote: "It is sort of disheartening to have a book that really speaks to you (as this did for me) and have people bash it and generally not get into it. I don't know if it's the emotional realism of the b..."
well for me, it's not the lack of action. Just that I couldn't relate.
well for me, it's not the lack of action. Just that I couldn't relate.
Holden's definitely obsessed with a very specific aspect of his life or his problems, and that's the entire book, so if you can't completely hold onto that, you really don't have anything. If that makes sense...?
Vanesa wrote: "Presticles1981 wrote: "It is sort of disheartening to have a book that really speaks to you (as this did for me) and have people bash it and generally not get into it. I don't know if it's the emo..."Ya, I've heard people who don't like the book cause the really didn't like the main character. That would be difficult to read a book that is about a single person you don't relate to. But I don't relate to a lot of people in literary books and the only thing that's different from those vs Catcher in the Rye is that they have a more interesting plot...where Catcher in the Rye doesn't really...in the classic sense. So that's what I mean by lack of action. It may seem insulting to people but that is what really pulls people into a book...not typically how well they relate to a character. Although there are plenty of examples where relating to the character does pull the person in and allows them to enjoy the story. It just seems to me that lack of action surrounding the character is what really kept people who didn't relate from liking the book.
Marci wrote: "Holden's definitely obsessed with a very specific aspect of his life or his problems, and that's the entire book, so if you can't completely hold onto that, you really don't have anything. If that..."Yah, that's how I figure it for most of the people who didn't like it.
When i was reading this book, my assistant manager came over and said, 'Catcher in the RAY (??!!!) is it a childrens book?'. It infuriated me so much i decided to eat my lunch out.
Character pulls me in more than action, which sometimes requires 'flat' characters that don't interfere with narrative and also don't come across as truly alive. I like a character that I can imagine outside a particular book, doing their thing somewhere. I don't even have to like them; if they have that quality, I'm interested. Holden comes alive as a character, for me. Salinger was great at creating very distinct, complex characters.
It doesn't necessary make me sad, it just feels like I have one less thing in common with another. I absolutely loved this book, just because it was relateable in some way and it was an interesting experience to read a book that was out of my comfort zone (had to read this in high school). I understand people have their own tastes in books, so I'm willing to accept and respect them.
Actually the book lacks maturity and depth. But this serves its pupose. The whole I point of view is from the prospective of a young adult writing a bout his experience. There is nothing profound or groundbreaking about this book yet it still a great piece of fiction.
When people say they dont like the book more often then not they dont understand that the entire book is a metaphor within its self. Maybe they dont like the story and thats fine but it is brilliantly written.
Dominique wrote: "I read this book back around December 1900, and, having known what people on the Internet said why it's so great, I actually liked it.Then in May, during lunch at school, I was sitting with this g..."
I don't often become sad when I accidentally overhear the mutterings of stooges, no.
Gary wrote: "It doesn't make me sad, exactly. It's like watching someone make a silly mistake, or get the answer to a question wrong. It's a mild sense of amazement, and maybe a little disappointment that som..."Haha! Well said!
I find it most disturbing when people trash this book.It actually frustrates me. I feel like they just didn't get it. As I wrote in the thread that lists it as most overrated book, " whenever I hear people trash catcher in the rye, my heart breaks a little more". While everyone is entitled to their opinion, Many people need to lighten up. For some reason people get so stuck up when they talk about this book. Like the stiff tools HOlden refers to in his ramblings!
Like I say, oh jd salinger, woe to us on all those who fail to appreciate your sharp wit , deeply disturbing, and charmingly funny brilliance of this book! And to those who get it, we're in an elite club!
Mohammed wrote: "Actually the book lacks maturity and depth. But this serves its pupose. The whole I point of view is from the prospective of a young adult writing a bout his experience. There is nothing profound o..."Curiously, when this book was written it was ground breaking and therefore deserves its place in literary history. Having studied literature in college I don't just read books - I study them.
Perhaps this book won't be of interest to the coming generations because they can no longer identify with
Holden, however, to dismiss this book as "not groundbreaking" does it a great disservice.
'Nine Stories' was phenomenal too.
Personally, I am reading it now for English and I actually really dislike it. I'm on chapter 16 and I haven't gotten the reason why it is banned. The only "curse" he says is goddamn. In my opinion, that's not a curse word. It drives me insane why parts of the words are italicized and how Holden repeats phrases over and over. It doesn't make me sad when people say they dislike it because that's their opinion. If they like it, oh well, good for them. But I can also sympathize with them that they don't like it.
Andrea wrote: "Personally, I am reading it now for English and I actually really dislike it. I'm on chapter 16 and I haven't gotten the reason why it is banned. The only "curse" he says is goddamn. In my opinion,..."This book was published in 1951. It was not banned because of swear words. It was banned because it addressed both homosexuality and male rape.
Sadly, your teacher should be discussing some of the reasons it was banned. It is difficult to read classics out of context. You need to know the history behind the book and it's a shame they are not teaching you that.
What really matters is not how many people like or dislike a book; it is what it means to you, how it changes you, that makes all the difference in the world.
Dominique wrote: "I read this book back around December 2012, and, having known what people on the Internet said why it's so great, I actually liked it.
Then in May, during lunch at school, I was sitting with this g..."
Then in May, during lunch at school, I was sitting with this g..."
I have read this book three times, at different ages, trying desperately to like it--but have failed each time. I cannot relate to Holden Caufiled, and always see him as a whiney over-privilaged adolescent. What do you all love about this book?
Helen wrote: "I have read this book three times, at different ages, trying desperately to like it--but have failed each time. I cannot relate to Holden Caufiled, and always see him as a whiney over-privilaged a..."Like I said before, Holden may be privileged, but he still has real problems. He probably has some sort of mental illness, he alludes to past sexual abuse, and he has a fear of growing up and becoming that which he fears. All the while, no one seems to listen partially because he is privileged or because he is beneath them. He is never heard, and for some of us, it doesn't matter who we are or where we came from. We are hurting. We have a past that has left us scarred and fears that are scars will define our future.
Clearly though, because we are reading this book, Holden has found his voice, whether it is whiny or not. He's expressed that which no one else was willing to hear. It's not a grand piece of ground-breaking literature. It's pointing out the simple fact that imposed silence is not permanent.
Helen wrote: "Why do you all love this book?"Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-mate, James Castle, that he couldn't function? Today's diagnosis would be PTSD. Do you know anyone with that condition? If you did, you would recognize the symptoms in Holden.
Has anyone close to you died? Do you get it that people can be so torn up over the loss of a loved one that it takes them years to get over it unless they get professional help, if even then?
Does the book make sense to you knowing that JD Salinger himself spent time in a mental ward for "battle fatigue" during World War II after participating in the Normandy landing at Utah Beach, the heart of the action, where he could see hundreds of men, some of them perhaps close friends, cut to pieces by German machine guns and blown apart by mortars. He was at the horrific Battle of Bulge and other major battles where American troops were decimated.
He was also among the first Allied soldiers to visit a concentration camp where bodies were piled up to be burned and the air stank of burning flesh and the inmates he helped to liberate were walking skeletons? "You could live a lifetime, Salinger told his daughter, "and never really get the smell of burning flesh out of your nose."
Does it make sense to you that someone who had experienced what Salinger had could acquire a heightened sense of compassion for his fellow man and want to protect the innocence of children? Doesn't it make sense that he could create a character like Holden to express those feelings?
(And doesn't this make the "teenaged angst" explanation of the book seem a bit superficial, even dismissive?)
Holden was almost 17 and confronting the complications of life without much input from his parents, who themselves where probably still consumed by grief over Ailee's death. Holden makes it clear on multiple occasions how alone he feels. The PTSD could have made him edgy, jaded and negative.
All of life can be viewed from opposite poles of positive or negative. "Phony" is a negative label connoting judgement on the part of Holden's juvenile mind that is too inexperienced in life to have the capacity to understand why people put up a social front.
Every human being has a public persona they polish to show the world, when deep inside they are scared little children or have some other fear or hangup.
The irony is that Holden thinks he's being cool by calling out the phoniness he sees, when he's only skimmed the surface of human understanding. Until the very end of the book, when he lets down his own defenses, "practically bawling" as he sits on the bench in the rain watching Phoebe on the carousel.
"She just looks so nice," he says, "in her blue coat, going around and around."
The book is rich with deep insight into the humanity of an adolescent male striving to understand the world he is growing into while weighed down by unresolved grief over the deaths of Allie and James Castle. And he is redeemed by the innocence and unconditional love of Phoebe.
Oh Monty that was so well written. You said everything I think of the book. In addition to all the depths you pointed out, let's not forget the times the book made is laugh out loud too!This book is a masterpiece. One of my favorites of all time. Thank you for your wonderful insights,
And being another human being who "just gets it!"
Hannah wrote: "Personally, I love this book but I've also overheard a lot of people saying they didn't like it. I heard some people from my school saying that they thought it was 'something of nothing' or that 'n..."This is not a book for young adults or teenagers, although it is promoted that way, wrongly, because of the age of the protagonist. The themes of compassion and mental illness and redemption are adult themes. The popular focus on teenage angst is overblown, in my humble opinion, and that raises unrealistic expectations in younger readers, leaving them disappointed or confused.
Monty J wrote: "Helen wrote: "Why do you all love this book?"Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-mate, James Castle, that he couldn't functi..."
Well said, all of your post. I read the book several times as a youngster and wholeheartedly agreed with Holden about the phoniness of adults. His suffering consoled me. You have given me reason to read the book again for what my younger self missed.
Monty J wrote: "Helen wrote: "Why do you all love this book?"Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-mate, James Castle, that he couldn't functi..."
Very well written post, Monty. I understand why so many people relate to Holden, but I personally hated the book. I can understand and appreciate a novel's message without enjoying the way that message is presented. Imagine if your favorite song was covered by an artist you absolutely loath. It's the same lyrics, the only thing that changed was who/how it was performed. So why do you hate the cover, since it is the same message? You can "get it" without liking it.
Fushuai "Black" wrote: "I don't believe anyone will actually "dislike" the book if he's a real literature lover, ... They can continue their eloquent speeches on vampires, and I will just ignore them. "So, Dracula isn't real literature? Yes, I'm sure you meant Twilight and its ilk, but I've never heard its fans muster an eloquent speech, or much real knowledge, on vampires.
As for your "no true Scotsman" argument, "real literature" covers a great many styles and subjects, so the idea that every single literature fan will not dislike The Catcher in the Rye is laughable.
For the record, I love plenty of classic literature, TCitR is not among them.
Well, for me it's the greates book I've ever read. Period.
Agree. This book is a litmus test book. People that hate or don't get it, I don't get. I love it and its casually offensive tone and confusion. An unreliable narrator that we'd like as a friend!
I've just reread this whole thread and something keeps nibbling at a corner of my thoughts and I'll try to put it into words. I'm sorry this is so long; feel free to skip it:>)Books are deemed classics for a lot of reason one of which is that they speak to the human condition and give us insight into ourselves and/or mankind in general.
Somewhere around puberty, we learn to think abstractly. Up until that point, we are limited by what we have experienced ourselves and we think that everyone experiences the same reality. Somewhere around the 7th grade we begin to read literature that is more abstract and opens our minds up to a different reality. We read books like Silas Marner , Great Expectations , An American Tragedy, Catcher in the Rye , and my favorite Of Human Bondage .
By reading books such as these, we learn more about the psychological and philosophical world we live in. We learn to understand what human nature contains and why people and countries act the way they do. Criminal profilers do not like the serial killers they interview, but they interview them to learn about why they do what they do.
We might not like the characters, the language, or the settings of these books and find them boring even, but that isn't why they are studied. We can change because of a book even if we don't like it. I think that is why they are classics.
I try to read a lot of classics because I think they improve my understanding of myself and others. When I come across a book that appears on most classics list and I don't like it and can't see the point, I feel sad. There are a lot of people out there who are learning wonderful things, and I can't get it. Lots of times I go on my library website to get the ebook copy of Cliff Notes or something similar to see if I can understand it. I still struggle with Toni Morrison or Salmon Rushdi, so every few years, I try them again. If all those people who are smarter and more well read than I am say that something is in this book that makes it a classic, I pretty much believe them, especially if the book has been around a long time. If Catcher in the Rye has been on the classics list for this long, it has value even if I may not enjoy reading it.
Anne Hawn wrote: "I've just reread this whole thread and something keeps nibbling at a corner of my thoughts and I'll try to put it into words.Books are deemed classics for a lot of reason one of which is that the..."
Anne, I really like the thoughtfulness of this post. Thanks.
You are very welcome, Kallie.
I feel sad when people don't like Catcher in the Rye because it often seems that they are offended by the swearing or Holden's attitude or his dalliance with a prostitute. These attitudes seem judgemental and to miss the larger points that he is making: about phoniness, selfishness and narcissism. H actually seems to me to be something of a Christ figure but also perhaps bi-polar. Ultimately, he is a good human being raising questions about our culture. I LIKE HIM. Partly because of his honesty. Something which is really apparent in your post. So thanks for sharing it and keep challenging yourself, as I will.
YYYEEEESSSS!!!!
I HATE it when people say they hate this book! It makes me so sad and upset :( I loved this book within an inch of it's life, I just really wish other's could do that too :(
I HATE it when people say they hate this book! It makes me so sad and upset :( I loved this book within an inch of it's life, I just really wish other's could do that too :(
Not a bit as I didn't care for it myself. Perhaps I was expecting too much from the hype I'd heard or maybe my generation's experiences aren't in line w/ the social context of the story. Whatever the cause I found this book extremely overrated.
Do we have to like a book's central character to like the book? (Incidentally, I like Holden). Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, any Henry James novel you care to choose, Poe, Hawthorne etc all use protagonists who are difficult to relate to. Maybe a "likeable" central character is a modern phenomenon in keeping with removing all boundaries from a reader making a purchase?
Roland wrote: "Do we have to like a book's central character to like the book? (Incidentally, I like Holden). Moby Dick, Crime and Punishment, any Henry James novel you care to choose, Poe, Hawthorne etc all use ..."Good point, Roland. In fact, I like to get into character's head when he or she is NOT like me, or like I want to be, and try to see their world from their perspective. I think characterization usually suffers when a writer tries to make a character he or she identifies with as admirable. The character becomes a puppet rather than a complex character with a life of his or her own.
I read this story sometime in the 1960s and loved it. I have it on a special shelf at home for my favourite books.I think the story is brilliantly told.Did the author have an experience similar to Holden's? I wonder, for he conveys Holden's personality so very convincuingly. Perhaps he is writing about himself in the third person. I also think that part of my love for the story derives from my having hated the boarding schools I was sent to--four in all-- and ran away from my first at the age of five. Sadly, I didn't have all the fascinating experiences Holden had on his way home. My escape only took me on a six mile nocturnal walk through bush country. It doesn't, by the way, bother me in the least what others think of the story. Yasseen
Yasseen wrote: "Did the author have an experience similar to Holden's?"The answer is "Yes."
In a 1953 interview with a high-school newspaper, Salinger said that the novel was "sort of" autobiographical: "My boyhood was very much the same as that of the boy in the book ...it was a great relief telling people about it."
The boarding school in the story, Pencey, is based on the Valley Forge Military Academy, that Salinger attended. The current headmaster is interviewed in a Youtube clip. He was a classmate of Salinger's. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qZXFR....
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Out of Africa (other topics)The Catcher in the Rye (other topics)
Yes! I completely agree (again) - I think in some ways Holden represents to us a lot of the things we don't like about ourselves, selfishness, dissatisfaction with our lives, complaining etc. A protagonist doesn't necessarily have to be likeable to be a good character.