Anyone else feel sad when you overhear people saying that they don't like this book?

[[deleted user]]

Wow, that interview was amazing. How cool that the author based Pencey on his old school :) there is more to this book than we think

[Yasseen]

Thank you Monty J for a most interesting interview and several other vidoes about Salinger. Incidentally, I don't remember giving the book only four stars. It could have happened through some clumsy move of mine on the internet, but I wouldn't have given it less than the maximum----five.

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "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" autobiog..."

Thanks, Monty. What a narrow dormitory corridor! And it was so interesting to hear that Salinger combined several people at Pencey into one character.

[Anne Hawn]

Kallie wrote: 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 agree totally! That is the genius of the classics and all good literature. I think that is the essence of being "well read." Getting inside the mind of a character in a book helps us understand ourselves and others. What comes to mind right now is The Picture of Dorina Gray. Essentially, Dorian does all kinds of despicable things without seeming to change in any way. He doesn't suffer for any of his actions. He is a complete sociopath and the reader is able to get into his mind and during most of the book we see the damage he causes others. At the end though the reader is able to see the damages he does to himself.

After finishing the book, the reader comes to understand that there are consequences to that kind of life. One book won't put the breaks on a sociopath, but after reading Great Expectations, The Great Gatsby (Daisy), Vanity Fair (Becky Sharp), A Christmas Carol (Scrooge), David Copperfield (Steerforth) Persuasion (Mr. Elliot)even a sociopath can see the consequences of that life, and the rest of the readers understand that there are people who have no conscience and to be wary of them.

To me, classics gain that title because they are incredibly successful in creating characters and situations which are a different reality from the reader, but which the reader can be immersed in and learn from.

http://litreactor.com/columns/literat...

[Patrick]

I think if you're just reading purely because you want to be entertained by plot twists or story arc, you won't enjoy it.

If you're looking for characters and use of language, then you will probably like it.

I personally think it's a classic. The use of symbolism and imagery and language in that book is masterful. I don't approach a story like it owes me the experience of being satisfied or happy at the end, I read because I want to look into someone else's world and that book certainly does it. It's a "real" book to me as there are actually people like the main character in the real world and I empathize because he's not having a fun time in his life. I found it interesting.

[Patrick]

He Fails with a hooker and two drunk chicks.

I'm curious as to why you view that as "failure". From what I gathered, he chose not to do anything with them because he felt guilty about it, and not to mention he has almost no friends so Holden wanted someone to talk to. The fact that the hooker isn't qualified to be his friend (they barely know each other) is a clear representation of the angst and frustration people can have when they are in their lowest and loneliest of times; you are lonely because you have no one to talk to, but no one wants to talk to you because you are lonely.

Choosing not to use a stranger for sex or taking advantage of "drunk chicks" because Holden felt guilty is, to me, a sign of a certain level of morality. Are you guys forgetting that his ultimate happiness was to keep children safe (the "Catcher in the Rye")? Hello? That's the whole point of the book is that Holden's conscience seems to constantly prevent him from moving forward in a world that doesn't really care much about him and where being a "good" person doesn't count for much. Thus his frustration comes out in his language because let's face it, the other characters in the book don't show very much morality.

Salinger repeats the same words and phrases constantly

Yes, it's called "repetition", and it's a literary device used by many authors and writers. Have you ever seen an episode of Simpsons? You know Nelson, the kid that always says, "Ha-ha"? It's the same idea. That character uses a phrase in repetition because it's a character trait and we identify that character because of it. I'm sure there are plenty of other books you love where characters repeat words and actions as a result of their personality, people even do it in real life. Why is it that it's acceptable in other mediums, people do it all the time in real life, but in this specific book it's "too repetitive"? Is it too real?

The book is a glimpse into Holden's life, nothing more. It's not some adventure story where "stuff happens" because it's a slice of life, so when people tell me "nothing happens" I just dismiss it because yeah, nothing EXTRAORDINARY happens but stuff does happen to Holden you just have to be looking. It's like a memoir . . . you don't read a memoir expecting adventure, it's someone's life and whatever happened happened, that's life, that's being human.

It's a human story in my opinion. Don't take me the wrong way, I really do get why people find it boring, even I have to be in the right mood to want to read it again, but I'm personally shocked that some people can't identify the themes properly in this story I feel that it just went completely over their head. Calling it crap or garbage is just to me overreacting. Then again, I spent a lot of time studying literature in school so maybe I'm just looking for those specific things.

[Monty J]

Patrick wrote: "...nothing EXTRAORDINARY happens..."

Unless one considers the redemption of an older brother from making a bad mistake (running away) by the devotion of his younger sibling, Phoebe.

The extraordinary thing to me is the utter devotion these two have for one another, whereas in a vast number of families siblings are too jealous or self-absorbed to care about each other. Holden and Phoebe practically worship each other. Why? Because they've both felt the extreme pain of losing their brother, Allie.

Perhaps we've all been so conditioned by action and genre flicks that a character-driven story like Catcher doesn't register. No bombs going off, no car chase, no murder, no vampire fangs oozing blood, no violence, no boys on flying brooms.

Perhaps we have become desensitized by the flood of literary low-hanging fruit such as Fifty Shades of Grey, Twilight, Hunger Games, the Harry Potter series, none of which I was able to read past page three. (Which may sound snobbish, but it is merely true. There are books I've tried many times to read, like Eat, Pray, Love, earnestly wanting to see what so many people are excited about, only to fail. Repeatedly.)

Catcher, like other classics (such as Lord of the Flies and To Kill a Mockingbird) requires readers to think deeply and most people want to be distracted from life not confronted with it.

[Anne Hawn]

Patrick wrote: "I personally think it's a classic. The use of symbolism and imagery and language in that book is masterful. I don't approach a story like it owes me the experience of being satisfied or happy at the end, I read because I want to look into someone else's world and that book certainly does it....

It's a human story in my opinion. Don't take me the wrong way, I really do get why people find it boring, even I have to be in the right mood to want to read it again, but I'm personally shocked that some people can't identify the themes properly in this story I feel that it just went completely over their head. Calling it crap or garbage is just to me overreacting. Then again, I spent a lot of time studying literature in school so maybe I'm just looking for those specific things."

Patrick, You have summed it up beautifully. I can't think of a classic that you don't have to study some to get the most meaning from it, and most are not meant to be "entertaining," unless you are thrilled when an author finds the perfect metaphor or pens a beautiful phrase.

I probably will get creamed for saying this but the people who are the most vitriolic about classics in general and this book specifically sound the most like Holden Caufield. There is an angst there that I can't account for.

[Patrick]

Monty J wrote: "...Unless one considers the redemption of an older brother from making a bad mistake (running away) by the devotion of his younger sibling, Phoebe.

The extraordinary thing to me is the utter devotion these two have for one another, whereas in a vast number of families siblings are too jealous or self-absorbed to care about each other. Holden and Phoebe practically worship each other. Why? Because they've both felt the extreme pain of losing their brother, Allie..."

That's a great point, and that's an example of what I was trying to get at. I do find those moments extraordinary too I think the word I meant to use was something like "no EXPLOSIONS happen" lol.

Monty J wrote: "...most people want to be distracted from life, not be confronted with it..."

I can understand. I just get passionate when people call it "garbage" for illustrating human moments. I don't find humans boring . . . :p

[Monty J]

Anne Hawn wrote: "I probably will get creamed for saying this but the people who are the most vitriolic about classics in general and this book specifically sound the most like Holden Caufield. There is an angst there that I can't account for."

Hah! I have drawn the same parallel on some of these threads, and, yes, I got torched for saying it. It is nice to see someone else sticking their neck out.

[Kallie]

A lot of insightful posts, Patrick, Anne and Monty J. Thanks.

[Anne Hawn]

Monty J wrote: "the flood of literary low-hanging fruit"

You are truly a wordsmith! I love it!

If I get creamed, I am in good company.

[[deleted user]]

Anne Hawn wrote: "Monty J wrote: "the flood of literary low-hanging fruit"

You are truly a wordsmith! I love it!

If I get creamed, I am in good company."
No creaming from me. :)

[Amber]

I really liked this book also. It always remimded me of something one of my older brothers would do during that young and stupid time in life. :-)

[Lostshadows]

Monty J wrote: "Perhaps we have become desensitized by the flood of literary low-hanging fruit"

You make this sound like a new phenomenon. It isn't. Mass popularity will always go to things that are easier to read, simply because they will always find a broader audience.

[[deleted user]]

Em wrote: "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 feel you.

[Jacquie]

Paul wrote: "Holden is a terrible, boring character and Salinger repeats the same words and phrases constantly trying to imitate an immature teenager's speech patterns but it made me nuts. As many times as the ..."

I also reread this as an adult, with great hope that I'd see and understand what I so obviously missed the first time around, in my early twenties. Thus I was even more disappointed the second time.

I read it alongside my eleventh grader, and read his notes from class as they studied it, hoping to learn what all the fuss was about. Again, thus I was disappointed.

As near as I can tell, this book was intended to be an ironic observation of irony. How groundbreaking. Yawn.

[Taylor]

Honestly, the first time I read the book, I was a little disappointed by it. I felt the same way as that girl felt, that there really wasn't much going on throughout the whole book.
When I read the book for a second time, I realized that you can't really pick out single events that are less or more important in this book like you can in most other novels because all the happenings are equally important and influential. It doesn't follow Freytag's triangle at all, it seems, unless you think really hard about it and even then opinions would probably differ from person to person. (I actually tried to do a book report on TCITR where we had to map out Freytag's Triangle... it did not end well)
I think that a lot of people have a hard time with this book because it does seem as though nothing exciting has happened and that something should happen. What you have to do is look at the big picture instead of trying to dissect the story. You have to look at the whole book as one event, or a bunch of pieces that put together one event.

[Gudrun]

Judas wrote: "The first time I read the book, I absolutely hated it. I really mean that*. I was seventeen, and I threw the book across the room several times before completing it.
I did the same with Twilight,..."
I couldn't agree more. I have read it twice and it was awful the first time and worse the second. I think it depends on who you are, everyone has different tastes.

[Yasseen]

If anybody gets creamed it'll be me over the following confession: I have failed entirely to be able to read science fiction and the fantasies of Tolkien. I also once fell asleep in a Harry Potter movie to the amazement of accompanying children and adults. I, myself, have wondered why this happened.

Monty J and Patrick, to whom I am most obliged, however, have put me on track towards an answer in making me look again at my shelf of favourite books with a more
analytical eye.

As well as "Catcher," the shelf contains the three books that Monty J says he likes plus, among others, "A Sentimental Journey," Tristram Shandy" and "Wuthering Heights." It also features all of Charles Dickens's works, "L'Etranger," the short stories of Marcel Ayme, Saki, "Some People," "Thurber Carnival"and "In a Shallow Grave."

I have always thought I must be a bit nuts to like such an eclectic collection. But I now see the thread that runs through them. The stories are all about very distinctive, more or less real characters, even if some of them are eccentrics. And rather than following a plot that seems to have been imposed on them, their activities generate what happens next. I like that.

The only question that remains is why I should prefer that sort of story over the stories and movies about space travel, vampires and zombies that millions of people like. And, truly, I am no snob.

[Anne Hawn]

Oh Yasseen, I haven't thought of Thurber in a long while. There was a time when I devoured his books. Now there is a movie about Walter Mitty, I'll have to get the story and read it again before the movie. Thanks for the reminder!

[Andrea]

Update: I finished this book a week or two ago, I don't remember. I got a 100 on the first test and I took the last one today. I still don't like it. Nothing happens at all to explain Holden's behavior. I think he's a little whiny. The only chapter that makes me remotely feel anything for this book is the last chapter. But other than that, I don't like it. At all. It just isn't "my cup of tea". And no, my teacher never told us exactly why this book is banned. If this book is being banned now, why don't they ban some other books? I've read books with far more curse words and sexual references in them.

[Patrick]

Andrea wrote: "Nothing happens at all to explain Holden's behaviour..."

From what I read in this thread there were a few very reasonable explanations provided . . . some that I never thought about myself, another reason why I enjoy this book; it seems there's always some facet or subtlety I discover with each reread.

[Jemma]

When I hear people say that they don't like a book that's fine with me. I have to admit that I didn't like Catcher In The Rye but then I like a lot of books that others will dislike. Books are a very individual thing

[Ed]

I don't feel sad knowing that some people don't like the book. I just don't understand it. Unlike the original inquirer who apparently was 18 at the time and in high school, I'm a grandpa. I read this book for the first time only earlier this year & loved it. Yeah, I know, I'm probably the only literate person in the English speaking world over the age of 18 who hadn't already read the book. Anyway it's a great book & Dominique don't be concerned about the opinions of your peers. For the record I earlier this year read for the first time Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises. This almost always appears on everyone's list of the greatest novels of the 20th century. Yet I hated it & were it not for the fact that it is short, I doubt if I would have finished it. Just goes to show, we all see things differently in this world.

[Chris]

Not at all because it just isn't that awesome of a book.

[Patrick]

Jemma wrote: "When I hear people say that they don't like a book that's fine with me. I have to admit that I didn't like Catcher In The Rye but then I like a lot of books that others will dislike. Books are a ve..."

Okay well let me ask you this: is a painting an individual thing? When we see a beautiful painting, is there not a certain level of quality involved in the piece? Or is it simply a matter of what we individually feel about it?

[Anne Hawn]

Kevin, I think you hit the nail on the head! Just because I don't particularly like a book, doesn't mean that it isn't skillfully and beautifully written and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't good literature. There is no doubt that Salinger puts you into the mind of Holden Caufield. You see the world through his eyes and you feel what he is feeling. He doesn't tell you ABOUT Caufield's problems, he lets you experience them and draw your own conclusions. That is a very difficult thing to do and he was supremely successful.

[Kallie]

Just a couple of thoughts that come up for me: Some paintings and books express the artist's sensibility and some simply fulfill genre requirements (are these works of art? not to me). Catcher is definitely among the former; it's a work of art because Holden truly comes alive; but not everyone will sympathize with or even be interested in the sensibility expressed through Holden (good point Anne; Salinger let's Holden do the talking). And I agree about A Farewell to Arms, because I don't find the sensibility expressed sympathetic or interesting -except perhaps in a super-clinical way that wants to pick apart the novel and figure out why I don't like it very much.

[Monty J]

Kallie wrote: "Holden truly comes alive; but not everyone will sympathize with or even be interested in the sensibility expressed through Holden (good point Anne; Salinger let's Holden do the talking). And I agree about A Farewell to Arms, because I don't find the sensibility expressed sympathetic or interesting -except perhaps in a super-clinical way that wants to pick apart the novel and figure out why I don't like it very much."

This is the meat of the controversy over Catcher. And well expressed.

Jut like the story Holden threw together for Stadlater's English assignment. The sensibility expressed was delightful--Allie's baseball glove inscribed with poetry. What a great story idea, but Stradlater wasn't into it. That was Stradlater's issue, not the story's.

A skilled writer can practically kill himself crafting a masterful work of art and 95% of the world will yawn, especially if it's realistic literary fiction.

This genre confronts life as it is, and most people would rather escape from life and be entertained, shocked, titillated, or whatever.

[Lostshadows]

Patrick wrote: "Okay well let me ask you this: is a painting an individual thing? When we see a beautiful painting, is there not a certain level of quality involved in the piece? Or is it simply a matter of what we individually feel about it? "

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer it anyway. Who defines what makes something a "beautiful painting"? Is a landscape more beautiful than Guernica? Am I wrong to find a painting of melting clocks more beautiful than either of those?

And what about art that's not trying to be beautiful? Would you sit back and talk about the technique of Goya's Disasters of War? And is someone who'd rather look at a pretty landscape than that, wrong?

tl,dr: Any art is what the person experiencing it makes of it. It doesn't matter how technically good it is.

[Kallie]

Any art is what the person experiencing it makes of it. It doesn't matter how technically good it is.

I agree, Lostshadows. The Museum of Visionary Art in Baltimore exhibits a lot of work by self-taught artists who could be called more expressionist than perfectionist. A lot of the work there moved me but did nothing for a friend who considers technique to be paramount. I suppose that she and I, and many others, will never agree on the requisite elements of art as opposed to consumer-oriented written or painted products.

As Monty J said (and the same goes for painting):

"A skilled writer can practically kill himself crafting a masterful work of art and 95% of the world will yawn, especially if it's realistic literary fiction.

This genre confronts life as it is, and most people would rather escape from life and be entertained, shocked, titillated, or whatever."

[Monty J]

Lostshadows wrote: "Any art is what the person experiencing it makes of it. It doesn't matter how technically good it is."

So true. There are many excellent examples of average, or less than average, writing that has gone on to become a classic: The Outsiders (Hinton), To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee), Lord of the Flies (Golding), Atlas Shrugged (Rand).

There is a famous quote by Francis Ford Coppola: "What is happening on the screen is secondary; the real movie happens in the minds of the audience."

Hemingway instinctively knew this, and that is what led to his Iceberg Principle of leaving out the bulk of the story to engage, and trust, the imagination of the reader.

[Krizza Mae]

I totally loved this book. What do they expect from a Classic book? I don't know but there is something amazing in this book.

[Lauren]

I honestly have never cared if anyone as liked the same books I do. If you like it, that's cool, and if you don't that's cool to. I would love to talk to someone who actually enjoyed the book about it, as not to have too much conflict. But otherwise I don't see a point in letting someone else's opinion bother me.
(It's okay if it upsets you though. A feeling is a feeling. This is just how I view things.)

[Cosmic]

Tiberius wrote: "When I read this book in high school, I loved it. I was amazed that literature could include swear words and could describe people farting during a school speech. However, now that I am older, the ..."

I read the TCITR wheni was 47. I really didn't care for it and probably would have given up on the book except for teenager visiting us that had read it and liked it. He said he would read it again. So I decided to read it again, because to be honest I just didn't get the point. It was like he would get right up to making a point and saying something and then leave you hanging. Well the second time around I saw textual patterns in the phrases but didn't really start to question them till I got to the Merry-go-round in the last chapter. They were playing a song called "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". Bingo, now the scene there was complete. He was symbolically writing about about WW2 (or wars or anything they want to exploit human folder for their own gain) and how they don't tell you you might fall off the horse... The horse is something that it connected to Pencey Prep, and the game. I think if I had a better understand of WW2 I might have understood this book sooner. But for me it is about WW2 and being a code breaker. I hope if you are interested toy will follow me on my discussion Breaking The Code To The Catcher In The Rye. I have learned a lot about WW2 by studying this book... And a lot of history and how it continues to repeat itself.

I thought the language was very disconcerting for a classic, but i felt that in a way it was designed to filter people that should and shouldn't read it or be wakened to what Salinger was warning them about.

Hope you will join me.

[Harold]

I've read this book a half dozen times. First when I was 15 or so. It change my life...kinda. I read it last when I was nigh on to 50. Then I felt it dragged. Reckon I've outgrown it.

[Cosmic]

Kallie wrote: "Just a couple of thoughts that come up for me: Some paintings and books express the artist's sensibility and some simply fulfill genre requirements (are these works of art? not to me). Catcher is..."

I read Farewell To Arms because it was listed in The Catcher in the Rye. So I was looking for how this book relates to TCITR. Maybe you read it before you came to The Catcher. I think what Salinger was trying to show you was how at one point Frederic was in control, he was playing the game, and how quickly he was on the wong side of the game. For really no fault of his own he was the one that was hunted.

I think that every book and musical and the first song or movie that an artist mentioned in The Catcher has meaning to Salinger's plan to be a Catcher in the Rye with this book. I believe there is so much more in this book than meets the eye. I am sure that I haven't found everything either. Salinger has taught me a lot by doing this.

Holden doesn't say all this so that is why I separate the story from Holden and Salinger.

[Kallie]

I haven't gotten to that part yet (this is the second read, but I was a kid when I first read it). Interesting; I'll be looking for that.

[Cosmic]

Kallie wrote: "I haven't gotten to that part yet (this is the second read, but I was a kid when I first read it). Interesting; I'll be looking for that."

I have starteda study group called BREAKING THE CODE TO THE CATCHER AND THE RYE. When you are ready come and check it out. I bought the cliff notes to this book going they would explain Holden's obsession with the ducks. Their answer seemed trite. I hate it Etha when study guides and people really want you to see the Emperors new clothing, and you know there is more to it than that. The first read wasn't the best one for me but I didn't have anyone reading it with me. My copy of the catcher is all marked up. I believer there is a lot between the lines.

[Cosmic]

Cosmic wrote: "Kallie wrote: "I haven't gotten to that part yet (this is the second read, but I was a kid when I first read it). Interesting; I'll be looking for that."

I have starteda study group called BREAKI..."

Sorry but swipe doesn't alread always worl work.
going = hoping
Etha = the
Believer = believe

[John]

Did anybody else see the JD SALINGER special on PBS last night? This book has impacted a lot of people's lives. JD SALINGER was an interesting man.

[Lea]

You either love this book or hate it there's no so-so opinion.Personally in the language of Holden, I really fucking loved this book !

[Paul Martin]

Lea wrote: "You either love this book or hate it there's no so-so opinion.Personally in the language of Holden, I really fucking loved this book !"

I disagree. I didn't love it, but neither did I hate it.

I thought it was interesting and fascinating, but not mind-blowing or life-changing in any way.

Maybe it would have been if I'd read it when I was 15-16.

[Kallie]

I'm reading Catcher again, decades later. I can always use a reminder to be true to myself and not let the desire to fit in warp my spirit or how I treat other people. Though I have more control of my life than a 16 y.o., I think Catcher is one of those books that serves as a good reminder. So I agree with those who love the book because there is a very powerful pull in any society to conform, in some cases to pretty sick, materialistic tendencies.

[Cosmic]

Kallie wrote: "I'm reading Catcher again, decades later. I can always use a reminder to be true to myself and not let the desire to fit in warp my spirit or how I treat other people. Though I have more control ..."

One of the things that really struck me recently wheni reread it was how much he talks about Pencey Prep being a boys school and this in contrast to his sister, Phoebe. They started out in the same school but she will not be admitted to Pencey Prep. So when you get to the carousel, and Phoebe gets on a horse, and old beat up horse at that, and then then play "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". You have really got to play that when you get to this part! And imagine that it is playing really fast and the Platters are singing it in a Mickey Mouse kind of voice. And you can just see Pheobe hanging on as she gets "Deal Fever". Now that makes me very sad. Because there was a time when men provided a good living to support a family with very little debt. But look what happened as women got in the workforce. They eventually introduce us to credit cards and pretty soon we are all share croppers living on the plantation. Now that kills me. And I think that is why Holden loved the other landlord,Out of Africa. There is a lot in this book that is relevant to where we are today, but it just depends which way you wear your hat whether you can see it or not.

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Kallie]

Cosmic wrote: So when you get to the carousel, and Phoebe gets on a horse, and old beat up horse at that, and then then play "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes". You have really got to play that when you get to this part! And imagine that it is playing really fast and the Platters are singing it in a Mickey Mouse kind of voice. And you can just see Pheobe hanging on as she gets "Deal Fever". I'll try that Cosmic. Thanks. Sounds like a great scene.

[dylan \]

There is no quintessential novel that everyone is going to enjoy. I'm totally okay with people not liking the book, and I can see how a person might not enjoy it. Especially Holden.