The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
message 5401:
by
Petergiaquinta
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Apr 23, 2017 10:21AM
One of my favorite albums is Aoxomoxoa...does that help clear things up for you?
reply
|
flag
Michael wrote: "Love your wry remarks, Karen. And your pumpernickel ones, as well. What is this strange book of which you speak?"Ode to a Urinal, of course
S.W. wrote: "Hey, I just finished reading Cortazar's Axolotl and had previously read Francisco Goldman's Say Her Name which also references the famous Axolotls from Les Jardin des Plantes. Then I noticed Kallie..."I like them and chose the image partly because of Cortazar, who has always been a favorite. Coincidences are fun. I've had them with reading choices too.
Rodney wrote: ""The Catcher in the Rye" is a great American novel, but it's not going to appeal to people who enjoy punching in the face anyone they find weak or inferior. Salinger had fought against just those k..."Hey guy, that was cheap and patronizing. You were totally dismissive of Lewis's perspective. Further, Catcher is without a doubt the most overrated novel of the 20th Century. It doesn't speak for a generation or for "youth" and there is no Santa Claus or Easter bunny. Spare me the Salinger hagiography -- that guy was a ghost. Woe be to the kid that makes it to college only to claim that their most important book was Catcher in the Rye.
The novel certainly has its share of obsessive readers, but that isn't the book's fault. Salinger created an immortal and iconic fictional character - that's an achievement no one can take away from him. I think he captures, in Holden Caulfield, the experience of what it means to be young, confused and out of place in mid-century America, and he expresses it in a voice that is real, funny, alive and unique. Despite all the cultural changes since the book was published, it never feels out-of-date.
Rodney wrote: "Salinger created an immortal and iconic fictional character - that's an achievement no one can take away fro..."Well said. Nobody has to like CITR but what matters is that so many people admire this novel nearly 70 years after its publication.. People have come on this forum and said Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte are overrated because they don't like them. I don't care for Trollope or Maugham. How relevant is that to people who read and enjoy them now? Why should anyone care that someone finds CITR 'overrated'? There is this unfounded attitude of "Oh, I'm the kid that sees the Emperor actually wears no clothes." Nope.
It really is a remarkable novel and I'm amazed that I can reread it so many years later and still find it so fresh and captivating. As Rodney writes, Salinger created a unique character, beyond time and place. But as much as I enjoy the novel, I feel that "Nine Short Stories" is way better.
I was almost going to append my comment by saying that Salinger's four short books are a unique body of work. Nine Stories was and remains a really influential collection. I know people hate what our previous commenter called the hagiography of Saliinger - and there's a lot to hate about all the fetishization he attracts - but the fact of the matter is that here just isn't anyone else in American Literature who sounds like him. Certainly not that I know of. That doesn't mean he's the best, just that he's an original.
Kallie wrote: "I've wondered if Malaparte's 'The Skin' inspired 'Catch-22.'"I just googled 'Malaparte's "The Skin" "Catch-22"' and didn't find anything any more enlightening than a description of The Skin as a "neglected masterpiece" which only serves to make me feel a bit better for never having heard of it before.... At the very least, that makes it a good recommendation, but I don't think many folks have necessarily made that connection.
From a literary standpoint, I think folks tend to fail to hear the notes of irony in a lot of books about war. Western literature (and probably Eastern, Mid-Eastern and all points beyond and between) sometimes fetishize war. The "mainstream" texts definitely do. My impression is that the more lasting ones tend to be ironic or much more ambiguous.
There's a good biography about Heller by Tracy Daugherty titled "Just One Catch." He makes the point that part of what Heller was trying to do was give the WWII novel a fresh voice. Norman Mailer and James Jones had already gotten there first, of course, so Heller needed another angle - less straight, more ironic. His models were people like Jaroslav Hašek, Louis-Ferdinand Celine and Vladimir Nabokov.
Gary wrote: "Kallie wrote: "I've wondered if Malaparte's 'The Skin' inspired 'Catch-22.'"I just googled 'Malaparte's "The Skin" "Catch-22"' and didn't find anything any more enlightening than a description of..."
I first read an excerpt in 'Writer's in Revolt' then came across The Skin pb (which had one of those pulp fiction covers). All serendipity. Anyway, both books shocked me in a good way, and I might re-acquire and read them all these years later.
catch -22 was horrible-it is on the list for most started and never finished. I was in the navy for 4 years so I understand how upsurd the military can be,
Rich wrote: "catch -22 was horrible-it is on the list for most started and never finished. I was in the navy for 4 years so I understand how upsurd the military can be,"A lot of people really like Catch 22, so you thinking it's horrible is an opinion not shared by everyone.
ton of people hated it
Looking at your books, Rich, I understand why you had a hard time finishing Catch-22, but is that because it's "horrible"? Or is it because it's a little more than what you're up to? Let's not blame the book, eh?
this might be over your reading level -go screw yourself
No, I got it. Thanks for sharing.
Oh, the meanness...But be serious for a minute...you're like a little kid who's been eating mac and cheese or peanut butter and jelly all ten years of his small life, and he complains about real food tasting horrible. Someone says, "Hey, Richie, try what's for dinner," and you pout and cry and say it's terrible. I don't like it. It sucks. I want pizza. And pizza with pepperoni, no sausage and green peppers for a little lad like you, eh? And going out to eat? Forget it.
So I get it. No Joseph Heller for you...you want that tasty Dan Brown, those Michaels Crichton and Connelly. You want your plot lines to start at A and go all the way to D without missing B and C. You'd like a nice body count and some good old fashioned sex. No thinking for me, you say. I'll have the curly fries on the kids menu.
When I was a wee lad myself I read a lot of Kenneth Robeson...maybe a hundred of his novels. Maybe more. But I'm past that now. And I don't weigh in on discussion threads saying Catch-22 sucks! Yossarian ain't no Doc Savage! He can't fly a plane worth a damn! Where's his Fortress of Solitude, anyway?!? It's kind of like what Paul says, right? When I was a child...so grow up, c'mon little Richie. Try something a little more advanced. Stretch yourself. And if it's all not to your taste, then fine. Whatever. But don't get sad when the grown ups don't value your opinions. Stay at the kids' table and enjoy the McNuggets!
This discussion has devolved into a brainless pissing match.
Well, to paraphrase Holden from another one of the great books here that the truly brainless don't value either, morons really hate it when you call them morons.
Not pissing here, but....why give five stars to a book that "sucks"?Just curious.
Yellow.
See what I did there? :}
You lost me, E.D.If that comment is directed to me, I think Catch-22 is a top-ten, maybe even a top-five, novel of the second half of the Twentieth Century...
Rodney wrote: "This discussion has devolved into a brainless pissing match."Yes, a lot of heat over Catch-22. Think of the heat if one put the King James Version of The Holy Bible on the list.
Bill (Just a) wrote: "Rodney wrote: "This discussion has devolved into a brainless pissing match."Yes, a lot of heat over Catch-22. Think of the heat if one put the King James Version of The Holy Bible on the list."
Or that other book. You know, that other one. Starts with a Q or a K or something. That one. You know the one I mean.
The KQuatcher in the Rye.
That one.
What? You think I want to get killed with a curvy sword?
Rodney wrote: "This discussion has devolved into a brainless pissing match."Yep
guess it means nothing if it is one of the most dnf novel on good reads hmmmmmmmmmm swear some of you were getting royalties from it I am done
Petergiaquinta wrote: "You lost me, E.D.If that comment is directed to me, I think Catch-22 is a top-ten, maybe even a top-five, novel of the second half of the Twentieth Century..."
Oooooppps!
Should have specified I was wondering why Rich rated it 5 stars if he thinks it's horrible.
Must be the urine. :}
Rich wrote: "guess it means nothing if it is one of the most dnf novel on good reads hmmmmmmmmmm swear some of you were getting royalties from it I am done"I don't think it does. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong DNF list. The one I see has it listed with "Outlander", "American Gods", "A Discovery of Witches", "The Game of Thrones" and "The Goldfinch". Being grouped with those books isn't bad at all.
Perhaps when books are that popular they have more readers and then more DNF. Or perhaps they are more complex or less obvious. Maybe there is something in this DNF list.
I'm curious. Where is this list you are referring to?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "I'm curious. Where is this list you are referring to?"Above Rich notes Catch 22 is on the DNF list. Here is the one I found on Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/genres/did-...
Maybe there is another but it is the only one I found.
Ah, okay. I see it. . Thank you.I thought maybe there was a list generated by overall reading data in GR. This list comes from a specifically labeled shelf, which means the reader has to actively place books there, right?, That's a practice many readers including myself don't do. And I see the other lists are generated by voting, and these voting lists on GR don't mean much to anyone besides fan girls.
Nonetheless, that DNF list is an interesting cross section of books reflecting a wide range of reasons for not finishing a book. Think American Gods, for example...I'm sure many readers stop early on when the man is devoured by that divine vagina...or in Game of Thrones when you see the Lannister-on-Lannister sex scene. But that's a really different reason from giving up on The Goldfinch, Catch-22 or any of those YA titles high on the list.
Ultimately, I'd really be curious to see a list generated from the entire GR database of information of books with start dates by readers but no completion dates provided. That would be an interesting list to see...
Based on my own experience, I have a feeling Ulysses would be high on that list!
Petergiaquinta wrote: "This list comes from a specifically labeled shelf, which means the reader has to actively place books there, right?...Based on my own experience, I have a feeling Ulysses would be high on that list! ..."Yep. People have to place the book on the shelf. 422 people place "Outlander" on the shelf. I agree that is meaningless. As is the 242 people that placed Catch-22 on the shelf.
I often finish horrible books. "Who Stole My Cheese" is very highly praised and very much over-rated. That's my opinion. But I finished it. Obviously, it speaks to someone.
I will not say The Catcher in the Rye is overrated.
Rich wrote: "catch -22 was horrible-it is on the list for most started and never finished. I was in the navy for 4 years so I understand how upsurd the military can be,"You have yet to enlighten and reform us with a substantive crit of the book. Why don't you just leave it alone? A number of people on this thread including me liked it a lot and in fact would rate it among the best. The pissing contest is, to me, no such thing but just you pissing on a book you apparently resent a helluva lot, for reasons I won't try to guess.
Akhil wrote: "I will not say The Catcher in the Rye is overrated."Good!
Catcher in the rye...ooh i loved the humour but the by the ways and getting off lane was not for me
How come you can say whatever you want but others can't lol are you getting royalties
Well i waited for the classic book in it to appear but no. That is my view and like everyone else i ain't getting damn royalties
Akhil wrote: "I will not say The Catcher in the Rye is overrated."I agree! I think that there is a lot more in the Catcher than most give Salinger credit for. It took him ten years to write the book. I think if you read it ten times you might find some of the things and more that are hidden in the text.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
loved catcher but not catch 22
Chava wrote: "Whenever I see a person slam, or call The Catcher In the Rye an overrated, my heart breaks a little more. It is beyond my comprehension how someone can hate this book. In my mind, if you hated it, ..."Ok this sounds ridiculous because I know you made this comment literally 4 years ago but I Totally agree... I LOVED THIS BOOK! I think it's cause I really resonated with Holden.
The Catcher in the Rye was the worst book I have read in my entire life. 50 Shades was too hyped up but it was so trashy that I liked it. The Book Thief was so extremely hyped up but I did not like it; I gave it 2 stars only because of Max.
Henry James' What Masie Knew gave me a splitting headache after 10 pages. Joyce's Ulysses left me dazed and confused. I'm afraid to even start Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow or Wallace's Infinite Jest. But we should soldier on anyway and keep reaching for that gold ring, Kyla.
Kyla wrote: "The Catcher in the Rye was the worst book I have read in my entire life. 50 Shades was too hyped up but it was so trashy that I liked it. The Book Thief was so extremely hyped up but I did not like..."May be you are not getting the point. Or you read it in the wrong time of your life. I would like to say Catcher in the Rye is one of the best book I have ever read. May be you don't like it, but to say it is the worst book means there is some serious problem with you.
Chava wrote: "Whenever I see a person slam, or call The Catcher In the Rye an overrated, my heart breaks a little more. It is beyond my comprehension how someone can hate this book. In my mind, if you hated it, ..."Exactly, most of the people who hate this book, do complain about book being boring or using too many curse words. They fail to realise that this book is not to entertain them, but to make them feel something and yes, those curse words are important part of that feeling. You can't censor a feeling, if you want to present it as it is!
Padam wrote: "...most of the people who hate this book, do complain about book being boring or using too many curse words..."Plus, fucking cursing and using goddamned profanities is the way many freaking people talk AND think, so at a certain point the objection to the language is something of a WTF? moment. It's realistic. I'd argue that, on a certain level, it was ground-breaking at the time (TCitR is "young adult" so that aspect is new, but it's not Henry Miller...) so to some extent you can see the objection coming from people when it first came out, but those folks are literally grandparents and great-grandparents now. I don't think we should give that concern much weight these days. It's the 21st century. We're using computers on the internet. Parental blockers aside, anybody reading this just is seconds away from Eastern European transsexual little person-themed porn. Holden says "goddam" a lot? Yeesh....
Gary wrote: "Padam wrote: "...most of the people who hate this book, do complain about book being boring or using too many curse words..."Plus, fucking cursing and using goddamned profanities is the way many ..."
Youth stopped saying "Gosh!" in the 1960s and continued to become a definite subculture, with more of its own language etc. and less censoring re cuss words. Commodification followed, as always, and now it's hard to say what comes first but it does seem that language leads and young people find their own ways to use language to express what they see and feel in a given era. I was recently in a poetry workshop with younger people and this still seems to hold true. Censorship is futile and silly and unhealthy, IMO.
Kallie wrote: "Censorship is futile and silly and unhealthy, IMO."It does seem to have the kind of faux-morality that many find incredibly appealing. That vapid, meaningless standard of superiority that political, religious and middle class matrons can cite as the basis of their mock civility. I've met plenty of people who choose or not to use one particular kind of language or another in public or in private. It doesn't seem to have any particular bearing on their character. Complaining about it, though? Sitting in judgement over the words used in a piece of literature? I've never heard someone do that whom I thought had the sense of a woodpecker.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
War and Peace (other topics)High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
