The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
It occurs to me that there is a lot of difference between, "I didn't like this book" and it is "just junk" I am reading Wuthering Heights right now in another group. The complex psychology of the main characters is amazing. I've thought about a time in my past when I took a path which was obviously so wrong for me and wondered what I could have been thinking? As I study Heathcliff and Cathy, I gain some understanding of what was going on and, what is more important to me, I understand that I could not have taken any other path at that time because the outcome of that choice is what made me a different person.
But I have read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hugo, Salinger, Shakespeare...about 80% of most "100 Best Books Lists."
It is all right that you don't like the Bronte's and Jane Austen, but it doesn't mean that they aren't good books and don't deserve to be classics.
On the other hand, there are many books on the New York Times' best seller list that I do believe are overrated because they contain no plot, poor research and poor character development.
Twilight and life of pi.
I think catcher in the Rye is a really overrated book.Infact I started a thread to find out what books other people find overrated based on my own feelings about this book. To me this is the one book non-readers manage to read all the way through and than talk about it for the rest of their lives. I do not think any serious reader over the age of about 25 can take this wooden story about an over privileged kid that much to heart. Cather in the Rye is the definition of the word "overrated" it is not even that it is bad, just it gets a lot of attention and it really doesn't stack up to the amount of analysis its not a difficult book to understand
I think old man and the sea should be on the listI agree with The Great Gatsby
Twilight sucks
Michael wrote: "Making a list like this is like making a list of the most over rated ice cream flavors.Chocolate
Strawberry
Vanilla
What do you think constitutes something being 'over rated' to begin with? Is i..."
overrated is when there is hype and people are not critically anaylsing something
Catcher in the Rye is not a terriable book, it ok, a tight little read.
But to me is the exact definition of overrated.
Sure it is subjective and that's what is interesting about talking about it
Catcher in the Rye is talked about, written about, so much and the story itself is what?
what is so great about it?
It is not on par with the Great Gatsby (which I also thinks sucks) it is a lot of people's "Favorite"
@Geoffrey, because we had had only a small number of permanent professors in the department and I asked.@ Kallie, I am happy that you have an eclectic taste in authors. I enjoy those guys too! If I knew more people like you, I wouldn't feel bitter about this subject. BTW, I agree with you that those reviewers on listverse etc. do suck. I'm not arguing with that. I just found the rant on a couple books I personally dislike to be amusing.
Ian wrote: "These are writers who work on "listverse" and flavorwire! Who were you expecting? Shakespeare? Goethe? Pushkin? They are snarky psuedo-intellectuals whose opinion doesn't amount to jack shit. I jus..."Haha! Victorian chick-lit! Love it. I do not like Bronte or Austen either, glad I'm not the only one. I agree, too, about the psuedo-intellectuals who deem it cool to make these lists.
Most of the classics we are arguing about have more to do with their relevance at the time they were written, or became popular. Dickens wrote about the huge dichotomy between rich and poor at a time when a starving 12 year old orphan could be hung for stealing bread.
Ayn Rand was a female writer who wrote about a new concept in socioeconomic equality at a time when Marxism and fascism were the two primary left overs from the generation before her and civil rights and feminism were taking center stage- and she did it in a very sexually, socially and economically provocative way.
Catcher was relevant to that generation. My mom thinks its the greatest book ever, but when she found my joint in 10th grade. I thought I was gonna get grounded. She ASKED me if she could have it-
Lady Chatterly was written in the 20s, but the book is significant because of the popular overthrow of the censors restrictions in the 60s and marked a grand societal re-think or previous "unspoken" topics.
Yes, they are classics for a reason, relevant because they were works at the heart of intense social discussion, pretty significant paradigm shifts.
Now its 2013. Not all of these topics are difficult for the modern reader to relate to, issues have changed and evolved so drastically that a contemporary reader may not be able to relate to or enjoy the book. You can not overestimate the importance of these works at their zenith. Do they stand the test of time irrelevant of their historical value?
"The past isn't dead. It isn't even past," to quote Faulkner. I know: he was an old fogey from ages ago. But the longer I live the more I agree with this bit of wisdom -- especially considering how social inequity seems to grow faster than the economy these days.
The past isn't even past? I don't understand. Can you explain please?
Paula wrote: "The past isn't even past? I don't understand. Can you explain please?"
We carry the past with us. We act in certain ways because of our personal past or the historical past. Sometimes we are bound by the past as in Frost's poem:
"He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Sometimes we are in rebellion against the past, but that is still giving it influence over us.
To me, reading allows us to look into others' minds and in doing so, we sometimes see ourselves. That is why a book like The Catcher in the Rye is important. The reader is eventually able to see why Holden Caufield acts the way he does AND perhaps, understand his or her own present or past. (Btw, I didn't like it either, but I understand how people, especially teens, can see themselves in Holden. I remember thinking that Holden was just like a classmate of mine and it gave me some insight into why he acted the way he did.)
Anyway, when we see ourselves in literature, we can understand our own lives and change them. It makes sense that a particular book might not speak to us and we wonder what all the fuss is about, but classics are books that speak to the human condition as well as the individual reader.
Roland wrote: "Try Jonathon Livingston Seagull if you want to come down to earth with a bump and be shat on from on high at the same time. Never read such a pile of narcissistic, offensive shite. I read it 35 yea..."Couldn't agree more. And yet the general reading audience of the 1970s cuddled it like a kitten.
H. P. wrote: "Roland wrote: "Try Jonathon Livingston Seagull if you want to come down to earth with a bump and be shat on from on high at the same time. Never read such a pile of narcissistic, offensive shite. I..."I agree!
Paula wrote: "The past isn't even past? I don't understand. Can you explain please?"
Anne describes some good examples of what F probably meant. There are so many examples for me . . . For one: People gone from my life about whom I still think, pondering that relationship, realizing significant details about the dynamic; this happens for me even if the person died. So in a sense, Faulker is right: they are not dead nor is the relationship I shared with them. On a larger scale, our somewhat equitable society is very local, evolved recently, and is ever at-risk. Democracy, even to the extent we enjoy it, is not a given; we could lose it if we don't participate. Kids could (and in some places probably do) steal bread because they are starving, and go to jail for that.
Alyssa wrote: "BUT ANYTHING BY JOHN GREEN IS A BIG FAT NOOOOOO."We're in general agreement. He's entertaining, but a literary rock skipper, bouncing along the surface of meaning.
I know I am on my own here, but I really disliked Frankenstein. Also, I am a huge Faulkner fan, but could barely get through The Fable.
"a literary rock skipper, bouncing along the surface of meaning." Monty! I LOVE that metaphor! It is perfect and I am going to try to remember it...and give you credit!
(speaks in shrill, obnoxious nerd voice) "Technically it's a simile not a metaphor."
Ian wrote: "(speaks in shrill, obnoxious nerd voice) "Technically it's a simile not a metaphor.""Well, I struggled with that a bit, but Monty didn't say he was "like" or "as." The "is" pertains to the person's being entertaining. I tried a little mental diagramming and decided that it could be interpreted either way. For example, "He is my friend but a brick." I flirted with parallel structure and that's all the time I was willing to spend on it, so if I have offended the grammar gurus in the group, I'm sorry.
The Catcher in the Rye,The Da Vinci CodeTwilight I feel are overrated.
Maria wrote: "Which books do you think are overrated? Here's a quick sampling from various internet sites that recommend skipping these:
The Catcher in the Rye
Moby Dick
The Great Gatsby
Waiting for Godot
The..."
Maybe they're all a bit 'overrated.' I'd have to say that Catcher is awesome though. And I remember enjoying Stranger and Gatsby quite a bit.
Check out this thread if you'd like to tell us who you think is the most influential fictional character.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I don't really understand you guys...
I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I though I could really understand him and this was one of those books where from the moment I read the first page, I was hooked. This is one of my most favourite books and I wish there was more.
Please, do you have to make a thread that hates on this book so much? It's really hurtful to the people who love it. Can't you keep all your horrible thoughts to yourselves?
I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I though I could really understand him and this was one of those books where from the moment I read the first page, I was hooked. This is one of my most favourite books and I wish there was more.
Please, do you have to make a thread that hates on this book so much? It's really hurtful to the people who love it. Can't you keep all your horrible thoughts to yourselves?
I don't really understand you guys...
I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I though I could really understand him and this was one of those books where from the moment I read the first page, I was hooked. This is one of my most favourite books and I wish there was more.
Please, do you have to make a thread that hates on this book so much? It's really hurtful to the people who love it. Can't you keep all your horrible thoughts to yourselves?
I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I though I could really understand him and this was one of those books where from the moment I read the first page, I was hooked. This is one of my most favourite books and I wish there was more.
Please, do you have to make a thread that hates on this book so much? It's really hurtful to the people who love it. Can't you keep all your horrible thoughts to yourselves?
Em wrote: "I don't really understand you guys...I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I thou..."
are not 'hating' on it. In the context of literature we are exploring books that enjoy an inflated reputation. Catcher in the Rye is one of those books. You should not let threads from anonymous people hurt your feelings its not attacking you personally. Millions of people love this book as much as you do. You are in the majority-people who do not like the book are in the minority
Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."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 also 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 prisoners he helped 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. 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 a brother and a friend. And he is redeemed by the innocence and unconditional love of Phoebe.
This is not a book for young adults or teenagers, although it is promoted that way merely 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 raises unrealistic expectations in younger readers, leaving them disappointed or confused.
Personally, I thought he was bi-polar.
Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."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 cou..."
Who you think you are? I understand what the book is about. I do not like it. You do not know anything about me, why would you assume that I am incapable of understanding 'cather in the rye' its not a difficult book to understand. At no point in anything I have said did I suggest I did not understand the book. I think it is over rated. I think it is one of the most over rated books ever. Your post proves a great deal of why I dislike the attitude people have towards the book-especially the part where you assume I didn't understand it. I was responding to some one who said something to the effect that she did not understand why we were "hating" on it- I assured her that almost every one likes the book. If you have an opinion that is different from others/ not liking the book people act like you spit on the true cross. I am entitled to my opinion, sir, and I am sure there is a discussion board about how great catcher in the rye is. This was a thread about over rated books.
IanMy sympathy. If you went to a university or were faculty there and the profs hadn`t read those authors, then either the school was a poor one or the department sucked.
You should have transferred to a better school.
Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-mate, James Cas..."
Well, look. A few posts back you said that no serious reader over 25 could like Catcher. After that presumptuous insult, made with no critical argument whatever, one might ask the same question of you.
Oh, boy, this thread feels like high school all over again. It's just a book. It's not the end of the world if someone likes or dislikes it. Not everyone likes the same stuff. Most of us are adults, we don't need other people to validate our choices. Chill people.
Em wrote: "I don't really understand you guys...I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I thou..."
You're going to be pretty miserable if you go through life getting hurt feelings every time someone disagrees with you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether you like it or not. If you don't want to read other people's criticism of books you like you probably shouldn't have joined goodreads.
Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-mate, James Cas..."
Sorry if you were offended. I merely asked a few questions intended to provoke thought.
Kallie wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-..."
Look, I think its an over rated book. I think its a book people who don't read much finish and for the rest of their lives when asked what their favorite book is they say catcher in the rye...this contributes to an over blown perception of the book, its short and it moves fast and it is easy to understand. If you read my previous comments you would have also noticed I never said it was written poorly........ I think it is overrated. Despite that it doesn't explain why you would I assume I didn't understand the book- your statement kept starting with the phrase "dose it make sense to you" and it was written to me the statement I made was in general. I am entitled to an opinion even if you don't agree with it. You don't respect that opinion because its not the same as yours. It doesn't matter because nothing you say is going to change my mind. Clearly you are big fan book so you are unwilling to acknowledge that there could be validity to my theory.
"I think its a book people who don't read much finish and for the rest of their lives when asked what their favorite book is they say catcher in the rye...this contributes to an over blown perception of the book, its short and it moves fast and it is easy to understand."Nikki, can you not see how insulting what you have said is?
Oh my god. She is pretty insulting.
Nikki wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."
Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie..."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we know that, but it doesn't mean you have to be all mean about it.
Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie..."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we know that, but it doesn't mean you have to be all mean about it.
In what world is Catcher in the Rye over-rated? Twilight? The fact that it is rated at all is a sad comment on the world we live in. Never mind the prose, this is like reading a Vampire story written by someone who has never heard of Bram Stoker.
Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons get a pass but don't even mention The Lost Symbol and Inferno.
Nikki wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie..."
Nikki, you are not just stating an opinion about the Catcher in the Rye but also about those who don't find the book overrated. And it is your manner that I do not respect because you express such disrespect for those who do like the book. You are insulting people by flatly saying they cannot be as well-read as you, and by implying that they are not as intelligent or discerning about what they read. State your opinions of books, sure; but not of readers, about whom you know very little. Implying that you know more seems arrogant.
Anne Hawn wrote: ""I think its a book people who don't read much finish and for the rest of their lives when asked what their favorite book is they say catcher in the rye...this contributes to an over blown percepti..."That's what I think of the book
I think it is overrated
you are suggesting that I do not understand the book
Kallie wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his..."
That is how I feel about Catcher in the Rye-I think it enjoys an inflated reputation because it is assigned reading in a number of schools so a great deal of people who have read it are not big readers.....it ends up being one of the very few books they have read so they talk about it when the conversation turns books. That is my theory. I am not implying that is the case of everyone who reads it/ I am saying that is a contributing factor to the reputation it enjoys. I stand by that.
David wrote: "In what world is Catcher in the Rye over-rated? Twilight? The fact that it is rated at all is a sad comment on the world we live in. Never mind the prose, this is like reading a Vampire story ..."
mine
Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Nikki wrote: "Catcher in the Rye is one of those books."Does it make sense to you that Holden was so traumatized by the deaths of his brother, Allie, and his dorm-..."
sorry if I overreacted
Anne Hawn wrote: ""I think its a book people who don't read much finish and for the rest of their lives when asked what their favorite book is they say catcher in the rye...this contributes to an over blown percepti..."I stand by the statement even if it upsets people
I really have an axe to grind when it comes to this book
Em wrote: "I don't really understand you guys...I loved this book. I loved it. I loved Holden so much!
I thought this book was funny, and sad, and I felt like I could relate to Holden a lot. I thou..."
Too much bias in this thread. There's been nothing said about the true selling point of "Catcher" which is the honesty of both the narration and the dialogue.
As for it being required reading in High School - tunnel vision. It's a big world. Wasn't required reading where I'm from....I only got around to reading it a month ago and I was around for the Kennedy assassination.
The Catcher in the Rye - authors often capture the imagination of their generation. They don't write anything as good again and when their generation passes so do they. Moby Dick - a great read and as the first great American Novel it is alwasy going to be there because it is the first.
The Great Gatsby - borish,
Waiting for Godot - innovative and brilliant.
The Stranger- not read it.
Ulysses - one of the most racist books ever written.
Atlas Shrugged - not read it
The Da Vinci Code - strange to those of us who studied the Crusades this reads like rubbish- but it reads, and that's Brown's art.
Twilight - not interested.
I would add Lolita
Kallie wrote: "Nikki, you are not just stating an opinion about the Catcher in the Rye but also about those who don't find the book overrated. And it is your manner that I do not respect because you express such disrespect for those who do like the book."
Well put, Kallie, those were my exact thoughts.
I have to agree with Lolita. It might be a literary masterpiece but the subject matter is just too squeamy. I read it for book club, but I am not a fan.I'm adding Little Women to the list. I know it's a classic and everyone loves it, but I found it boring.
Yay! Someone agrees with me on Lolita! It is well written and I don't have a problem with controversial subject matter, but I feel that the controversy it generated GREATLY enhanced its reputation and impact beyond what it deserved. Rushdie created a firestorm of controversy with The Satanic Verses, but there is a world of difference between Rushdie and Nabakov. Firstly, Satanic Verses is NOT one of Rushdie's top novels and not the reason he has so many fans. Nabokov has a few other novels, but Lolita is really the only one he is remembered for or that really gained him a fandom. Another difference is that Rushdie tried to alleviate the controversy by stating that the novel was NOT calling Islam satanic and that he did NOT hate Muslims. Nabokov intentionally added fuel to his controversy by refusing to outright condemn pedophilia or state that his main character's views were not his own. Nabokov later did both of these things, but only years after the controversy had gained him legendary status.
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...
I think there are respecter writer/reviewers somewhere on the immense spectrum between Shakespeare, etc., and these reviewers. The latter mean to influence public opinion, so they should at least be able to see the difference between Austen/Emma and romance novels. As it happens, I think highly of Dostoevsky, Twain, Faulkner and find no problem reconciling enjoyment with both.