The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Mensi wrote: "When it comes to overrated books my number one on that list isn't only a book but a whole genre, and those are distopian books. Sure, the first one you read has a certan appeal but as you go and r..."
I'm not sure which books you mean, there are lots out there!
Karen wrote: "Mensi wrote: "When it comes to overrated books my number one on that list isn't only a book but a whole genre, and those are distopian books. Sure, the first one you read has a certan appeal but a..."
There certainly are! But if referring to YA dystopia, very formulaic, I agree. But for the adult dystopian there are pretty broad ranges. Margaret Atwood's dystopian Handmaid's Tale is, to me, very different from her Oryx and Crake.
Renee wrote: Hard to explain, and Cormack's a trying read sometimes, but to me, Steinbeck is to McCarthy as Jack London is to Jack Cady. A natural progression in literature and time. Not "one is better than the other," but this one is the generation that inherited.
I'll take Steinbeck over FSF and McCarthy. I think it is the rhythm of Steinbeck that appeals to me more than McCormack, but I agree they have a similar "flavor."
I can't select Fitzgerald over Steinbeck. They wrote about different problems. Each one captured a moment in history and stripped it down to it's ugly soul for all to see. Steinbeck could have written about the soulless rich and Fitzgerald could have written of the plight of the displaced who suffered at the hands of the bankers and land owners if that had been what stirred them.
Anne Hawn wrote: "I can't select Fitzgerald over Steinbeck. They wrote about different problems. Each one captured a moment in history and stripped it down to it's ugly soul for all to see. Steinbeck could have w..."Excellent, and I think you are right. It's also comparing writers whos styles are different from each other, but both commenting on a part of society during two very different decades.
Anne Hawn wrote: "Steinbeck could have written about the soulless rich and Fitzgerald could have written of the plight of the displaced who suffered at the hands of the bankers and land owners if that had been what stirred them."But I can't see Steinbeck ever being stirred about the problems of the rich or Fitzgerald about the plight about the poor. They each wrote about what they knew and cared about deeply. The results speak to how authentic and true to themselves they wrote.
When a writer steps out of that realm which speaks to their heart of hearts, she steps into quicksand.
Monty J wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Steinbeck could have written about the soulless rich and Fitzgerald could have written of the plight of the displaced who suffered at the hands of the bankers and land owners if t..."Yes, that's true of anyone I think.
Monty J wrote: "But I can't see Steinbeck ever being stirred about the problems of the rich or Fitzgerald about the plight about the poor. They each wrote about what they knew and cared about deeply. The results speak to how authentic and true to themselves they wrote...."When I read The Great Gatsby what I am impressed with is Fitzgerald's use of symbology. I think about how people were attracted to his parties like a month to a flame. I like how he used the song "$summertime And The Living Is Easy" to give an intertextual meaning to Daisy's life. I liked how he used the map of a place to designate different classes. The one that Daisy and Tom lived in could only be attained by invitation. But Tom and Daisy could move in broad circles. Fitzgerald felt these class distinctions...despite his education he still was good enough for his wife till he became a literary success.
Fitzgerald first novel was This Side of Paradise in that book is a phrase that Salinger used in the The Catcher in the Rye. It has a similar storyline in that it is about a spoiled boy that eventually goes to Princeton. So if you enjoyed The Catcher In The Rye you will probably like it too. It also hints at the idea that people are set up or could be set up by "a carrot and stick" system that works better than pay. I would say a modern day example of this would be your credit score. But also grades in school train us to care about such things.
"Life is a game that you must play by the rules."
Anne Hawn wrote: "I can't select Fitzgerald over Steinbeck. They wrote about different problems. "Sure, but some problems are more important than others. My original comment wasn't really a verdict on which book is "better", but which one I think is (or should be) more important today. The rich are not in dire need of understanding, the poor are. But I guess I'm stepping out of the realm of literature and into politics, if there is such a line.
The Great Gatsby is actually rather good, in my own opinion, and I've never read the DaVinci Code, but I hear it's pretty awful. However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, and Twilight stinks. They're both about stupid characters and I can't really see a plot in either of them. I hate books with characters you can't empathize with because they're just so dumb. I want genuine people who, yes, have flaws, but are relatively intelligent and have good qualities too.
E wrote: "The Great Gatsby is actually rather good, in my own opinion, and I've never read the DaVinci Code, but I hear it's pretty awful. However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, an..."you are certainly entitled to your opinion.but maybe you didn't read Catcher in the Rye closely enough, or you may not want to. Holden was not a stupid character.
E wrote: " However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, and Twilight stinks. They're both about stupid characters and I can't really see a plot in either of them. I hate books with characters you can't empathize with because they're just so dumb. ..."I also agree with you, on my first reading of The Catcher in th Rye that the book was overrated. I thought the plot was rather dumb and not very intriguing. I thought it was kind stupid for a guy to be asking cab drivers where the ducks in Central Park went in the winter.
Was this the kinda thing that made you think that Holden was a stupid character? Or was it something else?
Cosmic wrote: "E wrote: " However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, and Twilight stinks. They're both about stupid characters and I can't really see a plot in either of them. I hate books ..."Yes, that was the kind of thing I was talking about. Also, he has no empathy for certain characters, like his sister, or even the reader, who he thinks doesn't care about why he was sick. I thought that the book was written in kind of a lazy way, with no consideration for the audience's opinion of the characters, and all that it seemed to show was that people are stupid, lonely hypocrites. That's all I managed to take away from it, and I wouldn't want to read it for fun, since it gives nothing in the way of entertainment, and I found little value in it.
E wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "E wrote: " However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, and Twilight stinks. They're both about stupid characters and I can't really see a plot in either of them..."We must not have read the same book.
Kallie wrote;"We must not have read the same book".
Agreed, I must have read what you read Kallie.
Kallie wrote: We must not have read the same book. How many times have I found myself saying that!
Took me awhile to realize that it's the truth. None of us ever reads exactly the same book. Ever.
E wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "E wrote: " However, I do agree that Catcher in the Rye is totally overrated, and Twilight stinks. They're both about stupid characters and I can't really see a plot in either of them..."Well I thought that Holden maybe a little full of himself, but it is written in first person. I was irritated the first time I read the book that there was no explanation for the duck obsession. When he goes to the Natural History Museum he talks about the birds flying south, so it wasn't like he was clueless. He actually gives you a hint though. At the Natural History Museum in chapter 6, he tells you that the Eskimo is fishing for fish in the ice, and that the migrating birds fly faster if you turn yourself or head upside down. If you turned your head upside down and looked at the birds which way would they be flying? They would look like they were flying North. If not literally then figuratively they might look like they are going the other way. And why would Holden say that they fly faster that way? I propose that the story is encrypted. It is really a story about money, power and stock markets.
The fish is the man on the street. The ducks feed on the fish. In one sense this is Wall Street creating wars to make money. Look up "ducks WW2" in Google. See what you get. Go fish. Don't take the Catcher so literal. Think about the code breaker in WW2. Because if you will do that when reading this book you will see a lot of esoteric information embedded in the book.
Here is one that first got me when I read it the second time. The carousel that Phoebe gets on is playing a song. It is a song that I would never expect to hear on a carousel. Holden says that the song "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" is played kinda fast so it sounds funny. You should listen to the words of this song to familiarize yourself with it. Without the song the rest of story is lost. Her is Phoebe going up to the ticket counter to buy a (stock) ticket. She gets on and looks for a ride (a good investment). She gets on this "old beat up horse" (beating a dead horse, just comes to mind). The song starts to play and Holden is watching her go around and around. Perhaps the top of the carousel is painted red and black, like a roulette wheel? Whatever color it is painted, Holden tells us that there is a gold ring that all the children reach for as they are going around and around. The deal is there is a good chance that instead of getting the gold ring you might fall (your stocks fail). You aren't allowed to tell them that this could happen, you just have to let them find out for themselves.
Holden doesn't get on the carousel. He sits and watches her. (In this way I can see why you think Holden isn't empathetic with his sister. At first I did not understand what you were talking about.) He has his hat turned to the hunting side. It is raining down. A storm. A crisis. The market seems to go up when their is a risk that Phoebe ( or feeble) will fall...or die in wars.
I think the book is an allegory. If read like one and relate it to WW2 I think you will see how Salinger wanted to be a catcher in the rye. (Rye is the main grain that they grow where the Axis of Power was, Hamburg. Another hint who built Holden's dormitory that he was living in at Pencey Prep. The OSS was the for runner to the CIA. OSS-EN-BURGER. Reread that chapter, I think it is chapter 3 with this in mind.) He wanted to save kids from going over the edge. (See my discussion group calledin Breaking The Code to the Catcher in the Rye on Goodreads.)
Also read the book THE THIRTY - NINE STEPS and watch the movie. You can find it on you tube. It is a Alfred Hitchcock movie. The book and the movie are not the same story. The movie refers to the book in one of the lines the actress says. But the movie reminds you how school sticks facts in your head so that you will play out a certain role later in life ...without thinking about what you are doing....you are programmed for a purpose. This movie was Salinger's favorite.
To understand how Holden got a good-bye you will have to read the book THE THIRTY - NINE STEPS.
Hope you will check out my group.
Paul Martin wrote: "The rich are not in dire need of understanding, the poor are."Well put.
Renee wrote: Took me awhile to realize that it's the truth. None of us ever reads exactly the same book. Ever.
Very true. We don't even see the same color, hear the same sounds, etc. :)
Renee wrote: "Kallie wrote: We must not have read the same book. How many times have I found myself saying that!
Took me awhile to realize that it's the truth. None of us ever reads exactly the same book. Ever."
What really amazes me is when I read a book second time and realize it said something totally new this time around. That happened when I read The Catcher in the Rye and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. I think the first time is trying to figure out the whole picture and I miss a lot of the details. Second time around the facts start to fit into place.
So if a book is really good then I think it should not feel like the same book we read the first time. Just like the character arc there maybe a reader experience arc...where the reader is affected.
Well yes I believe each and everyone of us reads in a different way, sees different things in a book and of course is entitled to his own opinion. That being said when judging a work of literature we have to acknowledge that there is an universal value in a text.
For instance: we cannot deny that the last line of the Ulysses spoken by Molly Bloom are not sheer beauty. We cannot deny that those lines are not pure aesthetic splendor. I mean can we look at the Mona Lisa and say that it is ugly?
Indeed we are to be entitled to our own opinions and point of views but we have to agree on universal standards of beauty in a book. Personally I judge literature with three main criteria: aesthetic splendor, power of thought and wisdom. And every time I analyzed very good books e.g. 1984, Hamlet, Picture of Dorian Gray etc. I always found that those text contain all three of those criteria.
I did not read the Catcher in the Rye just yet so I can't really express my opinion on it. I heard that Holden is idiosyncratic and most of all YA characters nowadays come from him and ultimately Huck Finn. That is all.
For instance: we cannot deny that the last line of the Ulysses spoken by Molly Bloom are not sheer beauty. We cannot deny that those lines are not pure aesthetic splendor. I mean can we look at the Mona Lisa and say that it is ugly?
Indeed we are to be entitled to our own opinions and point of views but we have to agree on universal standards of beauty in a book. Personally I judge literature with three main criteria: aesthetic splendor, power of thought and wisdom. And every time I analyzed very good books e.g. 1984, Hamlet, Picture of Dorian Gray etc. I always found that those text contain all three of those criteria.
I did not read the Catcher in the Rye just yet so I can't really express my opinion on it. I heard that Holden is idiosyncratic and most of all YA characters nowadays come from him and ultimately Huck Finn. That is all.
Sebastian wrote: "Well yes I believe each and everyone of us reads in a different way, sees different things in a book and of course is entitled to his own opinion. That being said when judging a work of literature ..."Did you finish Ullysses? I think you are correct about the literature criteria, but I don't like The Mona Lisa.
Indeed we are to be entitled to our own opinions and point of views but we have to agree on universal standards of beauty in a book.That universal standard is already the result of a consensus of personal opinions held by people with defining power. I'd say that we can agree that within a certain frame of reference, there can be standards, but I think "universal" is going too far.
I'm always prompted to wonder, does my (or anyone else's) like/dislike opinion determine what is great in any art?Or are there hallmarks of greatness that transcend mere like/dislike, which is, after all, merely subjective opinion?
I don't find the Mona Lisa a particularly "beautiful" face, but there is greatness in that masterpiece, the greatness of the artist, his vision and execution, not the aesthetics of the features of the subject. There are books I admire, I realize the sheer artistry of the work, even though they don't appeal to me on a personal level.
One of my mother's favorite outbursts that I've heard all my life is, "I don't like it; it's no good." I got slapped in the face the first time I replied, "no, you just don't like it; that has no bearing on its overall worth to anyone else." Got slapped the next time, too, lol. Well worth it.
So, where's the answer? Are there aspects of art, of greatness, that transcend our simple "I like it/don't like it?" Or is it that simple, and value gets determined by the number of likes and dislikes?
In that case, Twilight and 50 Shades are great?
Renee wrote: "In that case, Twilight and 50 Shades are great?"My answer would be that judged by the standards within the frame of reference currently used by people who mostly read the fabled genre of literary fiction, Twilight and 50 Shades are not great works.
That standard is not universal, and other groups of people can set their own standards, and then we can scream and shout at each other.
Renee wrote: "In that case, Twilight and 50 Shades are great?."Not any more than a dog fight, a circus or a train wreck are great.
Literary lipstick on erotica doesn't make it literature. A script, direction and expensive lighting can elevate pornography only to a point. It is still the pornographic appeal that makes people buy it.
I don't know anything about Twilight except that it's about vampires, and anyone drawn to vampires, well, what can I say except to worry about a society that pays money for that kind of stuff.
(Kudos for standing up to your mother.)
So, you're saying, in your view, it IS as simple as like/dislike, with the arbitrariness extending to choosing whose like/dislike gets to set the standard?
Paul Martin wrote: "Renee wrote: "In that case, Twilight and 50 Shades are great?"My answer would be that judged by the standards within the frame of reference currently used by people who mostly read the fabled gen..."
Lol! Shouting can be fun.
Renee wrote: "So, you're saying, in your view, it IS as simple as like/dislike, with the arbitrariness extending to choosing whose like/dislike gets to set the standard?" Yes, I would. Which is why I never bother to get upset when someone "hates" a classic that I enjoy. If that person in general doesn't like classics, it would be like a fish and a bird arguing over whether swimming or flying is "greater".
Nah. I loathe it. Life with tantrum throwers . . . I like quiet. :-)
Leslie wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "The rich are not in dire need of understanding, the poor are."Well put.
Renee wrote: Took me awhile to realize that it's the truth. None of us ever reads exactly the same b..."
No. They are in dire need of being knocked off their precious pedestals. This culture glorifies wealth. If someone like Fitz comes along and pokes some holes in that balloon (I just wish I were rich), might cause a good reader to think about how spiritually poor and miserable the rich can be.
Edward wrote: "For Renee. I think you asked an ultimate question; thereby making it unanswerable. ..."42? :D
Kallie wrote: No. They are in dire need of being knocked off their precious pedestals. This culture glorifies wealth. If someone like Fitz comes along and pokes some holes in that balloon (I just wish I were rich), might cause a good reader to think about how spiritually poor and miserable the rich can be. I agree that's important, just not as important. Being rich is a choice, being poor is not. Very generally speaking, of course.
Edward wrote: "I can’t sell a damn thing. I guess I’m not a very good artist. Oh, well. I tried."Didn't Van Gogh say something like that? Well, sort of: "What am I in the eyes of most people — a nonentity, an eccentric, or an unpleasant person — somebody who has no position in society and will never have; in short, the lowest of the low. All right, then — even if that were absolutely true, then I should one day like to show by my work what such an eccentric, such a nobody, has in his heart."
Edward wrote: "42? :D Sorry, don't understand at all. Jackie Robinson's number followed by Death?"
Good question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(numb...
Monty J wrote: "Edward wrote: "I can’t sell a damn thing. I guess I’m not a very good artist. Oh, well. I tried."Didn't Van Gogh say something like that? Well, sort of: "What am I in the eyes of most people — a ..."
Great! I would say that great artists take risks...maybe not intentionally, not "I'm going to do this because it is risky/edgy, etc" but because that is just what great artists do, they push themselves regardless of what others want/think/will see. It is a conversation they are having with us. And then you have those who just want to "be artists" even if they don't have anything to say/show/feel, or in some cases any talent. They follow the formula of the great artists they want to copy/emulate. What they are doing is paint-by-numbers (i.e., Twilight, 50SoG). The art world was turned upside-down and inside-out with the invention of the camera and the typewriter.
Renee wrote: "42? :D"Big lady. :)
Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "42? :D"Big lady. :)"
Busted!
Paul Martin wrote: " I agree that's important, just not as important. Being rich is a choice, being poor is not. Very generally speaking, of course. ..."If we are discussing literature as a means of swaying people's moral compass, I think it IS as important. Some people will not respond to the plight of the poor as much as they would be turned off by the obliviousness of the rich and react by voting (or whatever) against their continued social parasitism.
Coultergeist!http://media.salon.com/2013/10/ann_co...
(Sorry; you might have to cut and paste and not sure it's worth all that.)
Waiting for Godot and The Da Vinci Code are quite possibly two of the worst works of literature I have ever read. In regards to Twilight, I absolutely loved it when it was first published, but when it started to become a teen fangirl phenomenon and lose its mystery to the draws of pop culture and fame, I lost interest rapidly. And NOOOO THE GREAT GATSBY!? I loved that book so much.
Kallie wrote: "Coultergeist!"Those eyes. She belongs in Twilight.
Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Coultergeist!"Those eyes. She belongs in Twilight."
She needs a valium.
Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Coultergeist!"Those eyes. She belongs in Twilight."
She needs a valium."
Or 40.
Leslie wrote: "Karen wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Coultergeist!"Those eyes. She belongs in Twilight."
She needs a valium."
Or 40."
Maybe mixed with some seconal. Oh that's not nice.
Kallie wrote: Some people will not respond to the plight of the poor as much as they would be turned off by the obliviousness of the rich and react by voting (or whatever) against their continued social parasitism. "I have yet to hear a single person tell me that they have been affected that way. But then, you did say "some", not "most".
And (even though we're not talking particularly about the US) is there a party over there that is opposed to the social parasitism of the rich, both in theory and practice?
Another "problem" I have with TGG is the setting. The Jazz Age? It's about as foreign and alien to me as any fantasy world. I find it easier to relate to The Shire than to New York during the 20's. But a story about farmers driven away from their land by natural disaster and cynical bankers? That one's easy.
No hatin' on TGG, I understand its place in American literature and history, but I just think its scope is limited. My mind is set, you won't convince me. Never. Ever.
(view spoiler)
Paul Martin wrote: "Kallie wrote: Some people will not respond to the plight of the poor as much as they would be turned off by the obliviousness of the rich and react by voting (or whatever) against their continued s..."I think it's hard when that part of anerican history that takes place in NYC (the jazz age) is very unfamiliar to a reader. It was distinctly american, while the depression of the 1930's was not. Paul, your response makes sense to me.
Paul Martin wrote: "Kallie wrote: Some people will not respond to the plight of the poor as much as they would be turned off by the obliviousness of the rich and react by voting (or whatever) against their continued s..."Aah, s'okay. Well, here there are are a lot of otherwise well-meaning people who see the poor as sponging; such people worked their asses off for everything they've got so why shouldn't the poor? They stubbornly refuse to see that conditions are tougher for people because of racism (I suppose because they themselves are racist), and also thanks to policies that favor the rich. They also stubbornly refuse to believe the extent to which big money cheats in our sacred red,white,and blue. How can that possibly happen in the greatest country on earth? (Etc.) Oh, hell they probably won't read TGG. So never mind. Things are in a depressing mess here, as far as I am concerned -- not only for the poor but for the dwindling middle class, too.
They also stubbornly refuse to believe the extent to which big money cheats in our sacred red,white,and blue.That could give some weight to your argument that debunking the rich can be just as important as promoting sympathy for the poor, especially in such a economically unbalanced country such as the US. In danger of uttering a pedestrian truism: the importance of a book, in terms of swaying peoples moral compass, has to be seen in context with the country in question.
Maybe the US could need a new TGG to expose, say, the golden parachutes that were handed out to the executives at banks such as Goldman Sachs around 2008-2009?
Karen wrote: "I think it's hard when that part of anerican history that takes place in NYC (the jazz age) is very unfamiliar to a reader. It was distinctly american, while the depression of the 1930's was not. "Well, you just summed up what I've been trying to convey in my last 5 posts. Gee, thanks for embarrassing me in public, Karen :)
Paul Martin wrote: "Karen wrote: "I think it's hard when that part of anerican history that takes place in NYC (the jazz age) is very unfamiliar to a reader. It was distinctly american, while the depression of the 193..."Lol! Your welcome
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 remember liking most of Fitzgerald's short stories (the didn't stick in my head though), but could not, with nume..."
Yep! I just read it for the third time.