The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
The above quote was from Leslie's message 3214, to give credit where due.
Paul Martin wrote: "Of course there is a distinction. If someone calls an idea of mine idiotic, that doesn't mean they think I'm an idiot. I'm surprised at how many people don't seem do understand this. ..."But when they use that term they are attacking the person with a label. Since all we offer on this group is words, it would seem the right thing to do is to help them think better. Rather than that they say "wall of words", as if that is a bad thing. Goodreads says I have 11785 characters left. They eventually don't think I write near enough.
Cosmic wrote: " Even if I don't always get great insight from you I have learned a lot about "the game". I have gotten to analyse some of the abuse that I experienced in school."You may very well have been picked on and bullied in school. But here, it seems to me, you recreate your own victimhood. You push your own agenda in such a stubborn and provocative manner that others are bound to go on the attack, or at least be put off.
I have never demanded that you see what I see but I do want to hear why you disagree. Your arguments backed up with more than just a mere attack of the poster but relevant to the subject. It is near impossible to discuss your theory seriously when you won't let us in on it. I've said it before and I'm saying it again: write a text with a good structure and logical arguments where you explain how you go from A to B. Don't skip any steps, start at the beginning and take it gradually from there. Do that, and I promise you that you'd get a much different response from what you're getting now.
One of the most crucial things about research is submitting your work to your peers for review. I don't think you're trying to hide anything, but the way in which you present the theory is just too chaotic for me to understand. Remember that these are your thoughts, I can't intuitively know how you've made this or that connection.
Cosmic wrote: But when they use that term they are attacking the person with a label. No, they are attacking the idea with a label, that is entirely another thing.
When interpretation stretches into pareidolia...especially when there is plenty of other straightforward material to support an idea that isn't cloaked in so-called code, seems the threshold has been crossed. I don't need to identify very many grains of sand to know I am standing on a beach. I'm not saying the sand isn't there...I'm saying I just want to sit and enjoy the beach...and that I don't give a shit about JD Salinger's secret messages.
Cosmic, I think Michael and Lealie are right Also, I don't dislike YOU as a person, I dislike the way you are trying to push your views about the book. I simply do not agree with your views on it, and I have read them all. If you don't agree with mine, that's fine- I accept that. You have great trouble accepting not only other people's views, but the fact that some of us don't agree with yours. That's all I'm going to say about it.
Paul Martin wrote: "I have never demanded that you see what I see but I do want to hear why you disagree. Your arguments backed up with more than just a mere attack of the poster but relevant to the subject. It is n..."
When one, Salinger, makes an allusion to a text either stating the text, author or hinting at it intertextually shouldn't that area be explored? ( Of course I am not talking to Leslie she enjoys her ocean from the beach. But I mean those of us that wish to dig deeper or go into the ocean.)
Maybe you could suggest a study guide that you find useful to help me present such an argument that would allow me to go from point A to B. (I will admit that there are other people that haven't found my research so off putting as you have and have been able to follow my logic.) I am sure there is a lot for me to learn and I a really very interested in making my ideas accessible.
Monty J wrote: "This thread doesn't even belong under CiTR. The originator should have started a Group to discuss the topic of overrated books. This is a classic example of someone exploiting, leveraging off, th..."
Maybe so. I wonder if this thread is in any other discussion board. But because it is here it is a convenient place to discuss it.
Paul Martin wrote: "I have never demanded that you see what I see but I do want to hear why you disagree. Your arguments backed up with more than just a mere attack of the poster but relevant to the subject. It is n..."
It's unfair to expect people to take an interest in a theoretical coding breakdown of CiTR in this thread, which is about aesthetic and emotional responses to books, not coding theories.
Didn't you start a thread? Put it there.
Lucie wrote: "Yes, and can you please start to talk about something else than Catcher in the Rye> I liked the book and was planning to re-read it, but now I am fed up.I think Karen's idea was a good one:
Popular books we did not like and why. NOT presenting opinions as facts.
, but as opinions. When I come back next week? ..."
Some people have done that and you are free to do this as well! I guess I don't read books that haven't got a high rating to begin with and have been tested over time. We talked about Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance a while back and that was a good discussion.
Cosmic wrote: "How do you know when you have reached a threshold in your interpretation of a book? Are there "rules" somewhere that somehow I missed? And how do you know when someone has reached that barrier? How do you know? "
If I don't want to use your methodology for 'going deeper' that doesn't mean I won't go deeper on my own, through my own interpretive methods -- which could include writing a poem about the book or drawing a portrait of Holden or simply reading the book again and letting it sink in differently (which it certainly will, on the next reading). To suggest that I've stopped thinking about the book because I don't want to think about it your way is presumptuous. If you want to present an argument for your CiTR coding, you should look to similar arguments for coding in literature and find examples of how people present those arguments in a way that others want to follow. A google search would probably get you started.
Cosmic you have threads called Breaking the code to Catcher in the Rye.
Kallie wrote: "Cosmic wrote: "How do you know when you have reached a threshold in your interpretation of a book? Are there "rules" somewhere that somehow I missed? And how do you know when someone has reached th..."Excellent points, very well said.
Karen wrote: "Cosmic, I think Michael and Lealie are right Also, I don't dislike YOU as a person, I dislike the way you are trying to push your views about the book. I simply do not agree with your views on it, and I have read them all. If you don't agree with mine, that's fine- I accept that. You have great trouble accepting not only other people's views, but the fact that some of us don't agree with yours. That's all I'm going to say about it. ..."
Karen, at the top of this page it says "The Catcher And The Rye discussion". The word discussion means:
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate."
You have added nothing to this discussion by saying you disagree with me because I have no idea on what point you disagree.
I think Salinger wrote the Catcher In The Rye. I believe that there can be more than one interpretation of the book. I believe that there are other books like The Catcher In The Rye that are like this. One book that I like very much is Bambi. I believe that the Catcher In the Rye is an allegory. As an allegory I have learned a lot about war and specifically about WW2. One of the things that I learned was about Jane and why Holden says she keeps all her Kings on the back row. I wrote about it in the Lexington reading group yesterday. They are reading the Catcher for a their group read. Haven't had near the problems discussing this book on their group as I have here. I guess they understand what it means to discuss. If you have nothing to add to a discussion then why bother hanging out in a discussion board?
You can walk on the moon with me anytime, Kallie ;) (crack that code)
Paul Martin wrote: "I don't much care about staying on topic. If the topic is interesting, people will stick with it. Free conversation is good conversation. Unless someone is systematically trying to hijack the threa..."I agree! I wish we could talk about something other than someone hijacking a thread. I prefer to talk about books. What book would you like to discuss?
Leslie wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiUsf..."Gotta love Regan. He is the patron saint of the shrinking violet.
Cosmic wrote: "at the top of this page it says "The Catcher And The Rye discussion". The word discussion means:an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate."
The topic of the thread is in the OP. All discussions that use The Cather in the Rye as their basis, are going to read "The Cather in the Rye Discussion" at the top as a default, but one refers to the OP for the topic of the thread, and this thread is about multiple (over-rated) books, "The Most Overrated Books" being the topic. As Monty stated, it may have been created in error, and should have been a group. Perhaps you created a group for discussing your theories when you should have created a discussion, since you specifically wish to discuss TCitR, and that is why you aren't getting the attention you expect? desire? crave? demand? I don't know what you did, but that is my guess.
Gary wrote: "Leslie wrote: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiUsf..."Gotta love Regan. He is the patron saint of the shrinking violet."
You play half a game you still get a whole snowcone! ;)
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..."
Agree completely. However I do use some of the lists to get recommendations for new books. But, I concur, lists frequently just make me tired.
Leslie wrote: "You can walk on the moon with me anytime, Kallie ;) (crack that code)"Ack. Lousy at codes, but I'll give it some thought.
Michael wrote: "Whether or not we stay on this topic, I think the following points made by Mary Kluges in Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed are worth thinking about. (From a discussion of poststucturalist theories.)"Because all truths are relative, all supposedly ‘essential' constants are fluid, and language determines reality, there is no such thing as definitive meaning. There is only ambiguity, fluid meaning, and multiplicity of meaning, especially in a literary text.
Because of the idea of relativism, there can be no such thing as a ‘total’ theory, one which explains every aspect of some event or field."
This is what I want to do with the Catcher In The Rye or any book really. If their is truth that is being explored that I had never seen before then I want to be with that "teacher" learning from him or her. In this case I have been learning from Salinger. As one that has discovered a new guru I have become a zealot. I don't know enough about WW2 to know where the text is going. What I mean is that I did not have world history and what I did learn about WW2 was about two weeks in high school if that much. So for me to find some kind of relevance in The Catcher In The Rye in an area I never really was looking to understand in the first place has surprised me. This is why when I find something out that is new I want to share it. A CATCHER IN THE RYE discussion board seemed a great place to do this because there are people that have read this book. Some that loved it and some that didn't so it seems it should invite different points of view.
Your quotes have been very helpful to my own thinking and I appreciate you raising the level of the discussion here by posting them. Thank you.
I am not really sure how long you have been on this group but these people have become obsessive when talking about me. They really don't talk about my views too much if at all because they don't know them or have nothing to contribute that would dispelling them....so they have written a whole thread around me.
Thank you everyone. I ADMIT I AM SUCH A GLORY HOG!
but if you want you can switch back to the normal program of discussing The Catcher In The Rye or some other book that is overrated.
At one time I thought Moby Dick was overrated and I never wanted to read it again. I felt like when I got through that book I could check it off my reading list. I read that Moby Dick is about a narcissistic mind set. This is very interesting view and I would like to re-read this book sometime with that in mind.
I think mindsets can influence our view of whether a book is under or overrated. I think that when I only see a book as one dimensional way to be approached very bland. To only define a discussion as to have the parameters to only be about "esthetic and emotional responses to books," is not to discuss the book but your respondent the book. I want to understand why and how you came to those views. I also want to benefit others with how I came to my views. Who cares that I think The Catcher is a great book if I don't tell them it is because I found a allegory in it. That gives relevance to my opinion.
Kallie wrote: "It's unfair to expect people to take an interest in a theoretical coding breakdown of CiTR in this thread, which is about aesthetic and emotional responses to books, not coding theories. ..."
UNFAIR- "not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics:
an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2.
disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting:
an unfair share."
This is a discussion board.
noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.
Please explain how giving a different point of view is unfair?
Here we go focusing on me rather than on any book. I am pretty interesting, but tell me what went through your mind when you read that Jane kept all her Kings on the back row when she played checkers with Holden. What kind of meaning did you derive from that?
Cosmic wrote: "Kallie wrote: "It's unfair to expect people to take an interest in a theoretical coding breakdown of CiTR in this thread, which is about aesthetic and emotional responses to books, not coding theor..."Kallie wrote: "It's unfair to expect people to take an interest in a theoretical coding breakdown of CiTR in this thread, which is about aesthetic and emotional responses to books, not coding theories.
..."
Cosmic wrote:"You have added nothing to this discussion by saying you disagree with me because I have no idea on what point you disagree."
I disagree with your interpretation of TCiTR, I told you that.
"I wrote about it in the Lexington reading group yesterday. They are reading the Catcher for a their group read. Haven't had near the problems discussing this book on their group as I have here. I guess they understand what it means to discuss. If you have nothing to add to a discussion then why bother hanging out in a discussion board?"
I think you are the only one discussing your interpretation in that group. This is what I mean by you not accepting it when others, like myself, say we don't agree with you- you hurl insults. Grow up, I'm done with you.
Leslie wrote: "The topic of the thread is in the OP, ..."I am not sure what OP means? Could you help me out with this. I have gotten some discussion on my threads but it would be a lonely world not to come and talk about books here. Since we all read I don't understand your resistance? When people have come in from the outside this list and put a book on their list of overrated that you didn't agree with you have tried to get them to explain themselves about that book. What I don't like about the book the Catcher is it looks at the world as if it were disjointed. But behind the streams of consciousness there is a thread of logic and something that holds it together and for me that is all the allusions and WW2. Without this intertextuality it feels lacking.
Cosmic wrote: "Leslie wrote: "The topic of the thread is in the OP, ..."I am not sure what OP means? Could you help me out with this. I have gotten some discussion on my threads but it would be a lonely worl..."
OP = original post.
I would suggest to you that you pay attention to the feedback you have been getting on this thread and kindly either modify your tone and content which has been almost unanimously rejected, or move it to a thread where you are getting more positive feedback and participation. What you are generating here is disruption not discussion. With the exception of Edward, I cannot recall any discussion or feedback to your posts and their content that has been positive or engaging or informative. Personally, I don't buy what you are selling.
Cosmic: You seem to be almost attempting to turn fiction authors and their books into some sort of self-help life guide. If that works for you, I guess that's okay. I despise the tone of self-help and soap-box proselytizing in fiction. Books like ZatAoMM, or the nonfiction hot-windbag tome Walden...blech! too preachy and pretentious. What you are doing with Catcher seems along those lines, elevating Salinger and his book into some kind of guide to life. I can find my own values, thank you very much. I don't need them shown to me or taught to me, and I am not obligated to defend mine against yours as if it is a contest. You are not smarter than the others here in this group. You are not more enlightened or insightful, or interesting. You have your method, and others have theirs. Yours has been rejected for the most part, but that doesn't mean your people aren't out there. Go forth Cosmic, and seek them out!
Edward wrote: "How about the audacity of those people who rate Fitzgerald highly? His "novels" are really overblown short stories. And besides, I suspect he got any idea he ever had from Zelda. ..."Well I haven't read enough of Fitzgerald to have much of an opinion on this but I read This Side Of Paradise. It is a similar book to the Catcher in that it is about a rich boy going to a private school. You know not to many classics are about going to school and in writing this I realized this is the first one that I read that kinda liked school. But in this book I found a intertextual phrase that reminded me of The Catcher In The Rye. The uncle writes the protagonist and say something about being splendid.
I wrote about it here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I like his books because he was not an insider to the society that he tried to fit into. No doubt he could see this society with new eyes. I do like Edith Wharton better but I am glad that he has given us his view point.
I especially like the things that were mentioned in This Side Of Paradise because he kinda created the framework of what "the game" was suppose to look like.
Leslie wrote: "move it to a thread where you are getting more positive feedback and participation.."On a discussion board the goal is not political. You don't care whether everyone agrees with you or not. You are just here to discuss.
I find this thread fulfills me in that I get to discuss freely the Catcher or other books. I wonder what you are reading?
Leslie wrote: " You seem to be almost attempting to turn fiction authors and their books into some sort of self-help life guide. If that works for you, I guess that's okay. I despise the tone of self-he..."You are mixing me up with Monty.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
No getting knowledge is not the same as self help.
Cosmic wrote: "Maybe so. I wonder if this thread is in any other discussion board. But because it is here it is a convenient place to discuss it."Cosmic, your paranoia skirts are showing. I was referring to the thread author's use of CiTR to start a thread on overrated books. Your "hidden coded meaning" material, though irritatingly repetitive, is at least relevant to the book.
Cosmic wrote: "I wonder what you are reading?"Why do you wonder?
Edward wrote: "...you and I should be positively happy that we don't live next door to the bitches."In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Edward wrote: "that vein you and I should be positively happy that we don't live next door to the bitches. ..."Or married to them. I wonder who taught her to argue? I had a rather good teacher myself and would have become a lawyer but my reading skills were lacking. But I am making up for it now. I retired early instead. I like it much better.
Anyway one of the things that Holden says is that is is a terrific liar. I think one of the biggest lies that he tells is that he hates the movies. Yet all through the Catcher he has actors and movies referenced and allusions to them as well.
I think that when given an illusion it could have more than one meaning and this is what makes them so amazing to the skilled author. I have never heard of allusions till I started studying Ulysses.
Anyway Holden: I used to just have Holden as a car and that he represent a vehicle to see the world of WW2 in.
"In 1908 it moved into the automotive field, before becoming a subsidiary of the United States-based General Motors (GM) in 1931."
I thought his name had to do with GM especially given the carousel scene in the book.
http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/w...
Why wouldn't he laugh with his hunter hat on?
But today I got another interpretation
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...
Holden won the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1953 for his role in Stalag 17.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17
Revised: I reread the link and realized that the movie was produced in 1953 after the Catcher was published. Perhaps the actor adopted Salinger's name Holden. I don't know.
Leslie the reason that I asked you what you were reading is because I was interested in what you are learning. I find you obsession with me flattering but a bore. It isn't The Catcher In The Rye that people are bored with as much as you all trying to control me. Get a life. Go read a book and then talk about how it changed your thinking or life.
Anne Hawn wrote: "I just wanted to add that I don't see the opinions of most members of this group as trying to ram something down someone's throat. This is especially true of responses to people who hate TCIR, but I don't think it is demeaning to be asked to substantiate an opinion. "You are absolutely right. It is demeaning to be told that your opinion is bunk and dismissed offhand, or to have it glossed over as though it does not matter one whit.
Being asked to substantiate an opinion in many ways validates a persons opinion as being something worth discussing. That is the key to being open minded and inclusive. You do not have to accept every idea that is out there, but it is never a bad idea to hear why someone has their idea and what rationale they have behind it. At least then when you reject it you can do so for a good reason.
Cosmic wrote: "It isn't The Catcher In The Rye that people are bored with as much as you all trying to control me. "Based on what? No one (save Edward) responds to your theories except to ask you to stop posting them (who has responded to you on the other threads? your own or the Lexington one?). I am not obsessed with you in the least, at least no more than I would be obsessed with getting a fly out of my house. I am reading a variety of books, about 12 in all, spanning all genres. I take suggestions from my friends who are all very intelligent, experienced, and well read people with impeccable taste in a broad range of topics. I read the books you have mentioned about 20 years ago, and you haven't provided me with any new insights.
Edward wrote: "Are you amazed at how the unprovoked bitchiness continues? One is supposedly "male." I am truly amazed, but then again I tend to believe in Tinkerbell. Only positive statements are now allowed. In that vein you and I should be positively happy that we don't live next door to the bitches. "
Cosmic wrote: "Kallie wrote: "It's unfair to expect people to take an interest in a theoretical coding breakdown of CiTR in this thread, which is about aesthetic and emotional responses to books, not coding theor..."You are too much, Cosmic. I hereby give up on thinking you will ever read anybody's posts with any real interest in responding to and considering their point of view. You have hijacked this post. Happy? I give up, so I'm just going to be mean and say: subjecting people to disjointed posts on your CiTR obsession is boring, as all obsessions are boring to the people who do not share them. Edward, call us bitches if you will. You entered the thread late. You have no idea how rude Cosmic has been to everyone who questions her theory.
Renee wrote: "Edward wrote: "Are you amazed at how the unprovoked bitchiness continues? One is supposedly "male." I am truly amazed, but then again I tend to believe in Tinkerbell. Only positive statements are n..."https://p.gr-assets.com/540x540/fit/h...
I like this!
John wrote: "Being asked to substantiate an opinion in many ways validates a persons opinion as being something worth discussing. That is the key to being open minded and inclusive. You do not have to accept every idea that is out there, but it is never a bad idea to hear why someone has their idea and what rationale they have behind it. At least then when you reject it you can do so for a good reason. ..."I really agree that we need to have each other to bounce our ideas off of. Thank you for supporting free speech!
I found this about the Holden."Holden's second full-scale car factory, located in Fishermans Bend (Port Melbourne), was completed in 1936, with construction beginning in 1939 on a new plant in Pagewood, New South Wales.[12] However, World War II delayed car production with efforts shifted to the construction of vehicle bodies, field guns, aircraft and engines.[15]"
So I think this is relevant to the carousel scene and the "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" playing on the carousel. I love the allusions of that song and the stock market. Perhaps one would think of gun smoke.
John when you read the Catcher did you notice what song was playing on the carousel?
Cosmic wrote: " I wonder who taught her to argue?"Home schooled.
Cosmic wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Of course there is a distinction. If someone calls an idea of mine idiotic, that doesn't mean they think I'm an idiot. I'm surprised at how many people don't seem do understand ..."Cosmic
I don't understand your comment at all. Goodreads is not singling you out by telling you how many words you have left. The website does that for everyone.
Cosmic wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "I don't much care about staying on topic. If the topic is interesting, people will stick with it. Free conversation is good conversation. Unless someone is systematically trying..."The topic of discussion, Cosmic, is the Catcher in the Rye. Why hijack it? Why don't you start your own thread on a topic/book that is of interest to you?
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 have never demanded that you see what I see but I do want to hear why you disagree. Your arguments backed up with more than just a mere attack of the poster but relevant to the subject. An opinion about someone's research such as mine, is often just labels like "crackpot" and does not create discussion. When one tries to stop a conversation it is pretty obvious. They don't add anything to the discussion. They attack the method rather than the facts or view presented. They act as if they have all the facts and there is nothing more to discuss.
I am not personally interested in this kind of blather. I would like to discuss the merits of a book and not just defend my reputation. I wonder sometimes why some of you are on this group? But I don't want you to leave. You have been great to play my ideas off on. Even if I don't always get great insight from you I have learned a lot about "the game". I have gotten to analyse some of the abuse that I experienced in school. Being an only child I have often been a member of one. I have met cliche like this in a lot of areas of my life. I haven't been able to have the benefit of slowing down the conversation and really look at the dynamics of the group. This has been great for getting that kind of perspective! Thank you.
Leslie please explain in what ways I may have "because this ram-rod and insulting method of presentation is rejected/questioned/dismissed. No one called anyone a crackpot...the theory was called crackpot - but, perhaps it is being over-interpreted"?
How do you know when you have reached a threshold in your interpretation of a book? Are there "rules" somewhere that somehow I missed? And how do you know when someone has reached that barrier?
How do you know?