The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,401-4,450 of 5,680

[E.D.]

At a friends bachelor party, a stripper/dancer remarked that she "loved poles".

I asked her how she felt about Ukrainians.

[Paul Martin]

E.D. wrote: "At a friends bachelor party, a stripper/dancer remarked that she "loved poles".

I asked her how she felt about Ukrainians."

I bet the whole room erupted into roaring and uncontrollable laughter :-)

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "I don't think Maynard has a right to complain, but he apparently had lovers younger than her, which is frownworthy."


It's all covered in my article. She implies this, but has no proof. None of his lovers was under age. She could be sued for slander, but she waited until Salinger was too old and feeble to care to attack him.

She's the only one of his lovers who's complained and she's the only one who wrote a book about their relationship. You have to listen and read what she says carefully. She artfully implies a lot but proves nothing.

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "At a friends bachelor party, a stripper/dancer remarked that she "loved poles".

I asked her how she felt about Ukrainians."

LOL !!!

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "A stripper poll? :D

You know, we might have a better government if we elected strippers.

It would do a helluva lot for transparency.

We should take a poll.

(a horse is a horse, of course, of c..."

Good one Renee

[Monty J]

Paul Martin wrote: "E.D. wrote: "At a friends bachelor party, a stripper/dancer remarked that she "loved poles".

I asked her how she felt about Ukrainians."

I bet the whole room erupted into roaring and uncontrollab..."

As I just did.

[E.D.]

Monty J wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "E.D. wrote: "At a friends bachelor party, a stripper/dancer remarked that she "loved poles".

I asked her how she felt about Ukrainians."

I bet the whole room erupted into roar..."

The poor girl's "Whaaaaat?" was most precious. :}

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "Ok Monty ı didn't know that. Somewhere it said that he had a 14 years old girlfriend, but ı don't know if it was Maynard or someone else."

This is all covered in my article. This woman was interviewed during the documentary. When Maynard tells about it she only tells part of the truth, making it sound like they were having an affair, which is entirely bogus.

If JK Rowling interviews a 14 year-old boy for a Harry Potter story does anyone accuse her of pedophilia? This is in effect what Maynard did with Salinger.

The character in "For Esme with Love and Squalor" was based on a chaperoned teenage girl Salinger met on a beach in Florida. He asked her mother's permission to talk to her. Their "relationship" as Maynard refers to it, continued mostly by mail over the next few years because she lived in Europe. The relationship grew but was never sexual, according to the girl/woman in the documentary, until she, at age twenty, initiated sex with him.

No one has ever accused Salinger of having sex with underage girls, but Maynard salaciously infers it, to her discredit.

Salinger was born with one testicle, a condition that made him feel like a freak and which accounts for his extreme introversion, especially in dating sexually experienced women. He felt less insecure with women who were less inclined to laugh at him or recoil in horror during intimacy, hence his predilection for 18 year-olds. The emotional impact of his deformity likely led to his fascination with innocence as a writer.

Salinger was an easy target for someone like Maynard, who felt jilted, sought revenge and was motivated by profit.

It riles me to see a compassionate, emotionally insecure war hero so unfairly exploited. I am also surprised that PBS would air such a one-sided view of someone without a disclaimer. It makes me wonder what's going on in PBS management.

[Kallie]

Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "A stripper poll? :D

You know, we might have a better government if we elected strippers.

It would do a helluva lot for transparency.

We should take a poll.

(a horse is a horse, o..."

Look out, guys. She's coming after your money!

http://www.sun-gazing.com/takes-first...

[Alex]

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

Hey can you guys please check out my poll, I really would like a lot of input on it. The question is something I really would like to create one day and if I know what many people like it would be easier to make. Well theme parks aren't easy to make but I would like to know what would interest people into going. If you like the poll please share the link so others can participate as well. If you don't like the choices add your own, or if you like more than one just say it. I want your Opinions. Please vote!

[E.D.]

Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "A stripper poll? :D

You know, we might have a better government if we elected strippers.

It would do a helluva lot for transparency.

We should take a poll.

(a hor..."

She has my vote. And a dollar. Haahh! :}

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Renee wrote: "A stripper poll? :D

You know, we might have a better government if we elected strippers.

It would do a helluva lot for transparency.

We should take ..."

Hahaha! This is funny.

[Renee E]

You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory...

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

I remember that!! I think it's great, it could never happen here.

[Kallie]

Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

"cute little tubby boys" I think Karen is right, it could never happen here. But I wonder what we should call ours?

[Renee E]

No, you're right, Karen.

We're still too anchored in the Original Sin concept of the Puritan forbears.

[Renee E]

Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

"cute little tubby boys" I think Karen is right, it could never happen here. But I wonder what we should call ours? ..."

Pompous little pricks?

[Kallie]

Renee wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

"cute little tubby boys" I think Karen is right, it could never happe..."

That's pretty good. Have to get lying and venal in there . . . That's quite an image! R. Crumb could draw that.

[E.D.]

Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

"cute little tubby boys" I think Karen is right, it cou..."

Pekar and Crumb. Now you're swimming in my puddle. :}

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "No, you're right, Karen.

We're still too anchored in the Original Sin concept of the Puritan forbears."

Ughhh! Even here in my part of Massachusetts.

[Renee E]

I'd hazard, Karen, especially there.

[Christia]

I must say that I agree with every item on this list, except for two for which I have no comment because I have not yet read: "The Great Gatsby" and "Moby Dick".

As a fan of good literature, it is easy for me to say that my disdain for these books doesn't come from not liking the style or understanding the concepts. I appreciate works that I disagree with or that have a style I don't care for because I understand it's place in literary history, or the power of alternate perspectives. More or less, I found the concepts basic, shallow or boring, and the styles over-bearing or sub-par to literary standards.

All that aside, can someone please enlighten me what was so catching about Cather in the Rye? Maybe you have to be a hipster to get it.

[Rebekka]

The Catcher in the Rye is very overrated! I thought it would be a really good book, but I could`t get my self trough it.

[Monty J]

Christia wrote: "...can someone please enlighten me what was so catching about Cather in the Rye? Maybe you have to be a hipster to get it."

My comprehensive review may help: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

You aren't alone in being perplexed by the book, for it is way over the heads of many, even some who teach literature. The book must be read slowly and thoughtfully in order to absorb its meaning.

The Catcher in the Rye even gets into the very meaning of life. Check out the Wilhelm Stekel quote cited by Mr. Antolini: "The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." You can read that passage, shrug your shoulders and flip the page or you can sit and ponder what it means, which could take days.

Many readers resist CiTR because of the book's capacity to trigger self-reflection. It resonates with their own transition from juvenile to adult, a vital period for personality development, when boys and girls become men and women and are confronted with one another's sexuality and one's struggle to think and "be" independent from their parents.

Check out the date rape scene in Ed Bankey's car when Holden overhears Stradlater abusing a girl in the back seat. You can't just blast through that scene without stopping to ponder your own early dating experiences.

[Monty J]

Rebekka wrote: "The Catcher in the Rye is very overrated! I thought it would be a really good book, but I could`t get my self trough it."


Check out my comments to Christina, above.

[E.D.]

Edward wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Renee wrote: "You know, it might not be a bad idea . . .

http://imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory..."

"cute little tubby boys" I ..."

Crumb *got* Pekar. Pekar was a local boy. So was Crumb for a while. That puts them in my puddle, "literate flatulate".

[Christia]

"The book must be read slowly and thoughtfully in order to absorb its meaning." I am a slow reader because I have to ponder everything I read, that's my downfall. Thanks for the clarification Monty, but I enjoy contemplative, introspective books and this one just seems like a "no duh" sort of message. Or at least, there is too much wandering around and whining and not enough meat. I am surprised that anyone can make it into adulthood without making the realization that there is a purpose to life other than causing a self-serving ruckus. Perhaps I was too innocent when I read it to appreciate it at the time, being that I was in my teens. The whole book reminds me of young suburban hipsters trying to have a real life moment.

While we're add it, we should add "Picture of Dorian Grey" and his 257 references to flowers to the list of overrated classics.

[Karen]

I found The Catcher in the Rye to be introspective.

[Petergiaquinta]

@Christia

I'm not sure what you mean by "introspective," but Catcher is a highly introspective work by any orthodox definition of that word.

The protagonist tells us his story of those three days in New York in an introspective manner as he relates his experience to his therapist/doctor. He is introspective throughout his entire journey constantly questioning the behaviors and attitudes of the people around him, and more importantly questioning his own place in the world and his own attitudes and actions. He's thoughtful and questioning about some of the most important issues there are in life: suffering, hypocrisy, power, abuse, human sexuality, family, love. It's all there, but you seem to have missed it.

Sorry for peeking at your books, but you don't seem to read a lot of literature, and you rate some very "introspective" books quite low. That's your business, but I notice you've read and ranked rather high both Huck Finn and Cuckoo's Nest. If you know these two works, then stop and think how Catcher is a bridge of sorts between them in the canon of American literature. It grows right out of Hick Finn and deals with the same themes. It even follows the same structure. This isn't an accident. And Cuckoo's Nest? An asylum in the West? Themes of individuality and conformity? Kesey knows Catcher. Those same "no duh" themes you dismiss are really the same ones Kesey explores in Cuckoo's Nest.

Finally, Catcher demands from us as readers that we be introspective. We think about our own awkward teen years. We think about the way we've grown and changed, unable to hold onto those fleeting things from the past. We think about death and its horrible permanence. We think about our family and friends. We think about the way we've been mistreated but also, more importantly, the way we've mistreated others. This is what good literature does, and it's what Catcher does. Go back and give it a reread.

[[deleted user]]

Well, I think Dorian Gray is one of the most interesting 19th century books I have ever read, it is philosophical, interesting psychology, and in my opinion talks to us all, we all have a picture of our bad bits hidden somewhere, or might like to. As far as " introspective", in my opinion, apart from thrillers and action literature, where story is more important than psychology of the characters and feelings, all good literature is " introspective".
ANd good books make you think! Good reply Petergiaquinta!
ANd now I dipped in, I am going to cook for my book club who are coming in an hour.
Lucie

[Mark]

I'll pile on (I think) to Petergiaquinta's point because I'm a big fan and I've missed all you guys over the last couple of months.

And @Christia, too.

I don't think books in and of themselves can be "contemplative, introspective." In fact, a book without a past, current or potential reader isn't anything at all. It's one half of a false dichotomy, if anything.

A reader, whether from natural predisposition or as a deliberate mental exercise, can decide to contemplate and be introspective about a collection of Barney Google and Snuffy Smith comic strips (although I'd recommend Li'l Abner instead, but that's just my taste).

Not only is there the stuff that it would seem likely the writer put into his or her stew for the purposes of our introspection and contemplation, but also we can find a variety of coded information that the writers were perhaps not that consciously aware of. For an interesting take on what I'm trying to explain here, I heartily recommend The Empire's Old Clothes.

I think the primary (and, to me, powerful) device that Salinger used for CitR was immersion of the reader in the protagonist's perspective. And although the main character is constantly sharing his often contradictory opinions, he isn't necessarily didactic about what readers can, and maybe what Salinger wanted readers to, get from the book. You have to look at the context of Holden's "too much wandering around and whining" and also look beyond it to think about what's motivating his behavior and opinions and how they contrast with the other character's in the book.

And I'm curious, Christia, if the message of CitR was "No duh," (which I assume means so obvious, predictable and commonplace as to not be that interesting to you), what is your take on what that message was? Could you summarize?

[Renee E]

Lucie wrote: "Well, I think Dorian Gray is one of the most interesting 19th century books I have ever read, it is philosophical, interesting psychology, and in my opinion talks to us all, we all have a picture o...As far as " introspective", in my opinion, apart from thrillers and action literature, where story is more important than psychology of the characters and feelings, all good literature is " introspective"."

Thank you, Lucie! You just gave me the distinction between horror and modern gothic that I've been trying to pinpoint in words: that the thrust of the action is the crux of a horror story, an extroverted POV; whereas modern gothic focuses on the characters, is introspective and the action is a foil for the characters' changes — for good or for ill.

[[deleted user]]

Renee wrote: "Lucie wrote: "Well, I think Dorian Gray is one of the most interesting 19th century books I have ever read, it is philosophical, interesting psychology, and in my opinion talks to us all, we all ha..."
Yes. This is why I don't like people criticising " genre". Take Terry Pratchett- looks like sci fi, but the books are funny, moral and educated. Look like children books, but are not. Give me some modern Gothic recommendations, please!

[Renee E]

Lucie, try Jack Cady. Any of his short story anthologies are wonderful, and so are his novels. I'm on the last novel I haven't read, "The Well." I have never had a book strike me with such a sense of foreboding from the first paragraph.

His "Rules of 48" isn't really gothic, nor is "Singleton." I'd nudge Singleton more into magical reality, but a unique, American magical reality, not related to the South American.

"Street" and "The Man Who Could Make Things Vanish" have an intensely angry tone, like Cady was furious at the state of the world when he wrote them.

I'd probably recommend starting with "The Hauntings of Hood Canal." I think "Inagehi" is a good follow up. It has a beautiful mysticism, inherent as it's set in the Appalachians in Cherokee country.

Of his anthologies (so far), "The Burning," "Ghosts of Yesterday," and "The Night We Buried Road Dog," I can't choose. I love them all. I read the title story from "The Burning" MANY years ago, not knowing the author, not remembering the title, and it haunted me; I have looked for it over the years, so I was delighted to find it right there. My copy of "Tattoo" should arrive Monday. :D

*one of these days I'll be able to recommend the novel I'm working on . . . or that's working on me, lol!*

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "In fact, a book without a past, current or potential reader isn't anything at all. It's one half of a false dichotomy, if anything."

Nicely put. A book without readers is little more than a writer's ego in print.

It's the sacred trinity of writer, what's written and the reader that makes things happen.

[[deleted user]]

Renee wrote: "Lucie, try Jack Cady. Any of his short story anthologies are wonderful, and so are his novels. I'm on the last novel I haven't read, "The Well." I have never had a book strike me with such a sense ..."

Thanks, I will try!

[Christia]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "If you know these two works, then stop and think how Catcher is a bridge of sorts between them in the canon of American literature."

I'll think about that. I am now going to make it a personal mission to see what I am missing about life in general, by reading this book until I get something out of it, as it was over 16 years ago when I was a teen. It seems that CiTR's biggest charm comes from what you said, that the book "demands from us as readers that we be introspective." I am, however, not sure that some people read books without already doing that. My harsh criticism comes from the fact that this book was presented to me as something that has changed people's lives. If I had picked it up off the shelf not knowing it was popular or that my friends were so impacted by it, I may have felt differently. I am looking forward to reading it again as an adult to have a less biased perspective.

"He's thoughtful and questioning about some of the most important issues there are in life: suffering, hypocrisy, power, abuse, human sexuality, family, love. It's all there, but you seem to have missed it."

Having a young man in a book contemplate these matters doesn't really lend a new perspective allowing the reader to think about them like they're new concepts.

Mark, you had said, "I don't think books in and of themselves can be 'contemplative, introspective.' That's totally true, as literature is the vehicle that connects the author's wisdom to the reader according to the reader's collective experience. And you're right that the reader can encounter materials that trigger introspection just about anywhere, not just in literature or even books. Which again, downplays the impact of this particular book. It's biggest claim to fame is that it causes people to think about things that many teenagers already think about. More or less, maybe nostalgia is a dominating feeling for some people.

Mark, you said, "I think the primary (and, to me, powerful) device that Salinger used for CitR was immersion of the reader in the protagonist's perspective." I agree, but think that Bill Watterson did that better with Calvin and Hobbes. Can you explain what you mean by this as opposed to any book written either in first person or entirely from the perspective of one character? You explained a little but can you expand on this?

Finally, I don't mean to insult any CiTR fans, as each person sees things a little differently and in order to get better insight, I needed to lay down the framework of my perspective in order to get the most meaningful responses.

My discrepancy in perspective regarding this book may have come from the fact that I was the oldest of six kids, working full time as a teenager to take care of them and my anti-institutional parents, and didn't realize until this discussion that this could be the reason for my opinion, at no fault of the author.

“Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around - nobody big, I mean - except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be.”

We mourn the loss of our childhood and innocence in society. People ruin each other and themselves and pretend to be something they're not. Yet, what can be done about it? I was waiting for some sort of solution but there isn't one, and there is no "Catcher in the Rye". It is sort of like coming to the realization that not only is there no protective God, but one can't fill this role either. It's a nice sentiment though. “If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn't rub out even half the 'Fuck you' signs in the world. It's impossible.”

"We think about our own awkward teen years" . That's a good point. I was still in them, but was, in no way, allowed to be a teenager at that time. I bet I'll have a different experience reading it as an adult.

[Monty J]

Christia wrote: "We mourn the loss of our childhood and innocence in society."

I keep coming across this sentiment in the context of this novel, but I don't see it. Not in the novel nor was it ever my experience. Little kids need protecting. Wanting to protect them is mature thinking.

As a teen I couldn't wait to get out on my own, get through college and see would I could do in the world. What is there to mourn? Loss of innocence is part of growing up. I remember preaching this to my kids when they were in high school.


"People ruin each other and themselves and pretend to be something they're not. Yet, what can be done about it?"

We have more control over our lives than we may think. Each day is a new beginning. "Nobody can make you feel small without your permission." (Eleanor Roosevelt) Pure pretense can be destructive, but pretending with intention can be a way of exploring possibility. Fake it 'til you make it. Failures are but stepping stones to success.


"I was waiting for some sort of solution but there isn't one,"

Sometimes it is enough merely to be reminded of certain important questions or coaxed into asking them of ourselves, without ready answers. Questions like: What to I want to be? Who am I?

But I thought Holden and Phoebe laid it out for us: Love is fundamental. It's our reason for being. Have the courage to allow ourselves to be loved and to love others. (And Ayn Rand can go to hell.)


"... and there is no 'Catcher in the Rye.'"

I see "Catcher in the Rye" as a metaphor for the empathetic humans among us. Look around and you will see the empaths. They chose professions where their need to ease suffering is valued: psychotherapists, clergy, social workers, the healing arts, schoolteachers, human resource managers. (This is not to say that all doctors and nurses are empathetic, for I've experienced some real sadists. But they are not the norm.)

There are indeed Catchers in the Rye.

[Michael]

I certainly miss my childhood, Monty, when life was so much simpler and I felt immortal. I also miss my son's childhood, although he's turned into a fine young man and I look forward to seeing what he does with his life.

I think whole cultures long for humanity's "childhood." Hence, the pervasiveness of Garden of Eden myths throughout the world.

[E.D.]

Eleanor Roosevelt was most assuredly a "Catcher". Ayn Rand..., definitely not. No empathy there for the common man.

If one reads CITR and doesn't question their own sense of empathy, then the effort was wasted.

[Christia]

If the book isn't about wishing to preserve the innocence of individuals and society than I guess I really did miss the point of the book. That was the only part that made it half-way worth reading. It is not a ground-breaking concept to have empathy, what need is there to realize that other people have feelings too? Maybe when I read this I just assumed that people already had a well developed sense of empathy. The reason I stated that there are no catchers in the rye, is not because there are no empaths, but because humans can't remain in an innocent state of childhood their entire lives. There is a rude awakening that people have and it isn't one person's job to save everyone else, though many people do seem to hold this complex. I think I would have enjoyed the book more in reverse, like if it started out with the kid feeling like he needed to save the world and love was all-powerful, and wound it down to something more mature, such as learning not to judge everyone and calling them all phonies and realizing that there is a balance to everything.

Also, I'm not sure how Ann Rand got brought into the discussion in that context, but I couldn't even finish her book Atlas Shrugged. I agree, total lack of empathy for humanity.

I really appreciate all the feedback however, because it has really helped to clarify why this book is so important for some people, as empathy is definitely an important trait to develop.

[Monty J]

Christia wrote: " There is a rude awakening that people have and it isn't one person's job to save everyone else, though many people do seem to hold this complex."

The film The Big Chill illustrates this concept. The film begins with a funeral for someone, a former physics genius in college, who committed suicide because he couldn't adjust to "the real world." This film dovetails neatly with CiTR from the standpoint that this is where Holden could have ended up, dead, for he did have suicidal thoughts.

The "real world" outside the protected bubble of childhood and being taken care of by parents through college, requires an adjustment. Compromise of ideals must be confronted. Values tested. Thinking for oneself means confronting these difficult choices. The Big Chill does a fair job of airing out this adjustment but leaves us hanging without a solution, whereas CiTR points to the fundamentality of love as the root of happiness. Love makes the pain of compromise and hypocrisy and the flawed nature of existence more bearable.

[E.D.]

Christia, I empathize with your point. (Couldn't resist. :} )

I do think, though, that empathy is more than recognizing others also have feelings. I think it is being motivated to understand *why* they feel or think as they do. By that definition, many haven't--or likely never will-- develop a strong sense of empathy. This causes derision and polarization when they hit the "rude awakening" you rightly describe. It helps perpetuate harsh judgements of "phonies" and "hypocrites". Of "Those People". Like Ayn Rand's "takers", for instance.

Not to say that CITR is the best book ever to stir empathy.., but it's a good primer for those so inclined.

[Karen]

"If one reads CITR and doesn't question their own sense of empathy, then the effort is wasted..."

Ah, I like this! And I think it's true. It was easy for me to empathize with Holden's plight.

[B]

Can a book really be "overrated"?

After all, isn't the value of a book mostly subjective? Sure, there are objective values of books most people find to be "good" but, for the most part, people enjoy books due to subjective interpretation.
In that way, does it matter at all whether more people than the book "deserves" like the book?

I'm not saying that Da Vinci Code is objectively better than Ulyesses because it's popular, I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether a book is popular despite your opinion of it's inferiority to other books.

We are all just reading for fun. Why criticise others just because you feel the objective qualities of their book is somehow lesser than another book?

[Renee E]

Ben wrote: "...We are all just reading for fun. Why criticise others just because you feel the objective qualities of their book is somehow lesser than another book? "

Some books I do read "just for fun," although rarely. DaVinci was a fun read, although I'll admit it did foment a few thoughts in my noggin.

Most books I read leave me questioning, realizing answers and observing life and everything around me from a slightly different perspective. They stir thought and emotions. They show me the tools to make myself a better writer and, hopefully, a deeper human being.

[Karen]

Ben wrote;
e are all just reading for fun. Why criticise others just because you feel the objective qualities of their book is somehow lesser than another book?"

I don't think we are criticizing, rather, some of us are looking for meaningful discussion. It would be boring if everyone agreed on a books merit, but a book like CITR has many layers that make discussion more in depth and interesting. Arguing a books merit isn't negative, or it shouldn't be.

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "The book is about preserving innocence and yearning for childhood. People see it Monty because it's written in the book"


Nope. It ain't there, as far as I can see, and I've looked for it a dozen times or more.

It doesn't matter what Salinger titled something that may have inspired him ten years and a world war before he finished the novel. What matters is the text on the page. I have yet to read where someone defends the Peter Pan premise.

In my review of the book here on Goodreads I cite a string of evidence supporting the opposite--that Holden was striving mightily to become an adult, not refusing to embrace it.

I am perfectly willing to cross pens with anyone who things they can defend the Peter Pan premise in CiTR. Line-by-line we will examine each piece of textual evidence they put forward. I will create a separate new topic.

The gauntlet has been thrown. Let the challengers step forward and be defeated.

[Petergiaquinta]

Christia wrote: "I think I would have enjoyed the book more in reverse, like if it started out with the kid feeling like he needed to save the world and love was all-powerful, and wound it down to something more mature, such as learning not to judge everyone and calling them all phonies and realizing that there is a balance to everything."

Wait a minute...isn't this exactly what happens in the novel? How's your memory of the novel, Christia? In the last several pages, this is precisely what Holden comes to understand about himself and about the world. This is the lesson of the carousel, and upon close reading of the last page and a half, you'll see a subtle shift in Holden's language. He isn't calling people phonies; he is longing to return to the world he previously rejected; he is showing growth.

But the beauty of the novel's ending can be found in its subtlety; there aren't easy answers in life, and Salinger isn't giving you easy solutions or YA happy endings here. The world is a fallen place; we can choose to live in it and work with it or reject it and go crazy or kill ourselves. Fortunately Holden realizes he must accept it and live in it. This is a powerful message, even if it seems "no duh." There are plenty of folks who have chosen the other two alternatives and taken the path Holden was on through much of the novel.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But the beauty of the novel's ending can be found in its subtlety; there aren't easy answers in life [emphasis added], and Salinger isn't giving you easy solutions or YA happy endings here. The world is a fallen place; we can choose to live in it and work with it or reject it and go crazy or kill ourselves. Fortunately Holden realizes he must accept it and live in it. This is a powerful message, even if it seems "no duh." There are plenty of folks who have chosen the other two alternatives and taken the path Holden was on through much of the novel. "

Bravo. Hear, hear! (Tips glass.) :)