The Most Overrated Books Showing 4,451-4,500 of 5,680

[S.W.]

Monte, I just finished De Lillo's White Noise and it touches on the theme of childhood bliss/ignorance. Would we be happier if we didn't know about death? Young children seem to think and behave as if they are immortal and they have no comprehension of the dangers (cliffs) that surround them on all sides. Even teenagers ignore consequences and display increased risk taking behavior---driving erratically, unprotected sex, drugs/alcohol. The older we get, the more we learn about how dangerous and painful life can be so we long for the idyllic peace of childhood ignorance safe in the sheltering arms of loving parents. In your case, however, childhood itself was an abusive nightmare, you were unable to defend yourself and there was no "catcher" or loving parent to protect you. Your "childhood" was stolen from you. I think that's why your unique perspective will always intrigue and fascinate me. You're a survivor, a protector of children---a real life "catcher in the rye."

[S.W.]

Monte, I just finished De Lillo's White Noise and it touches on the theme of childhood bliss/ignorance. Would we be happier if we didn't know about death? Young children seem to think and behave as if they are immortal and they have no comprehension of the dangers (cliffs) that surround them on all sides. Even teenagers ignore consequences and display increased risk taking behavior---driving erratically, unprotected sex, drugs/alcohol. The older we get, the more we learn about how dangerous and painful life can be so we long for the idyllic peace of childhood ignorance safe in the sheltering arms of loving parents. In your case, however, childhood itself was an abusive nightmare, you were unable to defend yourself and there was no "catcher" or loving parent to protect you. Your "childhood" was stolen from you. I think that's why your unique perspective will always intrigue and fascinate me. You're a survivor, a protector of children---a real life "catcher in the rye."

[Esdaile]

Ben wrote: "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 enj..."

In answer to your presumably rthetorical question, as a matter of fact I strongly believe the value of a book is NOT mostly subjective, but the theme is a compley one. People may have even different interpretations of the meaning of "value" let alone the book in question.

[Mark]

Christia wrote: "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?"

Some authors use first person to tell their story with protagonists not that different from their own self.

Charles Bukowski, Louis-Ferdinand Céline and Henry Miller are extreme and obvious examples. Frederick Exley (A Fan's Notes) is a lesser-known example. I enjoy reading many writers who take this approach. And I don't want to suggest writers who go this way have it "easy." I am sure they faced their share of challenges in creating their art. But I assume imbuing believability and integrated consistency into their lead character was not one of them.

Some authors create fully realized, complex and believable protagonists entirely different from themselves. That's a difficult feat to do well. Sure, these authors' experiences, outlooks and thoughts inform their process. That's an inescapable reality of any novelist, or any artist, doing their work. But I think the author who tells a story through a well-conceived character with an identity separate from, maybe at odds with, themselves strives for artistic heights. Often, they reach them.

More autobiographically inclined authors scale and (sometimes) reach different artistic heights. I don't fault them for failing to take me, as a reader, to the same vantages that writers such as Anthony Burgess, William Faulkner and Vladimir Nabokov have provided. They refused to attempt that particular kind of ascent in favor of different mountains.

Anyway, I would put the Salinger of CitR in the same company as the authors above in his creation of Holden Caulfield to tell his story.

One example of what I'm trying (perhaps failing) to convey: the repetitious teen vernacular in which Holden narrates did not come naturally to Salinger. He had to fabricate it. He did so with near airtight consistency. Many a writer attempts to hermetically seal their story in the voice and perspective of one single character and can't uphold it for the duration. In my opinion, there are a few places in The Great Gatsby where you can practically see that Fitzgerald reached a point where he threw up his hands. I can almost hear him say, "Bollocks to how Nick would have perceived and related this part, I've got to advance plot!"

Some authors tell their story with their characters, by moving them around like pieces on a chessboard. Some authors manage to tell their story through their characters by depicting an authentic example of what it can be like to be a human being.

It's funny. Some of the people who adore CitR identify with Holden. They remember their own angst and uncertainty from a time in their lives, usually their teen years. Some of the people who really dislike CitR do so because they do not identify with Holden. We see words like "whiny" and "self-absorbed" pop up in their Goodreads posts about why they didn't care for the book. Counter-intuitive as it may seem, I think both those attitudes come from the same place. I am of a generation and socio-economic subset whose primary introduction to the narrative form was mainstream television and cinema. I have a lot of company. Many of the American generations after mine share this trait. Maximal commercial success drives the narratives of mainstream television and cinema. And a protagonist with whom the most people can identify, root for and genuinely like tends to move more units. So I am (or was at one time) more spoiled, as it were, than the generations born way before TV and movies. My earliest diet of narratives conditioned me to gravitate toward protagonists in whom I could see myself or least see a self that I aspired to be (or fantasized about being). I have a lot of company there too. Hollywood and the Tube spawn so many conquering heroes with comic sidekicks, underdogs who unexpectedly save the day and noble moral champions who refuse to buckle under the prevailing system of corruption for obvious reasons.∗

The realization that I did not have to like every protagonist I encountered marked my maturity into a different kind of reader. I, like others, seek to connect to those parts of fiction that can run deeper than mere "entertainment" in the "something unchallenging to do to pass the time" sense of the word.

To me, Holden is not entirely unlikeable. But is that the most important point?

Who among us would want to say we liked Humbert Humbert? I didn't like head-droogy Alex. Although the fact that the cinema interpretation of A Clockwork Orange made me feel a touch sympathetic to him proves my earlier point about movies and TV. Lord knows I thought Jason Compson was a dastardly selfish prick. You see where I'm going here. The fact that I wouldn't want to go on a weekend camping trip with any of these characters doesn't reduce the art of Lolita, Anthony Burgess's novella or The Sound and The Fury. Quite the opposite.

I'm not trying to come of as preachy or high faluting here. As usual, I've compulsively written much more than I expected I would when I began this response. And you strike me as a thoughtful reader who shares some of the attitudes I've expressed above (seeking more from reading and so forth). So I don't seek to damn you or anyone who doesn't like CitR to some ignoramus status. Plenty of people have transcended the need to like and identify with a story's protagonist and still CitR doesn't work for them. What conversations about books shares with horse racing is that differences of opinion makes both fun and interesting.

I also neither fault nor look down on anyone who seeks nothing more than mere entertainment to pass the time from what they read. "Entertainment" can also mean "an activity that gives a person pleasure and satisfaction." I find engaging in an intellectual apotheosis of fiction and delving into the verities of the human condition expressed therein to be just that. It’s fun for me.

Now, before I tear myself away from one of my life’s great loves (the sound of my own voice—even in the form of text), I will add this specific point about CitR that you may want to introspectively contemplate upon if you go for a reread. What any of us get out of a book is shaded more than a little by our life experiences. Monty, for example, has been through some harrowing shit in his life. Happily he has emerged from them not exactly unscathed—no one would be. But to the extent I know him from Goodreads interactions, he has come through to the other side of some really tough times as a whole and kind human being in touch with, to use that ol’ Lincolnian cliché, “the better angels of our nature.” So his interpretation of CitR includes a PTSD angle and a lot of issues, I think, informed by his life experience. This is not to say his interpretations are without merit, mind you. I think they are interesting and valuable.

My worldview has been informed by no such travails. But my continual encounters with the concepts of the Tao, Zen and other so-called Eastern philosophies resonate profoundly with me. I am just unable to find a set of explanations about the nature of existence and reality that sing to me as sweetly as those that I find from those sources. So naturally, I see more than a little yin and yang and stuff like that in CitR. Most readers tend to concentrate their attention on Holden. With good reason, his voice obviously dominates the book. He is the sufferer who has not learned how joyfully participate in that fate shared by all humans (to be blatantly Buddhist about it). He is the seeker. But who is the teacher? Slow down when reading his conversations with his little sister Phoebe. I think the crux of what Salinger was trying to convey—or at least the center from which all the many things Salinger attempted to convey emanates—is when Phoebe corrects Holden’s misunderstood recollection of Robert Burns' Comin' Through the Rye. He is under the impression that the line is “when a body catch a body coming through the rye.” No, Phoebe tells him, the actual line is “when a body meet a body coming through the rye.” When does trying to “catch” other people and prevent them from their fate actually improve things for them or for you? And how much better might it be to try to “meet” them on their own terms instead? Subtle difference there perhaps, but aren’t so many of the most important differences subtle?

I suspect that Salinger, by the way, knew that Burns based his work on a traditional Scottish folk song that had long evolved over time and that Salinger deliberately wielded the irony embodied by the fact that many of the song’s incarnations alluded to—sometimes outright stated—the very “fuck” that Holden so desperately wanted to erase from every corner of the world.

Wait! Where did the last four hours go? How did it get to be 2pm? Well, Christia, as you can see I've managed to "expand a little." Hoo boy.

Have a great Sunday everyone. And if I don't talk with before then, Happy Thanksgiving to the Americans in the room.

∗ Periodically this tendency’s repression of our natural psychological impulse to also be in touch with that within us that is dark and tragic creates a backlash. When narratives only express the foibles and flaws of human beings in one-dimensional villains who, tautologically, want to do bad things because that’s what villain do, I think an appetite for a more authentic exploration of the side of the human condition that is being ignored can develop. And so we’ve seen the emergence of the so-called “anti-hero” in popular culture ages ago. Recently we’ve seen an even more intense backlash. Consider the rise of the sometimes rooted-for sociopath (Tony Soprano), the handsome narcissist with whom some of us empathize (Don Draper), the victimized underdog who—incrementally power-maddened— metamorphosizes into cruel king pin (Walter White) and the heartless Machiavellianists whose manipulative moves some of us admire as if they are dancers in some sort of perversely corrupt and immoral ballet (Francis and Claire Underwood). Some of these cable series I really enjoyed. House of Cards and Mad Men, not so much. Regardless, I think part of their popularity comes from a reaction to an excess of good guys wear white and bad guys wear black narratives in popular entertainment.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "I suspect that Salinger, by the way, knew that Burns based his work on a traditional Scottish folk song that had long evolved over time and that Salinger deliberately wielded the irony embodied by the fact that many of the song’s incarnations alluded to—sometimes outright stated—the very “fuck” that Holden so desperately wanted to erase from every corner of the world."

(Good post, again, and thanks for the compliment.)

I thought it was an Irish folk song, but that isn't as important as the fact that the "fuck" equivalent was in the original version of Burns' plagiarized poem.

I am willing to entertain any and all interpretations of CiTR, but I respect more highly an interpretation that is defended and provably informed by the text on the page. The Peter Pan angle is mentioned so often and feels so indefensible that it is worthy of some deep analysis. Everyone should benefit, myself included.

[Mark]

Edward wrote: "Devastating, extremely well rendered, brilliant, and minimally biased, minimally I respectfully repeat; impossible to respond to without the sacrifice of doing another disregarded 200 pages of same intended as non-preachy, and necessarily "entertaining," whatever current particulars that term means in this moment, with easily ignorable derisions of any book I could possibly write."

Thanks, E.D. I friended you. I dimly recall saying something confrontational or combative to you earlier (or perhaps taking umbrage at an expression of your confrontational and combative demeanor). I find your comments dense (in the "difficult for me to completely understand and unravel" sense ... so by another connotation of the word, I might be the one who's dense) and at times uncivil. I've been there. Will probably go there again many times before I reach your age.

You seem to be one of those "i just don't give a fuck" kind of souls. Lord knows we need them, too.

Anyway, thanks again ... and cheers!

[Monty J]

S.W. wrote: "Monte, I just finished De Lillo's White Noise and it touches on the theme of childhood bliss/ignorance. ...You're a survivor, a protector of children---a real life "catcher in the rye."


Thanks for referring me to White Noise. I'll add it to my list.

And also for unmasking me. Yes, I identify with the Catcher in the Rye persona. (I once nearly fought an ex-con-looking guy in a restaurant for taking a swing at an innocent kid.)

Salinger and I both share a nearly 3-year period of trauma, his as an adult during wartime, mine as a child. Which is why I think I am able to see so clearly what Salinger was trying to get across with Holden.

I admit to being a puer aeternus, an eternal child, because of my roller-coaster childhood. I should by all rights identify with the Peter Pan angle because of that, but I never read the book that way.

Even so, I am willing to accept alternative perspectives that can be fully supported in the text.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: ".. as the fact that the "fuck" equivalent was in the original version of Blake's plagiarized poem"

You're welcome for the compliments, Monty. Call 'em as I see 'em.

Not sure about Blake. Did you mean to write Burns? In his poem, the "fuck" became "kiss." And as you can see from the following link, a mention of "cunt" was in there, too. Not trying to "talk dirty" under the guise of literary analysis here, just going with the facts. See the link at the very bottom of this post.

I agree with your rejection of the Peter Pan angle in CitR. Some things tend to catch on in conversation when they're meaningless. Consider the old maxim: "Still water runs deep." That's one of the entrires I always recall, when prompted, from my almost entirely forgotten about copy of The Dictionary of Misinformation.

(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...).

Next to the saying "Still water runs deep" the entry reads: "Still water doesn't run at all now, does it?" One could argue there's poetic license at work with this cliché, but I have a hard time getting behind that. Applying a Peter Pan trope to CitR is worse than poetic license, though. I see it as in conflict with the narrative's intent. This is a novel about a person's desire yet ongoing inability to mature rather than a novel about a person who wants to willfully avoid growing up.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/robertburns...

[Mark]

Edward wrote: "Dylan, 1965;

"Oooh, you've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks.
With great lawyers you have discussed lepers and crooks,
You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's book..."

"Here is your throat back. Thanks for the loan."

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "I admit to being a puer aeternus ..."

Is there any evidence that Peter Pan could ever honestly say, "My Heart Leaps Up"? This is far more important than learning to fly in my book. Fairy dust my hairy ass!

" ... And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety."

Although as usual, Disney fucked up the more interesting elements of J. M. Barrie's (another Scott, btw) original work.

When I'm in the mood to be prescriptive, I rant about how Disney has done far more harm than good to our culture (although the movies Jungle Book and Pinocchio made a strong impression on me when I was a kid ... so it was perhaps not as bad back in the day as it is now).

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "Not sure about Blake. Did you mean to write Burns?"

Oops. Burns it is. (Corrected my post.)

[E.D.]

Edward wrote: "E.D. wrote: "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, ..."

"Sometimes to keep it together, you gotta leave it alone."

Been there.

[Christia]

Ben wrote: "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 enj..."

This is an excellent point, and from this whole discussion, I have gained many things, but one of the biggest is this. "Overrated" itself seems to be an oxymoron. If one person or entity was doing all the hype and the ratings, that would be one thing, but in this way, it would be impossible, I suppose, to be actually overrated.

Karen wrote: "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."

Thank you Karen. Like I said, it was never my intention to cause insult. I was, after all, replying to a thread about the book being overrated. I didn't troll a thread talking about how good it was. At the same time, I have really taken a lot from this discussion and don't see it as a bad thing.

S.W. wrote, "Young children seem to think and behave as if they are immortal and they have no comprehension of the dangers (cliffs) that surround them on all sides. Even teenagers ignore consequences and display increased risk taking behavior---driving erratically, unprotected sex, drugs/alcohol. The older we get, the more we learn about how dangerous and painful life can be so we long for the idyllic peace of childhood ignorance safe in the sheltering arms of loving parents." Yes, exactly.

Mark wrote, "the repetitious teen vernacular in which Holden narrates did not come naturally to Salinger. He had to fabricate it. "
That is a good point. I didn't pick up that that is what teenagers were supposed to sound like at the time. I just wanted to punch Holden in the face the whole time. Ah, to be 17 again.
"Counter-intuitive as it may seem, I think both those attitudes come from the same place."
This and many of your other points have been quite eye-opening to me, so thank you for taking the time to expand on it. I do tend to enjoy books where I actually don't understand the point of view of the character, much like I find this conversation more satisfying than some of my others, because I don't inherently see things the same way. Still, it lends to a deeper appreciation for the perspective on CiTR, and because of this, I am beginning to wonder if I related to Holden more than I realized, and found it boring for that reason. We shall see, my second time around.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "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."

Bingo! This is such a great discussion. It would have been boring for me to discuss a book I liked, starting out. It will be much more rewarding for me to read it the second time.

"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. "
I really wish I had picked this up as a troubled teen because it really could have made a difference. No wonder so many of my friends back then talked about how it changed their lives. This pretty much answers my original question, so thanks! Apparently the message is so much more than, "Once I was a spoiled kid, and then I realized that I had to think about other people and grow up."

Monte J wrote, "I am perfectly willing to cross pens with anyone who thinks 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."
I think it is interesting, (and an interesting idea) because I don't disagree with you here. I don't believe that Holden wants to remain a child by any means. He wants to maintain the innocence of society in general and prevent kids from having to grow up too fast, and in that sense, prevent the Lost Boys. I feel that I should read it again before commenting more on this point (in your new thread.) In my defense, I have never discussed or read anything about this book before, so I didn't even know the Peter Pan complex was a previously expressed view.

[Christia]

One more comment, sorry!
Monte J,

I find it so interesting that we seem to have so much in common and such differing perspectives. I look forward to your challenge.

Holden might have come across a whiny brat, but Peter Pan is a rebellious little shit. It's going to be hard to compare the two, though both seem to want to protect childhood innocence. One for himself, and the other for the future.

Please bare with me, I am a science and numbers nerd and always found discussions about literature difficult but am learning as I go here, and hope my vocabulary will improve as well.

Also, when it comes to the GR rating system, it states that 2 stars means "it was okay." To me, 3 stars would mean "okay" and if that was the case it would gave gotten three. I think the rating system should be as follows:

1 - it was terrible
2 - it was mediocre
3 - it was okay (as in I didn't like it but it wasn't mediocre)
4 - I liked it
5 - I loved it!

Then again, I guess any book which generally receives a higher rating than I, myself, have given it could be considered "overrated" so there we have it. I've gone full circle. I sure do make myself dizzy.

[Christia]

Cemre wrote: "I don't think that the book has got that much of a connection with Salinger's war experience. Of course war had affected Salinger personnaly..."

This is something I'll look for in my reread as well. I was a medic in the Army myself. There was a reason I joined as a medic. I told the recruiter, "If you don't let me be a medic, I'm not signing anything."

One could argue that everyone either tries to grow up or they don't try, but either way, whether or not any of us are capable is questionable.

[Petergiaquinta]

@Cemre

Flawless, no...Holden is terribly flawed, and I'm pretty sure Monty acknowledges this. He's overly critical, lies, drinks too much...Holden, I mean. But maybe Monty, too. I know I'm guilty of these things. They are human behaviors.

But not to see Holden for the empathetic, compassionate person he is means you aren't reading very closely at all. He shows compassion and empathy throughout the entire novel, probably on every page. Here's a list off the top of my head in no particular order of the folks toward whom he shows empathy and compassion: the hygienically challenged Ackley whom the rest of the boys in the dorm ignore; his oaf roommate Stradlater for whom he writes an essay on his last day at the school after being expelled; the old, infirm history teacher Mr. Spencer who smells like Vicks; Jane Gallagher, with her possibly abusive booze hound of a step-father; the teen prostitute Sunny; the boy at the movie theatre who needs to go to the bathroom; the nuns collecting for charity; Mrs. Morrow; the annoying, ugly tourist women at the Lavender Room; all the women in the world who will go on to marry stupid, conceited men; the boy on the curb singing; the ducks in Central Park; Selma Thurber with her bleedy nails and her pointy ugly bra; the unfashionable, dumb looking parents ignored by headmaster Hass; Dick Slagle with his cheap suitcases; James Castle; the girl at the park who needs help with her roller skates; all the children at the school who might see the f-word on the bathroom wall; his sister Phoebe with her suitcase coming to meet him in the park; the girls in the back seat on double dates with Stradlater; the boy in his class who got off topic and people yelled "digression" at; Jesus with all his dumb apostles who didn't get it; Judas Iscariot; his mother and her poor mental health...

You sure that you've read this book, Cemre? You can fault Holden for many things, but not a lack of empathy and compassion. The list goes on, but I need to get to work!

[Paul Martin]

Cemre wrote: "I've written a quiet convincing essay about "Peter Pan theme" in CitR for the school magazine, but unfortunately, it's in my native language."

Google translate is pretty good :-)

[Mark]

Cemre wrote: "For some reason, ı don't think that Holden's career choice is that noble. There's something really weird and irritating about it. I don't see Holden as a saint or even a good person, unlike most of..."

Do we know what Holden's "career choice" is or will be from reading the novel? This statement confuses me. Perhaps you're referring to any earlier comment someone else made and you didn't explicitly reference it?

Help me understand.

[Karen]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "@Cemre

Flawless, no...Holden is terribly flawed, and I'm pretty sure Monty acknowledges this. He's overly critical, lies, drinks too much...Holden, I mean. But maybe Monty, too. I know I'm guilty ..."

You have a great memory Peter! I'm a bit envious!

[Mark]

Cemre wrote: "I don't think Holden IS a Peter Pan in every single way. I do think that Holden tries to grow up, whether he could do that is arguable.

The reasons of why ı disagree with you Monty are:

a) ... the name of that story suggests that Salinger at least thought of this ... "

Is there a connection between the title "Catcher in the Rye" and the Peter Pan story? How does "the name of that story suggests that Salinger at least thought of this"?

Again I'm confused and respectfully seek clarification.

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "But not to see Holden for the empathetic, compassionate person he is means you aren't reading very closely at all. He shows compassion and empathy throughout the entire novel, probably on every page. Here's a list off the top of my head in no particular order of the folks toward whom he shows empathy and compassion: the hygienically challenged Ackley whom the rest of the boys in the dorm ignore; his oaf roommate Stradlater for whom he writes an essay on his last day at the school after being expelled; the old, infirm history teacher Mr. Spencer who smells like Vicks; Jane Gallagher, with her possibly abusive booze hound of a step-father; the teen prostitute Sunny; the boy at the movie theatre who needs to go to the bathroom; the nuns collecting for charity; Mrs. Morrow; the annoying, ugly tourist women at the Lavender Room; all the women in the world who will go on to marry stupid, conceited men; the boy on the curb singing; the ducks in Central Park; Selma Thurber with her bleedy nails and her pointy ugly bra; the unfashionable, dumb looking parents ignored by headmaster Hass; Dick Slagle with his cheap suitcases; James Castle; the girl at the park who needs help with her roller skates; all the children at the school who might see the f-word on the bathroom wall; his sister Phoebe with her suitcase coming to meet him in the park; the girls in the back seat on double dates with Stradlater; the boy in his class who got off topic and people yelled "digression" at; Jesus with all his dumb apostles who didn't get it; Judas Iscariot; his mother and her poor mental health."

Awesome! Mega-dittos.

So comforting to know other people see what you have seen and appreciate.

So many readers, myself included when I was 19, don't see through Holden's rough verbal veneer of cursing and complaining to the truth of his actions. This is SO typical of SO many people--the incongruity between their words and action. Words are so much easier than deeds, most of the time.

[Autumn]

deleted user 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..."

Anything by Hemingway.

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "a) I don't think that Peter Pan interpretion is COMPLETE bullsh.t, say whatever you want, the name of that story suggests that Salinger at least thought of this,"

I agree. It is clear that Salinger at one time explored the theme. The guy was too brilliant not to have.

Salinger's writing professor at Colombia, Whit Burnett, corresponded with him during the war, urging him to make a novel of his stories. CiTR is an amalgamation of his short stories, six of which--many of you know--were in his backpack when he landed at Utah Beach during the Normandy Invasion. It is trite to say it, but war changes people.

It would be fascinating to compare innards of the story with Peter Pan in the title with the parts of the novel they became for what insights they might provide into how the war changed Salinger.

[Kallie]

The problem with Peter Pan themes, or any pop psyche theme applied to lit, is that they are not large enough to encompass characters as well written ands complex as Holden Caulfield; so one shrinks Holden to fit the theme as if forcing him into a too-small hat and jacket.

[Mark]

Monty J wrote: "It would be fascinating to compare innards of the story with Peter Pan in the title with the parts of the novel they became for what insights they might provide into how the war changed Salinger. "

Or just for what insights such a comparison might provide, period.

I sort of trust this synopsis of the short story The Last and Best of the Peter Pans

"'The Last and Best of the Peter Pans', the earliest known Caulfield story, features Vincent (Holden’s brother 'DB' in Catcher) and his mother arguing after he discovers she has childishly hidden his Army draft survey in a silverware drawer. At one point, Vincent yells that it is as if she is trying to stop a child from falling off a cliff by asking a man without legs to catch him, a line which, for any Catcher fan, is a delight. Vincent soon realizes that his mother can’t help the way that she is–-like Peter Pan, she cannot grow up, and so he finally forgives her."

Here's the article that I copied that blurb from: http://www.themillions.com/2011/02/sa...

It was interesting and unexpected to me that the Peter Pan of the title is associated with the adult in the story (Vincent Caulfield's mother) rather than the young man. One wonders if Salinger made an explicit connection to the mother and Peter Pan or if this is more the interpretation of Kristopher Jansma, who wrote the article above.

I trust the wikipedia entry on the short story less because it doesn't give enough attribution and citation (although it is how I found the article in the Millions).

Clearly the themes of maturity, adulthood and lack thereof or reluctance to take that journey captured Salinger's imagination. But I suspect he saw (or his work suggests that) adult behavior is more about just that, behavior, than it is about the number of candles that burned on one's most recent birthday cake. Phoebe comes across as very mature and well grounded in contrast to her big brother's behavior.

This recent spate of posts may send me back to Salinger for some rereads. I never did give Franny and Zooey a fair amount of attention. And it's been forever since I've retraced my steps through 9 Stories.

[Mark]

Kallie wrote: "The problem with Peter Pan themes, or any pop psyche themes applied to lit ..."

But aren't we talking about Peter Pan as lit rather than any pop psyche themes the name has come to represent? The novel that introduced the character (written for adults, as I understand it) and the subsequent plays, short stories by J. M. Barrie?

[Kallie]

I assumed the pop psyche theme was the one Cemre referred to. If not, the oversimplification is mine. Sorry.

[Renee E]

I thought it was both, Kallie, and that your post made a great deal of sense in context with the discussion.

[Mark]

I wasn't busting on you, Kallie. And I agree with your comment about how it's hard to fit complex characters into reductionist tropes ... I think I was more trying to draw Cemre (sp?) out with additional specifics.

I see Holden more as an equivocator toward than a rejecter of adulthood. Hamlet, that Ur equivocator of western literature comes to mind.

[Kallie]

Mark wrote: "I wasn't busting on you, Kallie. And I agree with your comment about how it's hard to fit complex characters into reductionist tropes ... I think I was more trying to draw Cemre (sp?) out with addi..."

To be or not to be an (murderous, lying) adult?

[Kallie]

Cemre wrote: "I was talking about Peter Pan as lit. At Salinger's time "Peter Pan Complex" wasn't coined yet."

True, but that hasn't stopped people from interpreting literature via pop psyche 'lights' later on (Oh, that's what the novel is about! Now we have a one-size fits all theory!).

Thanks for the clarification, Cemre. I haven't read the play so I'm not clear how you apply Peter Pan to CiTR.

[Monty J]

Mark wrote: "Here's the article that I copied that blurb from: http://www.themillions.com/2011/02/sa...
"

Thanks. The article reflects my sentiments toward Salinger.

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "(Also interesting to note, Barrie was inspired by the death of his big brother at the age of 14 .)"

Criminy, you just made me choke on my ginger tea. Now I get a connection with Peter Pan and Allie. Allie, by dying, became a boy who never grew up! Why else would Salinger bring Allie's death into the story if not as a motif for frozen innocence?

Again and again, like pounding a gong, Holden recalls some memory of Allie and his ball glove with the poems on the fingers.

Okay, a point for the opposition. (Bows in humble gratitude.)

Sheesh, it's hardly fair though, the motif was so abstract except for people familiar with Peter and Wendy as something other than a Disney fantasy.

[Monty J]

Cemre wrote: "Are you making an irony ? I don't think that the things ı've said are totally irrelevant. I think ı've got the right to not to think the same thing as you."

NO to irony. I get it. The dead boy allusion is extremely powerful.

[Mark]

Cemre wrote: "Well, ı haven't read the play too but ı've read the novelization of it that was done by Barrie later."

I think the novel came first, written for adults, and for whatever reason the character and the beginning of the mythology of Peter Pan (Lost Boys, Neverland and all that) may have been introduced those sections that contained Pan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Litt...

Then later came the play and subsequent novelization of the play, Peter Pan or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up or Peter and Wendy.

I think it might be interesting to read The Little White Bird.

[Kathy]

Atlas Shrugged and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

[Kathy]

Anything by Gertrude Stein.

[Michael]

Anyone who hasn't read the novel, Peter Pan, ought to check it out. The writing is exceptional. Here's the opening paragraph:

All children, except one, grow up. They soon know that they will grow up, and the way Wendy knew was this. One day when she was two years old she was playing in a garden, and she plucked another flower and ran with it to her mother. I suppose she must have looked rather delightful, for Mrs Darling put her hand to her heart and cried, 'Oh, why can't you remain like this for ever!' This was all that passed between them on the subject, but henceforth Wendy knew that she must grow up. You always know after you are two. Two is the beginning of the end.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Anyone who hasn't read the novel, Peter Pan, ought to check it out. The writing is exceptional. Here's the opening paragraph:

All children, except one, grow up. They soon know that they will grow ..."

I remember loving it as a child. Thanks for the paragraph.

[Petergiaquinta]

I don't want to cause problems here...I have not read the original text of Peter Pan by Barrie, so maybe I should keep my yapper shut. My own knowledge is from watered down children's versions, viewings of the play and broad knowledge gained through popular culture. But, here goes...is Peter Pan actually dead? Are the Lost Boys dead? Is Neverland a little like Aslan's Country where the Pevensies all go after they die in the train crash? This is a horrible idea, but it might make sense in its own morbid way. Google that question for yourself and somebody has traced textual evidence supporting this reading. Think about what Kipling is doing in the story "They." (Read it if you haven't; it's brilliant.) Anyone with any greater knowledge of the text want to weigh in on this morbidly fascinating idea?

[Monty J]

Petergiaquinta wrote: "I don't want to cause problems here...I have not read the original text of Peter Pan by Barrie, so maybe I should keep my yapper shut. My own knowledge is from watered down children's versions, vie..."

My understanding is Peter Pan and the Lost Boys are fantasy figures who come to Wendy in dreams, the inspiration for which came to Barrie in what someone said about a brother who died at age 14--see below.

[Wikipedia: "The play and novel were inspired by Barrie's friendship with the Llewelyn Davies family. ... It has also been suggested that the inspiration for the character was Barrie's elder brother David, whose death in a skating accident at the age of fourteen deeply affected their mother. According to Andrew Birkin, author of J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys, the death was "a catastrophe beyond belief, and one from which she never fully recovered. If Margaret Ogilvy (Barrie's mother as the heroine of his 1896 novel of that title) drew a measure of comfort from the notion that David, in dying a boy, would remain a boy for ever, Barrie drew inspiration."]

Thanks to Cemre, I've downloaded Peter Pan and Wendy for my Nook.

[Michael]

Although Peter did not age, the Lost Boys did, so presumably they were not dead. As they aged, Peter "thinned them out," which either means killed them or sent them packing.

As to the inspiration for the story:

"When he was 6 years old, Barrie's next-older brother David (his mother's favourite) died two days before his 14th birthday in an ice-skating accident. This left his mother devastated, and Barrie tried to fill David's place in his mother's attentions, even wearing David's clothes and whistling in the manner that he did. One time Barrie entered her room, and heard her say "Is that you?" "I thought it was the dead boy she was speaking to", wrote Barrie in his biographical account of his mother, Margaret Ogilvy (1896), "and I said in a little lonely voice, 'No, it's no' him, it's just me.'" Barrie's mother found comfort in the fact that her dead son would remain a boy forever, never to grow up and leave her." Wikipedia

[Sophie]

I don't think anyone can label a book overrated. Some people may have enjoyed the said book and found it interesting, even while majority of the other readers disliked the book and found that it was "overrated". The book may seem controversial (easy for someone to love and for another to hate) but that just comes down to your personality, mood, genre and favoured style of writing. I didn't enjoy the Great Gatsby as much as I thought I would have, hence me (at first) coming to the conclusion that is seemed overrated. However this is not the case for many others who enjoyed the book immensely - it is merely just a matter of individual opinion. No one book should be labelled as overrated or underrated.

[Aleka]

I hated Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, so I never made it to the Da Vinci Code. I have the feeling that was probably for the best.

I used to love Catcher In The Rye ( when I was younger) and I do like Salinger's writing style, so I'd recommend that.



There are a lot of underrated books Lullabies for Little Criminals by Heather O'Neil, and Hunter's Run in sf genre;if we're going to segregate.

I thought Rumer Godden's Black Narcissus was outstanding, as is some of Alan Lightman's work.

I find some of Llionel Shriver's work a bit lopsided and over-rated. The book Game Control, although this wasn't amongst one of her popular title's. I hated the New Republic.

At the risk of being cyber-bullied out of the group- and I better change my privacy settings here- Harry Potter? I'm sorry I just don't care for J.K.Rowlings writing style.

Can I also say Jodi Picoult?

[Aleka]

One wrote: "It's all very subjective. A few of them are obvious classics and certainly shouldn't be considered over rated. I think the modern works like Twilight and Hunger Games get to much attention, but m..."

Of course it's subjective...but subjectivity catalyses discussion. These are opinions, no need to be defensive. These books aren't going to be on the out-of -print list any day soon.

[Gary]

Alexandra wrote: "At the risk of being cyber-bullied out of the group- and I better change my privacy settings here- Harry Potter? I'm sorry I just don't care for J.K.Rowlings writing style."

I've picked up and put down those books two or three times. I just can't get "into" them, and I think it's her style that's putting me off. Even if that weren't the case for me personally, though, I think an objective examination of the quality of those books versus their popularity would have to put them into the "over-rated" column. I don't think they can qualify as "most over-rated" in a world that also contains Dan Brown, but if one were dividing books into two groups, the Harry Potter books would have to go into the over-rated pile not because they are necessarily bad, but because they've been so embraced (that is, so "highly rated") that they can only be over-rated. Otherwise, they'd have to rank up with several centuries of Shakespeare, Milton and any number of other greats.

[Karen]

Cemre wrote: "Yeah, many people confuse "overrated " with "bad". Harry Potter is certainly overrated , but it is not bad. Mediocre at worst."

An opinion, I enjoyed those books

[Gary]

Here's a site with an interesting (if maybe a little horrifying...) table on the Harry Potter franchise's income:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/total-h...

[Kallie]

Alexandra wrote: "I hated Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, so I never made it to the Da Vinci Code. I have the feeling that was probably for the best.

I used to love Catcher In The Rye ( when I was younger) and I do l..."

I like Rumer Godden, especially Black Narcissus. That was a good film, too. Thanks for the reminder.

I would add 'The Pearl Earring' and the Boleyn sister one. They weren't convincing somehow. Not that I dislike the historical novel genre. 'Iceland's Bell' was so good, I regret passing it on. And Clair Clark's 'Savage Land.' Those two might be underrated; at least, I came across them without having heard of them.

[Geoffrey]

Sophie wrote: "I don't think anyone can label a book overrated. Some people may have enjoyed the said book and found it interesting, even while majority of the other readers disliked the book and found that it wa..."

I don't understand why not. There are books that are better written than others. Authors choice of words are more creative and original. What the book has done in its influence on other writers. How important was the subject matter to the spirit of the times.

There are personal yardsticks that we use, and yes it is both subjective and objective. We can study a novel and note that the structure is poor, (ie. Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton comes to mind, despite its being one of my favorites, or A & P by Updike, similarly a great story).

Or that it needed better editing, ie. Liam Flaherty's THE INFORMER. Or that the novel is misanthropic, despite its popular acclaim and brilliance, (ie. PERFUME by Patrick Susskind, and I am sure to get howls of protest from other posters on the last score).

So we rate them. Yes, 1984 is better than BRAVE NEW WORLD, but pressed to explain that one, well it's solely a personal pick and I would be hard-pressed to explain why other than a drug-induced populace, why what's so distopian about that one might very well argue, but Orwell's nightmare is universally declaimed and feasible.