The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The opposite of a classic
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Meghan
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 26, 2014 11:15AM
What do you mean by opposite of a classic?
reply
|
flag
According to Wikipedia, "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality."I think The Catcher in the Rye is timeless. Holden's feelings of anger and angst repeat themselves in every generation-- mostly in the teenage years, but also beyond. If I hadn't known this book was written in the 1940s, I would have thought it was from 1985 at the latest.
And that's what a classic is supposed to be.
I lent the book to my dad recently and he felt a strong connection to Holden. I also see myself as Holden sometimes, though not as extreme. Because my dad and I come from two very different generations, I definitely agree that this book is timeless.
I think it's every bit of a classic by now.
Stephan wrote: "Do you agree with the statement that ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a real Classic but rather the opposite of it? Whether you agree with the statement above or not please explain why."Why don't you state what you think and why and invite comments instead of having us do your schoolwork for you?
Stephan wrote: "Do you agree with the statement that ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a real Classic but rather the opposite of it? Whether you agree with the statement above or not please explain why."Since you have not provided a definition of a classic book I will do so and we can go from there.
[Wikipedia] "A classic book is a book accepted as being exemplary or noteworthy, either through an imprimatur such as being listed in any of the Western canons or through a reader's own personal opinion."
My own definition is more specific. A classic work of literature is an academically recognized work of distinction in aesthetic appeal and technical excellence that documents or examines, in realism or fantasy, a life and time or an issue or issues of social or moral significance such that the book's appeal transcends generations of readers.
Examples would include: Huckleberry Finn, The Odyssey, The Grapes of Wrath, Ulysses and Pride and Prejudice.
The Catcher in the Rye meets all of my criteria. For four generations, the book has remained on academic assigned reading lists, establishing its broad acceptance and technical and aesthetic quality. It accurately and realistically documents the life and time of a teenager in post-World War II urban America struggling with transition into adulthood.
The concentrated depth and breadth of the books socio-cultural footprint is remarkable and the main character is highly developed and three-dimensional as the reader follows his thoughts and his interactions with dozens of secondary characters in scene after scene of urban experience in a highly complex plot.
Holden is afraid to face his parents after flunking out, yet again, and he is suffering mentally, on the verge of collapse after seeing his dorm-mate commit suicide by leaping out a window. He is rescued from the bad mistake of running away by the love of and for his younger sister.
Stephan wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: "Do you agree with the statement that ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a real Classic but rather the opposite of it? Whether you agree with the statement above or not ..."Fair enough, but all you have done is spew unsupported meandering opinion, proving nothing except you have bias against Salinger.
The topic is one book, The Catcher in the Rye, not its author nor your imaginary unsupported assertions about his personal whims and desires. If you would care to stick to the subject and cite specifics, I would be happy to carry the discussion further. Otherwise, you've wasted my time.
For example: "...In truth he has counteracted all rules of quality in 'The Catcher in the Rye’..." This is a mere assertion of opinion, naked and worthless without supporting examples.
"I suspect that he lived in self denial and cheated in silence." --Naked opinion. Worthless trivia without support.
"‘Lord of the Flies’ is a classic work of literature,..."
Nonsense, LOTF was an accident. Golding thought he was writing a rebuttal to Coral Island, a Pollyanna tale about boys on a deserted island. LOTF barely got published and was thoroughly trounced by literary critics, and rightfully so. The book became a classic only after readers saw something in it that Golding didn't know was there--a warning about fascism and nuclear warfare. Years after publication, Golding himself expressed embarrassment in an interview over the poor literary quality of his own writing in the book.
"but ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not." --An empty assertion of opinion, dangling in mid-air without a shred of evidence.
Stephan wrote: "Here I mean the opposite of a classic in terms of art, beauty, grace, and quality, not in terms of quantity or durations."Where is it written in stone that great literature must have beauty and grace? There is no such requirement. For poetry, yes, but not a novel.
These attributes are nice to have because they make the reading experience more pleasurable, but they are trappings. The dessert, not the entre.
The main requirement of a work of great prose is to convey meaning so that the reader has an emotional reaction--shock, revulsion, humor, dismay, inspiration, anger, etc. The author holds up a mirror to mankind, or shines a spotlight, revealing humanity heretofore hidden in the background or rarely seen. Ideally the reader comes away changed.
The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is much less important than WHAT he chooses to reveal.
In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck chose to describe the travails of a family of poor people being exploited by wealthy farmers during the Great Depression. He observed these things and he wrote them down, not as a journalist, but as a storyteller, allowing us to get to know the characters, their hopes and dreams, their flaws and mistakes, so that when they were hurt we felt their pain. When they were happy we shared their joy. We saw their world through their eyes and felt their injustice and hopelessness.
In CITR, it was the same. We were in Holden's head and felt his anger, fear, confusion, helplessness, loneliness, and ultimately in the end, his joy upon realizing how much his little sister loved him and he loved her. All these things are there in the book for you to feel, if you care to feel them.
If you care about misbehaving corrupt depraved wealthy people and want poetic phrasing, read Fitzgerald. If you care about the life of an interesting smart spoiled urban rich kid who's tied in knots over flunking out of school? Read CITR.
Bear in mind also that the book is written from a first-person point of view, and Holden is a 17 year-old. It would be unnatural for him to use any style of prose unsuited to a schoolboy. Repetition and crudeness were part of the character.
I didn't really like CITR, but I'd have to agree with Monty J on this one.
Stephan wrote: "Paulmartin wrote: "I didn't really like CITR, but I'd have to agree with Monty J on this one."On Golding?"
No, on how to assess the intrinsic value of a novel, and what it takes to be known as a 'classic'.
"The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is much less important than WHAT he chooses to reveal. "
I can't really get into a discussion about Lord of the Flies, it's been about 10 years since I read it. As for CITR, don't ask me, I didn't like it very much.As far as I've understood, people who consider CITR a classic feel that the book, through Holden's eyes, portray the feeling of alienation and isolation (a feeling shared by people in all generation) in such a good way that it should be considered classic due to it's timelessness. Do I feel the same way? No. Does that mean that a lot of other people can't feel that way? No, of course not.
As for your comparison between Ralph and Holden, I don't really see the point? I don't think most people who like the book think of Holden as a winner. He's rather loathsome, and he's supposed to be, I think. The question of whether he's a hero is completely beside the point, since it's his supposed realism (again, I don't agree, but I respect that other people do) that makes the book great.
The fact that a book is considered a classic doesn't mean that all the people on planet earth should like it, it just means that it means something to a lot of people across generations. I hate anything written by Dickens, but that doesn't mean that there is no way 'Oliver Twist' can be considered a classic.
The fact that I haven't read The Lord of the Flies in over ten years shows that I lack insight and understanding? Well, if you say so...It is only a matter of time before people find out that the Nobel peace prize committee (including Gunnar Stålsett, one of Norways most loved and respected humanitarians) is the biggest violator of human rights? Oh dear...
The Jante Law is certainly not dead here in Norway. Reduced, yes. Dead, no.
Why does a classic novel need a cathartic end? Is it something that you have decided? You talk about literature as if it's hard science, governed by laws and rules. Fairness and Truth? In the realm of art, quality is in the eye if the beholder. The fact that people try to categorize certain books as 'classics' just proves the point.
As for your McDonalds example, that doesn't really prove anything. Nobody thinks of McDonalds as a fancy restaurant. Can the Big Mac be called a classic due to its lasting worth and timeless quality? I don't think many people would argue in favour of that.
If you've decided for yourself that certain criterias must me met for a book to be called a classic, then that's fine, but you can't really expect everybody else to follow the same train of thought.
I'm actually interested in what you think it takes for a book to become a 'classic', though.
Stephan wrote: " Dickens, unlike Salinger, is undoubtedly a classical author."The jury is still out on Salinger, as most of his work is yet to be published. The flood begins next year, 2015. In another ten years we will know the full impact of his canon, one way or the other.
Stephan wrote: "Yes, Holden was a rebel alright, and so was Salinger, and they are both admirable. But neither of them is worthy of the title Classic, nor does 'The Catcher in the Rye'."It strikes me that you have an itch and expect the world to stop and scratch for you in a place you cannot reach, but no matter how much we scratch, your itch won't go away. It's becoming tiresome.
Stephan wrote: "Tell me then, what is the chief message of the Catcher in the Rye?"Redemption lies in the love of innocent children.
Holden was struggling with how to become a successful adult but saw phoniness everywhere and felt confused and overwhelmed by it. Concurrently, he had trouble functioning because he was depressed from the shock of losing his brother Allie to cancer compounded by the suicide of his dorm-mate, James Castle.
Upping the ante, he had to go home and face the music with his parents for flunking out. The stress and anxiety was eating him up, causing him to think about death. The stress was making him ill and he wanted to run away and live in a cabin in the woods.
Beset with these burdens, Holden wandered from place to place interacting with people to assuage his loneliness and look for answers, meeting with strangers and former teachers who were no help.
Phoebe's love saves Holden from running away (figuratively "going over the cliff".) He is shielded from harm by the love of an innocent child, who happens to be his sister. Ironically, the one who wants to be a catcher/protector of children is himself saved caught/protected by a child.
The book is a classic for all the reasons I have cited. It memorializes the struggle of teenagers grappling with the relentless approach of adulthood and it does this in such an effective way that no other book has equaled or surpassed, as evidenced by the book's durability and sales volume.
This teenager happens to be a spoiled, intelligent kid in an urban setting. Many people can relate to him, though some less than most. Walk around any city near a school and you will see Holden, dressed in punk or Goth regalia, piercings, tattoos. They don't know what to do with themselves, so they experiment. Many of them are jaded and cynical.
Many will never make smooth for complete transition to adulthood. Perhaps this is accounts for the abundance of therapists and highly successful self-help gurus and related literature and organizations like Landmark Education and the Hoffman Program.
Salinger showcased a teenager who came through a developmental crisis unscathed. and feeling loved is what pulled him back from the brink of potential disaster.
As one reviewer on Amazon says, it's a "brilliantly unique look at a universal problem."
In the animal world the transition from juvenile to adult is vital to survival. Humankind is no different, except their transition is more complicated.
The rural adolescent transition is dealt with in East of Eden, a book four times the length of CITR. Rebel Without a Cause and Ordinary People deal with the subject in a suburban setting.
Adolescence is a period during which parents pull away because of a teenager's sexual development (hair, height, muscles, breasts, hormones) makes them uneasy. Parents know the time is coming when their kid(s) will be out on their own, so they encourage independence. (At least healthy parents do this.)
But many parents withdraw early because they themselves never made a clean or complete transition. They copped out and got married or pregnant and became kids raising kids.
(Or worse, they engage too much to re-live their own teenage years through their children, denying their children a chance for a timely and clean transition.)
Teenagers feel the loss because they are still insecure half-child, craving their parents' reassurance and loving touch.
Tragically, some of them were unwanted and never felt a parent's love or tenderness and are destined to go through life with a sucking emotional chest wound, some taking their lives to stop the pain.
But instinctively, healthy teenagers know they need to pull away, and it is a time of stress and confusion. They experiment. They begin looking outside the family for answers to problems. They look for new and better models than their parents, for they have had a lifetime to discern their flaws.
Holden's three-day journey home from getting flunked out is a dramatization of this confusion. His parents have spoiled him, not prepared him for what is coming. Possibly they have been distracted from this vital duty Allie's death.
Holden has never had a job. He hasn't learned to drive, which is the normal coming-of-age ritual most non-urban kids experience. He experiments with adult behaviors--drinking, lying to a strange woman on the train, dancing with strange women at a nightclub, giving nuns too much money, hiring a prostitute.
Not once during his 3-day journey does Holden even consider looking to mom or dad for help. He wants to be a man, but doesn't know how. He is trying hard and failing, confused and turned off by the phoniness he sees through eyes clouded by the loss of Allie and James Castle.
The book is popular not because it is a craze but because it addresses universal struggle in a uniquely effective and positive way, by celebrating and honoring the loss of innocence.
Monty, I have to disagree on this statement."The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is much less important than WHAT he chooses to reveal. "
Completely wrong. After spending a few years earning an MFA in writing and seeing poor writers develop into good writers, having spent fifteen years teaching the art of writing, I can tell you this: ANYONE can observe interesting, compelling, heck even life changing and revolutionary observations. Until you have the craft to put those observations into words that convey your meaning in such an interesting, compelling, revolutionary way, you aren't going to become a classic writer.
Lara wrote: "Monty, I have to disagree on this statement."The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is much less imp..."
A certain minimal skill level is assumed, but beyond that, art and craft mean little unless you have something important to say.
The best example that comes to mind is Lord of the Flies. The writing was so crude even the author was later embarrassed by it and he was unaware of the deeper meaning which made the book a classic.
Another is The Outsiders. Delightfully crude writing but a classic coming-of-age story, cherished by millions of kids to this day, written in the mid-1960s.
Creative Writing programs have been churning out thousands of new writers every hear for decades. They know how to write. Where are their classics?
Clearly, Monty, every one of us who has been 'churned out' (apparently you have no clue as to the work involved) will not write a masterpiece. However, we can recognize a hawk from a handsaw. My point is that the observation of which you speak can be shared through any number of media, from photography to music to sculpture. To be a classic writer involves much more than merely observation. Sure there are many classics written by unschooled folks, some of the best, in fact. My disagreement with your claim is that the message is "much more" important than the writing itself to the "true art of writing". That is simply untrue if you are referring to writing as an art.
Lara wrote: "Clearly, Monty, every one of us who has been 'churned out' (apparently you have no clue as to the work involved) will not write a masterpiece. "Sorry. Bad choice of words. Perhaps I am subconsciously envious.
Perhaps "art" was the wrong choice as well. I recognize the value of training. It is important, but there is a difference between a masterpiece and a classic. Highly refined construction is essential for one, but not the other. To Kill a Mockingbird is a classic, but not a masterpiece. Same with the others I mentioned. These books will last forever, but they could have been better crafted in the hands of more skilled authorship.
Stephan wrote: " You may have not known it yet because of your attachment to Holden, but ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a work of literature. ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is a work of religion. Salinger was a high priest, and all worshippers of ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ are in fact religious devotees."Ah, finally, the mask is off. Your true identity, web troll, is revealed--one who posts outrageous comments for the attention.
Opinion after unsupported opinion you posted. I took the bait like a hungry perch and you reeled me in, tossed me back and I bit again. And again.
You are a troll. I hope you have enjoyed the attention. I have learned a lot from the stimulation.
Here's a bit more on CITR: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin...
Are...are you like a crazy person?
Stephan wrote: "...confounding storyline and loose end.."[Spoiler alert]
Where do I start? What did Salinger need, a club to beat us over the head to drive home this beautiful ending where Holden is redeemed, brought back from the brink of disaster (running away) by coming face-to-face with the love of his devoted little sister, and his for her? Did he have to print the lyrics to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes?" ("They, asked me how I knew, our true love was true. I of course replied, Something here inside, Can not be denied.")
Play that in your head as you replay the scene of little Phoebe riding around and around in her blue coat and Holden sitting on the bench "bawling" in the rain wearing his red hunter's cap while he watches her. If that doesn't get to you you're made of stone!
Loose ending!
"... It was not a masterpiece..." Unless you consider the "confounding storyline" part of a masterful rendering of a CHARACTER-driven plot. (Another example of this is Ray Carver's short story, "Cathedral.") Counting Holden there are 24 characters in this book, and Holden interacts with each one, in person or mentally, even his dead brother. Each interaction deepens our understanding of Holden and brings him closer to the inevitable ending, Holden safe and warm in a mental hospital.
Shame on you. You've made me explain the book, spoiling it for those who've not read it. My apologies to them.
[Blast! Hooked again!]
Stephan wrote: "Paulmartin wrote: "Are...are you like a crazy person?"All poets are mad, well, except for Emily Elizabeth Dickinson before she went back home. After all she was, just like Salinger and me, also h..."
How generous of you. I'm sure Monty will be blown away by the vast wisdom you'll share with him in private.
I actually took you seriously until the nonsense about the Nobel Price and breach of human rights.
Rational? You're delusional.
Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: "Here I mean the opposite of a classic in terms of art, beauty, grace, and quality, not in terms of quantity or durations....""...Lara wrote: "Monty, I have to disagree on this statement.
"The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is ..."
Great discussion. We can take a short shelf and fill it with "classics" that are universally considered classics. Then we can take turns picking off the ones we personally believe fall short. There won't be anything left. Dickens, incidentally, spent several long decades in the critics' dreck pile, and many people still find his writing style cloying, pedantic, you name it. All of which is sometimes true, but his works are still some of the most powerful and enduring of the nineteenth century.
When Monty says observation is more important than wordsmithying, he is entering into one of those "faith without works is dead" arguments. A badly written book (or even a merely flat-footed one) may have something important to say; a gorgeous hunk of prose may be utterly superficial. Neither is literature. I would go further and say that you may have a gorgeously written book with an important message that isn't worth more than a casual read before being forgotten forever. It's all got to click.
Grace and beauty are subjective, so it isn't constructive to ask whether CitR has these qualities. It is more to the point to ask whether the prose serves as an effective voice for whatever the book has to say. The character of Holden IS CitR. If you don't like Holden, you won't find the writing beautiful. If Holden is someone you find appealing, sympathetic, heroic, amusing--you will be similarly admiring of the "wordsmithying." People who identify with Holden and stand in awe of the book recognize in it an exquisite expression of human experience. Not everyone can or would want to identify with Holden. That doesn't make it a bad book; it's just not your cup of tea.
Popular fiction may or may not qualify as literature. Literature is not measured by how much it is loved. What elevates literature is not the approval of academics but the quality, complexity, and effectiveness of a book's own structure. A literary work can be taken apart and admired for its machinery, its chemistry, the elegance of its formula, even if the hero is an appalling lout and the overarching theme flies in the face of one's own religion. Sounds dry, but so does human anatomy.
In it's age of course it's a classic. People forget that, regardless of how much of a whiner Holden really was, the themes and language of the time are presented with time accuracy, it spoke to a generation that didn't know how to talk back, it was just there.
Monty J wrote: "Lara wrote: "Monty, I have to disagree on this statement."The real art of writing lies not in the author's wordsmithery but in his powers of observation. HOW a writer puts words down on paper is ..."
Way to go Monty!!!
Matthew wrote: "In it's age of course it's a classic. People forget that, regardless of how much of a whiner Holden really was, the themes and language of the time are presented with time accuracy, it spoke to a g..."Yeah, everyone misses the point that Holden was a whiner for a reason.
Longhare wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: "Here I mean the opposite of a classic in terms of art, beauty, grace, and quality, not in terms of quantity or durations....""...Lara wrote: "Monty, I have to disa..."
Idk, I don't like Holden very much but I do think this book is beautifully written with memorable prose, & it is arguably one of the most iconic depiction of 1950s New York City. Overall I think though somewhat overrated, it does deserve classic status.
Xdyj wrote: "...it is arguably one of the most iconic depiction of New York City."Iconic is right. Anyone who has visited that museum knows about the diorama with the naked-breasted squaw. Riding in trains and cabs instead of cars, going to nightclubs and dancing/chatting up the ladies, outsmarting a nosy doorman, being friendly with the nuns, an elevator operator pimping for a young prostitute--it's all so realistic. Even the workers hauling the Christmas tree felt real.
*yawns* Trolls are icky unless they're amusing.
Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: " You may have not known it yet because of your attachment to Holden, but ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a work of literature. ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is a work of religion. Saling..."Monty J, you have provided an excellent description of what makes a classic and why CitR is one, but I fear that Stephan is so full of himself that your well considered words will never penetrate. You offered examples, he offered sophistry, you offered an educated answer, he bludgeons us with opinion and self aggrandizement. You display a mind that is open to the lessons of great literature and Stephan's mind is so full of conceit that there is little room for learning. His mind will be forever be condemned to solitary confinement.
I understand your feeling that you have been drawn into the web of a troll, but your words have summed up all I, and I suspect many others, would wish to have said. Which brings up a good point. Like Salinger, you also have the ability to observe the heart of a matter and put it into words that, if read with an open mind, convey your meaning precisely. Unfortunately, Stephan's thoughts are convoluted and his misuse of words leave me wondering just what he is really saying.
Sorry, Stephan, I rarely attack people or their opinions, but your words are a challenge that calls for an answer in kind.
Stephan wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: " You may have not known it yet because of your attachment to Holden, but ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a work of literature. ‘The Catcher in the ..."An occupational hazard with posing as a troll is the risk of an occasional spanking.
Stephan wrote: "After all, it is only virtual."Virtual or real, the Happiness Index applies.
(For a definition of the Happiness Index see my bog: http://redroom.com/member/monty-heyin... .)
Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: "Anne Hawn wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Stephan wrote: " You may have not known it yet because of your attachment to Holden, but ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ i..."Well, you certainly do give a lot of yourself, Monty. That takes some courage,
James wrote: "Virtual or real, Monty, TMI."TMI? Well, I appreciated it, at least.
James wrote: "Virtual or real, Monty, TMI."Yeah, I need to find a way to condense it.
Okay, I trimmed it down.
I must be masochistic to keep reading this thread.
MASOCHIST MASOCHIST MASOCHIST.
There. I'm done. Have a nice life.
There. I'm done. Have a nice life.
I haven't read all of the discussion , but ı think Catcher in the Rye is definitely a valuable book . Not every Classic must be an Anna Karenina . Holden is not the most likable character in literature and yes he's annoying but he really FEELS like a real person , and despite literary snobs' damning of the book's prose he talks like a real teenager. This book is about honesty ( although Holden is not that honest ) and its language shows . Holden will behave like a teenager whether you like it or not . And the book is filled with symbols but they're hard to spot on first reading . ( Note : As much as ı like the book , it's about a teenager 's heart , his sexual orientation and his relationship with his family so reading it at the age of 16 is probably better than reading it at the age of 45.)
Stephan wrote: "Do you agree with the statement that ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ is not a real Classic but rather the opposite of it? Whether you agree with the statement above or not please explain why."Looking back at the original questions I gave it some thought. One of the main definitions of a classic is that it has stood the test of time and is being read and appreciated over a substantial amount of time. The opposite of that definition of classic is transient, here today - gone tomorrow, a flash in the pan, 9 days wonder, fly by night or faddish. Given that definition, TCinR is definitely a classic.
✿Lilac✿ wrote: "According to Wikipedia, "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality."I think The Catcher in the Rye is timeless. Holden's fee..."
I would agree with this perspective. It is unique and thought provoking. Thanks for your review.
This story, to me at least, is a true classic because it will always have some meaning. It's message will always stand true, and the brilliant writing cannot be outdone.
Dillon wrote: "This story, to me at least, is a true classic because it will always have some meaning. It's message will always stand true, and the brilliant writing cannot be outdone."Yup.
I believe the Catcher in The Rye is a classic because it can be read on many levels.It could be read as an allegory as i have shown here:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
